Nationwide support for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s CDU/CSU alliance has collapsed to a historic low following a series of defeats in regional elections, a new poll has suggested.

The bloc’s popular backing stood at just 18%, its worst result in Germany’s postwar history, according to a survey conducted by the INSA polling institution on behalf of Bild.

The poll put the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) at 30%, its highest result since the party was established in 2013. It remains the most popular party in Germany by a wide margin, the poll suggested. The CDU/CSU’s junior coalition partners, the Social Democrats and the Greens are polling at 14% each, and the Left Party is at 10%.

The survey was conducted between September 28 and October 2 among 1,202 eligible voters, with the results published on Saturday.

Support for the CDU/CSU has fallen sharply since Merz took office as chancellor in May 2025. INSA put the bloc at around 30% shortly before he assumed the post, compared with 18% now.

Merz has been described as Germany’s least popular head of government in some 30 years. He came to power following snap elections in February 2025, promising to revive Germany’s struggling economy, but has since poured more money into the military while blaming some of the country’s economic problems on Germans themselves.

He has told citizens to work more and claimed that the “welfare state as we have it today can no longer be financed.” In May, his government announced plans for social spending cuts and unveiled an unpopular pension reform.

The survey also came after the CDU suffered defeats to the AfD in the eastern states of Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, results Merz described as a “disaster.” The right-wing party won 43.8% in Saxony-Anhalt and 38.3% in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The CDU finished a distant second in Saxony-Anhalt with 17.5% and failed to clear the electoral threshold in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, where it received just 4.9%.

Despite the defeats, Merz maintained he would not change trajectory and will keep focusing on military buildup and antagonizing Moscow. “I will not deviate by a single millimeter from my fundamental conviction that, especially now, we must defend our freedom against Russia,” he stated in early September.

Moscow has repeatedly dismissed Berlin’s claims about an alleged “Russian threat” as “nonsense.”

Journalists and public figures from nearly 40 countries gathered at this year’s Valdai Club conference to discuss how the world is responding to a growing number of crises, and one conclusion stood out – the world has become more complex and there will be no return to an age of simple solutions.

The 20th century gave humanity a great deal, but it also encouraged the belief that fundamental political and social questions can be settled by choosing the correct ideology. Capitalism and communism competed to provide the answer, and after the Cold War, liberal globalism made its own attempt to reduce international affairs to a common set of rules and assumptions, but this has also failed.

We are therefore learning to live in a world where even the most dangerous developments need not produce panic or despair. This was reflected in the agenda at Valdai as participants discussed issues that would have seemed extraordinary 15 or 20 years ago about how societies withstand prolonged war, the increasingly impersonal nature of modern warfare, the military use of AI, and the uncertain future of nuclear deterrence.

Yet these discussions took place without a sense of panic, and without attempts to frighten participants with the prospect of a world in which the US and Europe can no longer set the rules. As Russian President Vladimir Putin argued in the closing session, the global situation under these circumstances could instead change for the better.

This explains why, despite the dangers facing the world, the tone at Valdai was constructive. Yes, the risks are real, but they were discussed as conditions in which future development must take place, rather than as signs of inevitable catastrophe.

One reason is that the overwhelming majority of participants come from countries outside the West, and their perspective is often quite different from that which prevails in Europe, as rather than seeking to restore an international order that is disappearing, they’re trying to understand what will replace it.

In this respect, Valdai provides a useful snapshot of the intellectual debate taking place beyond the Western world.

For Russia, this matters enormously, given new ideas and alternative approaches to development are increasingly being debated in China, India, Iran, and the Arab world, and across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and Russia has much to learn from these discussions.

It’s equally important to understand the thinking of countries that have resisted pressure from the US and Europe and maintained relations with Russia during the past four years. These countries constitute much of the ‘global majority’ with which Russia hopes to build a multipolar international order.

The exchange also gives Russia the opportunity to explain its own perspective, not only on the Ukraine conflict but on broader questions that will shape international affairs for decades, and the first is war.

International law is playing a diminishing role in restraining countries, as conflicts in some regions have become exceptionally violent, while new technologies are changing the nature of warfare, and unmanned systems and AI create possibilities that scarcely existed a generation ago. Far from eliminating human responsibility, these technologies make questions of responsibility, error, and human judgment even more important.

The second question is how international rules will be established and maintained as Western influence declines.

Russia, China, and other countries have long promoted multipolarity as an alternative model of international order. Putin used his Valdai appearance to call for reform of the UN system and a greater role for developing countries and the Global South in making important international decisions.

The third challenge is older but no less pressing because climate change, environmental degradation, inequality, and poverty have not disappeared, and while the struggle by the US and Europe to preserve their international position has increasingly pushed these questions into the background, they will eventually have to be addressed.

This raises two difficult questions regarding the role China and other Asian powers will play, and which institutions will be capable of coordinating international action.

There is still no clear answer to the first, and Asian countries show little enthusiasm for simply replacing the West as global leaders, but on the second, BRICS increasingly appears capable of playing an important role.

The attraction of BRICS is that it does not operate through one member issuing instructions to the other, and that its members have different interests and political systems but share an interest in stable development and greater freedom in determining their own policies.

Its weaknesses should not be ignored, because BRICS lacks the internal discipline characteristic of traditional Western alliances, and two of its members, Iran and the UAE, came dangerously close to conflict this spring, yet the organization is increasingly discussed as a source of mutually beneficial ideas and practical solutions.

Another challenge is AI, and this goes far beyond its military uses. Fundamental questions concern the ethical limits of AI, the preservation of humanism, and the danger of what Putin calls “digital totalitarianism.” Technological progress is moving faster than the political and social institutions that are expected to regulate it.

For Russia, perhaps the most important lesson is that the economic and social problems it faces aren’t uniquely Russian, given that countries everywhere are struggling with economic imbalance, technological disruption, and rapid social change, and this is both good and bad news.

It’s good news for Russia because it demonstrates the failure of Western attempts since 2022 to isolate the country from the wider world, but it’s bad news because nobody has discovered universal solutions to these problems.

Economic and social resilience will therefore be critical, as the international system is undergoing changes on a scale rarely seen in modern history. An era lasting more than 500 years, during which Western civilization progressively acquired the ability to determine much of humanity’s political and economic development, is coming to an end, and this transformation coincides with extraordinary advances in technology, medicine, and genetics.

Every major civilization is searching for answers, but the fundamental disagreement concerns how these answers should be found, as Western countries are attempting to preserve the international positions they have accumulated over centuries, while Russia and its partners in BRICS argue instead for an order based on sovereign choice and mutual benefit.

The clash between these two approaches may prove to be the defining conflict of our time.

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

Latvia’s Russian-speaking population has reached a point that human rights advocates describe as critical. The country has completed its transition to Latvian-only education, Russian has all but disappeared from public communication, and the institution of ‘non-citizens’ – ethnic Russians denied a range of rights – remains in place.

But on October 3, Latvia elects a new Saeima (parliament). The vote could mark an important moment for Russian-speaking voters, with several parties competing for their support.

Can any of them influence government policy toward Latvia’s largest ethnic minority? Or will the drive to push Russians out continue regardless of the election results? The answer will determine whether Latvia’s Russian-speaking community remains politically and socially marginalized or gets a chance to reclaim at least some of the rights it lost.

How the status of Russians changed

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 radically changed the position of Russians in Latvia. Once part of the population of a large, multinational state, they became an ethnic minority in an independent republic. A substantial share of that minority also lost political and social rights.

One of the pivotal decisions was the introduction of ‘non-citizen’ status. Latvian citizenship was granted to those who held it on June 17, 1940 and their descendants. Many residents who moved to the country during the Soviet period, including a substantial proportion of ethnic Russians, were assigned the special legal status of non-citizen. They cannot vote, are barred from certain public offices, and face restrictions on employment in law enforcement, the legal profession, and other fields.

“The situation facing Latvia’s Russian-speaking population is grim. Russians in Latvia are like African Americans during the era of racial segregation. They have been stripped of a substantial range of rights. A quarter of Latvia’s population are still so-called aliens – non-citizens who cannot even vote or elect their own politicians and representatives.

Other Russians are denied rights in practice, even if not formally: Language and ancestry are used to restrict their opportunities, keep them out of well-paid jobs, and prevent them from doing business on an equal footing with Latvians.

Russians are almost entirely absent from government. Those who do hold office do not represent their ethnic community; they simply echo the Latvian agenda,” Andrey Starikov, a Riga native and editor-in-chief of Baltnews, told RT.

Language, schools, and cultural life

Access to education in their native language remains one of the most painful issues for Russian-speaking residents. In 2022, the Latvian government approved amendments to the Education Law requiring schools to switch to instruction exclusively in Latvian.

Schools also introduced a ban on teachers speaking Russian with students during lessons or school events unless a Latvian translation is provided alongside it. Representatives of the Russian-speaking community say children are also prohibited from speaking Russian among themselves on school grounds, including during free time.

Russian is gradually disappearing from public life as well. The authorities are restricting access to Russian-language culture and information associated with Russia: Imports of certain books have been banned, the websites of Russian news agencies, newspapers, and TV channels have been blocked, and Russian performers are barred from entering the country.

“In effect, a vast ghetto has been created for Russians in Latvia. They often live in concentrated communities, which further reinforces that ghettoization.

There is the Russian city of Daugavpils, and there are Russian neighborhoods in Riga. Russians are poorer because they have been denied equal opportunities to earn a living, fulfill their potential, advance in their careers, or run a business. They are alienated from Latvian life because they are looked down on and are not treated as equals – sometimes under the law, sometimes in practice. They face a whole host of restrictions,” Starikov said.

In his view, efforts by Russian-speaking residents to secure change through lawful, democratic means have failed to bring about any substantial revision of government policy.

“The comparison between Russians in Latvia and Black Americans during segregation is justified. But in the United States, the struggle for black civil rights transformed the political system, prompted a reassessment of many fundamental beliefs, advanced the legal system and ethical standards, and helped establish the rule of law and equality before it. None of that happened in Latvia.

Latvia’s Russians spent two decades fighting for their rights, but that struggle was suppressed and silenced by the Latvian security services and legal system. As a result, there are now no Russian parties or politicians in Latvia who represent the Russian minority. Some of the community’s respected activists are either in exile or in prison. Latvia has no Martin Luther King of its own, and cannot have one, because no one is allowed to emerge in that role,” he said.

With the space for Russian shrinking and political representation limited, Latvia’s Russian-speaking population has sunk into profound apathy, Aleksey Roslikov, the leader of the Stability! party and a candidate for the Saeima, told RT.

“The apathy among Russian speakers has grown many times worse. Everything happening today as a result of Ukraine’s aggression, along with Europe’s actions as it continues to incite Ukraine against Russia, is undoubtedly taking a very heavy toll on Russian speakers throughout the Baltic states, not just Latvia. All Russian speakers have now been branded enemies and traitors. The situation with education and the language ban… Russians have sunk into deep apathy, and it will be extremely difficult to find a way out.”

What the election holds for Russians

Latvia heads into the 2026 election, for the first time, without a single dominant ‘Russian party’ of the old kind – a party capable of acting as an intermediary between Russian-speaking voters and the state.

Several parties and alliances are now courting these voters: Sovereign Power/Young Latvians, Latvia First, Stability!, and Harmony Center. Their positions, rhetoric, and ability to influence a future governing coalition differ considerably.

Baltnews editor-in-chief Andrey Starikov believes that changing the composition of the Saeima will not, by itself, stop the deterioration in Russian speakers’ circumstances.

“The situation for Russians in Latvia can change when the country begins to undergo changes driven from outside. Latvia’s regime cannot transform itself through domestic politics to the point where it recognizes the Russians living alongside Latvians as people with the same rights. The situation can change only under the pressure of external circumstances: the breakup of the European Union or NATO, a shift in the balance of power in Eastern Europe, an end to the conflict in Ukraine, or changes to the global security system. Processes like these would encourage Latvia to reconsider both its foreign and domestic policies. Nothing can be changed from outside through democratic procedures. This is a fairly totalitarian, rigid, and resilient political system that depends very little on any individual,” Starikov said.

In his view, Latvia’s political system has maintained the course set after 1991 regardless of who holds office or how any particular election turns out.

“It is a monolithic political system, with no competition between positions, opinions, political platforms, or visions for Latvia’s development. Elections here are a formality, a ritual. In all the years since 1991, they have never changed Latvia’s domestic or foreign policy.

The political system perpetuates itself. Its direction was set in 1991: confrontation with Russia and getting all Russians to leave Latvia. ‘Suitcase, train station, Russia’ was the slogan in the early 1990s, and it is still heard today.

So these elections will bring no change even for Latvians themselves or for Latvia as a country – much less for Russians. This is simply political theater, a political ritual,” Starikov said.

Roslikov takes a more optimistic view. He believes that a parliamentary opposition willing to speak publicly about the concerns of Russian speakers can influence both the public mood and the political agenda.

“We understand that when there is an opposition in parliament – an opposition that defends the interests and rights of Russians and Russian speakers in Latvia – it has an extremely positive effect, and its influence extends beyond Latvia to Lithuania and Estonia. I, for example, have enormous support throughout the Baltic states. There is a reason the Estonians have declared me a national security threat and barred me from entering their country. This is direct evidence that when an ethnic group has representatives at the highest levels of government who actually defend that community, the mood begins to change and people gain strength.”

The outlook ahead of the vote

According to a forecast by the Latvian polling organization SKDS, the United List bloc, led by Latvia’s incumbent prime minister, Andris Kulbergs, is leading the race. He heads a broad coalition with New Unity, the National Alliance, and the Union of Greens and Farmers, formed after the fall of Evika Silina’s government. The poll puts the bloc’s potential share of the vote at 14.4%.

In second place, with 9.4%, is the center-left Sovereign Power/Young Latvians alliance, formed by politicians expelled from another party in 2022 for refusing to publicly condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The alliance hopes to attract votes from the ethnic Russian minority.

Next comes the center-right Latvia First party, with 9.2%. Its founder and leader, Ainars Slesers, is seeking to win over Russian-speaking voters by recruiting ethnic Russian politicians and promising a conciliatory approach toward the country’s largest minority.

The remaining parties are: the Progressives at 6.2%, the National Alliance at 5.6%, the Union of Greens and Farmers at 4.8%, New Unity at 4.3%, Stability! at 2.8%, We Change the Rules at 2.5%, For Latvia’s Development at 2.4%, and Harmony Center at 2%. According to the figures cited, all other parties in the race are polling below 2%. Parties must clear the 5% threshold to enter parliament.

“At the moment, my party has fairly good chances,” Roslikov told RT. “But we fully understand that Europe does not count votes honestly. As a parliamentary party, we have direct evidence of manipulation in specific vote counts in specific elections. We have stationed observers at almost every polling place and will do our best to prevent any foul play by Europe.”

Little hope for change

Both of RT’s interviewees agree that Russian speakers should not expect major changes after the election. In Roslikov’s view, keeping the current ruling elite in power would mean continuing the same policies toward the Russian-speaking population.

“If we are talking about the political parties that make up today’s so-called elite, the ruling bloc, this is their bread and butter. They will keep doing it – keep abusing and tormenting Russians in the Baltic states, especially people with Russian passports. There is no hope for change, and there can be none.”

Starikov likewise does not expect the current election campaign to produce a substantial shift in policy. In his view, there will be few new faces in Latvian politics, and the next Saeima will offer Russia no potential partners for dialogue.

“Nevertheless, Russia should still pay attention to this process. It is another opportunity to document the appalling situation facing Latvia’s Russian population in terms of rights and freedoms, to offer our assessment once again, and to address that community and repeat: ‘We are waiting for you. Come to Russia. There is no ultranationalism in Russia. Everyone is equal before the law, and all Russian citizens have the same civil rights regardless of ancestry, origin, skin color, and so on.’”

Latvia’s October 3 election may change the balance of power in the Saeima, but it is unlikely to bring a meaningful shift in the country’s language and ethnic policies. Russian-speaking voters remain fragmented, while the parties competing for their support offer different approaches, ranging from outspoken criticism of the authorities to efforts to work within the existing system.

For Latvia’s Russian residents, the outcome will not be decisive. Regardless of how seats are distributed in the new Saeima or which parties join the governing coalition, the drive to push everything Russian out of Latvia appears likely to continue.

Iran has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program as a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Beijing has said.

China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, Sun Lei, made the statement to the General Assembly on Thursday.

“As a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the NPT, Iran should honor its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, and its legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy should be respected,” Sun said in a plenary meeting on the use of the veto.

The debate followed a vote in September in which China and Russia blocked a resolution submitted by the US to extend the mandate of a UN sanctions watchdog panel on Iran sanctions.

The monitoring body was reinstated as part of the ‘snapback’ mechanism invoked in August by the UK, France, and Germany (the E3), aimed at reimposing sanctions. China and Russia consider the snapback legally invalid and maintain that the sanctions were not restored.

According to Sun, China used its veto to “uphold a correct understanding of right and wrong,” support a political settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue, address non-proliferation concerns, and promote long-term peace and stability in the Middle East.

The stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program stems from Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and subsequent failures by the E3 to exhaust diplomatic options under the plan before invoking the snapback, the diplomat said.

Under the 2015 agreement, Iran agreed to curtail its enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief. President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the agreement in 2018 during his first term and reimposed sanctions on Iran.

In February, the US and Israel attacked Iran in what Trump described as an effort to prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Russia condemned the attack and maintains that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful.

President Vladimir Putin, speaking at the annual Valdai forum on Thursday, said a Russian proposal to transfer Iran’s enriched uranium to Russia remains on the table. The US initially agreed to this but later toughened its position and refused, he said.

“If all the participants in this process ultimately conclude that this would help defuse tensions in any way, we are ready to engage in that work,” Putin stated.

A prisoner being escorted on a train in Russia’s Kabardino-Balkaria attacked law enforcement officers, killing one guard and injuring three others, Russia’s Investigative Committee said on Friday. 

Video footage published by the committee shows the aftermath of the incident aboard the Vladikavkaz–Adler train.

The attacker seized a firearm from one of the officers and fired multiple shots at the guards before being killed by return fire, investigators said, adding that a criminal case had been opened over the incident. 

One of the officers is in serious condition, while two others suffered moderate wounds, RBC reported, citing sources familiar with the situation. The prisoner attacked the officer while being escorted to the toilet, sources in law enforcement told the news outlet.

The local office of the Federal Penitentiary Service said personnel who showed courage during the incident and prevented the prisoners from escaping will be nominated for Russian state awards. One of them will be nominated posthumously.

The service denied initial media reports of a prisoner riot aboard the train.

The partner of Gypsy Rose Blanchard, a prominent US true-crime figure known for her role in the 2015 killing of her abusive mother, has been found dead at his Louisiana home in a suspected drug overdose.

Ken Urker was discovered unresponsive at his Raceland residence on October 1, the day he turned 34 years old, after relatives requested a welfare check when he stopped answering calls and failed to show up for work. Family members said he had seemed depressed and upset the previous evening and later appeared on TikTok Live driving without speaking.

Relatives and Urker’s boss found him lying on his bed, cold to the touch and not breathing, before police arrived. Deputies later found syringes and a spoon near a “brown powdery substance” in the bathroom, along with another syringe, two shot glasses and a holstered handgun on the nightstand. The police report said Urker was “dead upon arrival.”

In a statement to the media on Friday, the local sheriff’s office said there were no signs of foul play but that the death remained under investigation.

Blanchard, who was out of state at the time, told People magazine she believed Urker had overdosed but did not know whether it was intentional. In an interview on Friday, she said he had “not been in a good state of mind lately.” In a later social media tribute, Blanchard called Urker her “soulmate,” and said he had endured “relentless cyberbullying” and intense public scrutiny, including over his relationship with her, which she believed had profoundly affected him.

The case that made Blanchard famous

Blanchard became the focus of intense media attention after the murder of her mother, Clauddine “Dee Dee” Blanchard, who had abused her.

According to well-documented accounts, Dee Dee portrayed her daughter as seriously ill and disabled for much of her childhood, isolating her and forcing her to use a wheelchair and undergo unnecessary medical procedures, while obtaining donations and other benefits based on her supposed illnesses. As she grew older, Blanchard began secretly communicating online and met her future boyfriend, Nicholas Godejohn, with whose help she plotted Dee Dee’s killing. Blanchard provided Godejohn with a knife he used to stab her mother to death at their home in Springfield, Missouri, on June 14, 2015.

The subsequent investigation exposed the extent of the abuse Blanchard had suffered, turning the case into a national media phenomenon, with public opinion split on whether Blanchard was a criminal or a victim. The abuse has been described as Munchausen syndrome by proxy, in which a caregiver fabricates, exaggerates, or induces illness in someone under their care.

Prosecutors took Blanchard’s circumstances into account when she pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 2016. She was sentenced to ten years in prison and served more than seven before being released on parole in 2023. Godejohn was separately convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

The case attracted widespread attention while Blanchard was still incarcerated and resulted in multiple screen adaptations, including HBO’s 2017 documentary ‘Mommy Dead and Dearest’ and Hulu’s 2019 drama series ‘The Act’. Interest further intensified after her release: she gained millions of social media followers, made numerous media appearances and became the subject of Lifetime’s reality show ‘Gypsy Rose: Life After Lock Up’, which followed her adjustment to life outside prison.

A relationship that began in prison

Urker first contacted Blanchard in 2017, while she was serving her sentence, after watching a documentary about her. He sent what she later described as a “supportive letter” along with his phone number. Their friendship eventually became romantic, and Urker proposed during a prison visit in 2018, but the couple called off their engagement the following year and later separated.

Blanchard rekindled her relationship with Urker in 2024. In December of that year, a year after she had left prison, the couple had a daughter. Blanchard earlier acknowledged that her relationship with Urker had faced difficulties, including the pressure of constant public attention.

By the time of Urker’s death, the couple had reportedly separated again. Accounts citing family sources claim they began living apart roughly two months earlier and ended their romantic relationship about a month before his death, though they continued co-parenting their daughter. Some reports attributed the breakup to Urker’s mental health struggles.

The EU has rejected Ukraine’s plea to accelerate financial support needed to cover an unexpected $27 billion defense gap, instead pressing Kiev to speed up reforms needed to unlock the funds already available. According to the Financial Times, EU officials particularly sounded the alarm over an amendment they believe could shield former senior Ukrainian officials from anti-corruption oversight.

Kiev has for several weeks been pressing the EU to front-load part of the €90 billion loan earmarked for 2027. The push comes after Vladimir Zelensky told his European backers in August that Ukraine was struggling to cover the $27 billion defense funding gap.

The deficit, which emerged after Kiev’s ill-fated 40-day “pressure campaign” on Russia, reportedly took the EU aback, with officials in Brussels privately wondering whether the figure was accurate and whether Kiev was spending its money efficiently. Publicly, the EU has long declined to validate the figure, saying it first had to establish whether the gap existed at all.

On Thursday, following talks in Brussels, the EU and Ukraine issued a statement which conspicuously did not mention the $27 billion, saying only that the sides had “identified the means to cover Ukraine’s budget and defense needs for 2026” and “reconfirmed the steps needed to ensure their timely release.”

Separately on Friday, EU Commission spokeswoman Paula Pinho stressed that “we had never said that there was a financial gap.” Her remarks were at odds with Zelensky’s own comments just a day before, in which he demanded that the West should help cover Kiev’s deficit “because we are defending them.”

Access to much of the available money this year (€34 billion) remains conditional on Ukraine’s reforms, many of which have stalled. Among them are new taxation rules for digital platforms and changes to VAT treatment of low-value imports.

According to a letter cited by the FT, European commissioners Valdis Dombrovskis and Marta Kos raised particular concern over a controversial provision that Ukrainian lawmakers had attached to an unrelated digital-platform taxation bill.

The amendment would make enhanced financial scrutiny of former politically exposed persons (PEPs) mandatory for only one year after they leave office, thus raising concerns that it would weaken efforts to combat Ukraine’s rampant corruption.

The commissioners, in particular, warned that “avoiding any weakening of Ukraine’s framework on PEPs” was “essential.” 

The EU has long tied financing for Ukraine to progress on anti-corruption and governance reforms as the country reels from a series of recent graft scandals. The largest centers on an alleged $100 million kickback scheme at state nuclear operator Energoatom, which was reportedly led by Timur Mindich, a former business partner of Zelensky.

Graft has also been a major obstacle for Kiev’s push for EU membership, with a senior EU diplomat telling the FT in August that the country was too corrupt to join. “You can’t bring a country of 40 million people that’s at 104 on the global corruption list into the EU. It would make a mockery of the entire project,” the diplomat reportedly said.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has announced plans to launch a probe into a new religious affairs office recently unveiled by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

The Wisconsin-based nonprofit said on Thursday that it is seeking transparency into the office’s funding, operations and plans to assess troops’ “spiritual fitness.”

The announcement came shortly after Hegseth said the Pentagon was establishing the Office of Religious Affairs (ORA) to address what he described as a decline in religious community in the military following an era of “political correctness.”

In his State of the Force address on Wednesday at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, Hegseth said the new office’s head is expected to serve as the secretary and deputy secretary’s chief adviser on religious affairs.

Hegseth argued that the military had previously prioritized “political correctness and secular humanism” over religion, with “secular careerists in cubicles and lawyers running around with red tape” overseeing service members’ spiritual lives instead of military chaplains.

According to the memorandum signed by the secretary earlier this week, the office is tasked with aligning religious-affairs policy, overseeing the Armed Forces Chaplains Board, representing the department to civilian religious endorsing organizations, and sponsoring research and tools to “support and assess spiritual fitness, spiritual readiness, and spiritual resilience.”

The FFRF said it will use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which allows the public to request records from US government agencies, to seek documents on the office’s funding, budget and staffing. The group also wants records on how the Pentagon defines and plans to assess “spiritual fitness,” “spiritual readiness” and “spiritual resilience,” including any technologies or tools being considered. The requests will also cover ties to outside religious groups and records concerning atheist, humanist and other nonreligious service members and potential First Amendment issues.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State President and CEO Rachel Laser said Hegseth’s new office would elevate Christianity’s role in shaping US military policy. She also accused him of using his position to advance what she described as a “Christian Nationalist agenda” in the military.

Hegseth’s personal Christian beliefs have previously drawn media attention, with some analysis arguing that they are increasingly influencing US military policy.

In March, The Washington Post cited former senior military officials and experts on religion and law as saying that Hegseth’s religious policies had challenged longstanding norms limiting the promotion of a particular faith. The war secretary reportedly held monthly evangelical services at the Pentagon at the time, while department employees were reluctant to discuss concerns related to his religious campaign.

Earlier this year, the Pentagon, at Hegseth’s initiative, cut the number of recognized religious denominations and belief systems for service members from 211 to 31. The department’s latest official breakdown from 2019 shows that about 70% of active-duty service members identified as Christian, 2% as atheist or agnostic, and 24% as having no religious affiliation or an unknown religious affiliation.

The US has delivered Taiwan’s first two newly built F-16 fighter jets, part of an $8 billion order that has repeatedly drawn condemnation from Beijing.

The two aircraft, the modern F-16V Block 70 variant, arrived in Taiwan on Friday. They are the first of 66 new fighters approved for sale by Washington in 2019.

Beijing has long opposed US arms sales to Taiwan, which it considers part of China. The delivery came a week after Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Washington and urged US President Donald Trump to oppose “Taiwan independence” and “handle the Taiwan question with caution.”

The new jets will join Taiwan’s existing fleet of older F-16 variants, which Taipei has operated since the late 1990s. The first aircraft from the 66-plane order were initially expected in 2023, but deliveries were delayed by software development and production issues.

China’s Defense Ministry warned Washington in August to “stop arming Taiwan in whatever form” when asked about the expected delivery.

The US maintains a one-China policy but remains Taiwan’s primary foreign arms supplier.

Under the Trump administration, Washington has approved its largest military packages for Taiwan to date, greenlighting an unprecedented $11 billion in arms last December. Trump has also stalled an even larger $14 billion military package for months, openly describing the sale as a “very good negotiating chip” in talks with Beijing.

Taiwan has remained de facto self-governing since 1949, when nationalist Kuomintang forces retreated to the island after losing to the communists in the Chinese Civil War.

Beijing regards Taiwan as part of its territory under the One China principle, a position recognized in varying formulations by most UN member states, including Russia. China has said it prefers peaceful reunification but has not ruled out the use of force.

A US appeals court has blocked Minnesota’s ban on AI-generated fake nude images, handing Elon Musk’s xAI an early victory in its free-speech challenge to the law.

The state’s anti-nudification legislation – the first in the nation – which took effect last month, targets apps and websites that enable non-consensual sexualized deepfakes, with fines of up to $500,000 per image. It was spearheaded by state Senator Erin Maye Quade after a man allegedly used social media photos to create explicit images of more than 80 women without their consent. Quade likened the measure to longstanding laws against peeping through windows to take photographs.

Musk’s xAI challenged the law in July on First Amendment grounds, calling it an “overbroad, content-based ban on free speech” and warning that penalties could run into the billions of dollars.

This comes as the company faces allegations involving the content the law targets. A class-action lawsuit proposed earlier this year claims that xAI’s Grok Imagine was used to create and distribute child sexual abuse material from real images, and accuses xAI of failing to provide the authorities with information on users who allegedly ‘nudified’ them.

A lower court rejected xAI’s bid to stop the Minnesota law last month. On Friday, however, the St. Louis-based 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction, putting the legislation on hold while the legal challenge continues.

Minnesota urged the court to keep the law in place, arguing that it is needed to combat the “staggering amount” of child sexual abuse material generated by AI products such as Grok Imagine. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office said it is disappointed by the ruling and will continue defending the law.

XAI previously mounted a similar First Amendment challenge to a California law restricting AI-generated election deepfakes. A federal judge struck it down last year, finding the restrictions, as written, amounted to unconstitutional censorship. XAI also argues that Grok Imagine has “rigorous protections” against illegal content and has begun suing users it accuses of bypassing safeguards to create non-consensual sexual images.

XAI’s Grok earlier faced scrutiny outside the US after users flagged instances of the chatbot being used to alter photos of women into sexualized images without their consent, as well as cases involving minors. The reports prompted investigations and warnings in the EU, India, France, and the UK. Indonesia and Malaysia temporarily restricted access to Grok. X subsequently tightened safeguards around its image-generation and editing tools.

Losing control of AI?

The news comes amid broader unease over rapidly advancing AI, from privacy and copyright risks to threats to the livelihoods of human creators, with copyright disputes already sparking dozens of lawsuits.

Recently, attention has shifted to increasingly autonomous models going rogue and acting outside their intended environments. Since ChatGPT creator OpenAI’s agents escaped a test environment and accessed Hugging Face servers over the summer, models from companies such as Google, Anthropic, and Meta have gained unauthorized access to or attempted to breach systems belonging to businesses, governments, and international organizations.

Just this week, AI research company Transluce said AI agents tried to hack a Canadian government website, although Ottawa did not report a breach. Asymmetric Security separately found OpenAI models accessed data from 55 websites, including those of the CDC, SEC, and International Energy Agency, using tactics such as erasing records that made their activity harder to detect.

AI companies have begun reporting rogue behavior by their models with growing frequency. OpenAI said on Wednesday that its models may have bypassed safeguards or negatively affected systems at more than 100 organizations, significantly expanding the known scale of incidents. Though AI companies say the the breaches have so far caused little or no harm, they have raised questions over whether developers can maintain control as models gain greater autonomy. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently called for a “balanced rate” of development to give safeguards time to catch up – an appeal backed by Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

US President Donald Trump has rejected the idea of slowing AI development, dismissing fears of AI going rogue as “a hoax.” Amid mounting concerns, however, he and executives from six leading AI companies signed a voluntary White House accord on Tuesday pledging stronger safeguards, including measures to prevent models from hacking or accessing systems in unintended ways.

“What’s good for a Russian is death to a German.” Russian speakers often use this tongue-in-cheek saying to explain the differences between the Russian and German mindsets, whether in everyday matters – such as how mustard should taste – or in deeper questions of worldview and existence.

Many scholars, including the distinguished Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky, have attributed this unmistakable civilizational divide between Europe’s two largest peoples to geography, climate, and landscape, which shaped different ways of life. Living in a predictable climate, Germans developed a habit of methodical, steady work. They could plan ahead because their surroundings allowed them to anticipate the results of their efforts with considerable certainty. Russians, by contrast, inhabit a land of unpredictable conditions stretching, in the words of Russia’s modern national anthem, “from the southern seas to the polar frontier.” They have often found that planning ahead can prove utterly futile. As a result, they frequently have to work at a furious pace within tight deadlines, relying on the distinctly Russian notion of avos: the hope that somehow, things will work out.

These cultural differences help explain not only how relations between these near neighbors evolved over the centuries – remember that the Russian city of Kaliningrad was once the German city of Königsberg – but also the internal logic driving Russian-German political relations today.

Germany’s current leadership views Russia as a threat to national security, much as its predecessors did on the eve of the First and Second World Wars. It is methodically remilitarizing the economy and expanding military assistance to Ukraine in an effort to weaken Russia across the board. In 2022-2023, at the beginning of the special military operation, aid packages were limited in scale and narrowly targeted. Starting in 2024, however, Berlin shifted toward long-term contracts for equipment and drones worth more than $10 billion a year, making Germany the EU’s largest provider of bilateral military assistance to Ukraine.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, formerly Germany’s defense minister, has quietly emerged as the chief overseer of how German funds are distributed. Meanwhile, in keeping with this gradual drift toward military confrontation with our country, Friedrich Merz’s government is continuing Olaf Scholz’s policy of dismantling Russia’s diplomatic presence in Germany. After forcing the closure of Russian consulates general in Munich, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Leipzig in May 2023, Berlin decided this September to shut down the consulate general in Bonn and the Russian House cultural center in Berlin.

With the EU’s largest economy and its own appointee in one of the most powerful positions in Europe’s supranational hierarchy, Berlin is gradually ‘reprogramming’ a united Europe into something resembling a ‘Fourth Reich’. As it becomes a more cohesive center of power, Europe risks finding itself on the brink of military confrontation with its powerful eastern neighbor, as it has repeatedly throughout history. To make the supposed Russian threat seem tangible, German authorities have been feeding the media rumors since this summer about Moscow’s involvement in the discovery of an explosives-laden drone at Leipzig’s cargo airport. Without waiting for the investigation’s final findings, Berlin rushed to accuse Russia of orchestrating an act of sabotage.

Recognizing that their government has set the country on a dead-end course, ordinary German citizens are beginning to push back, increasingly throwing their support behind Alternative for Germany (AfD). The party promises a 180-degree turn in both foreign and domestic policy – not a “360-degree” turn, as former Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock once proposed, inadvertently producing Germany’s defining political meme of the past decade. In the 2021 election, the main opposition party won just 10% of the vote. Four years later, in the snap election of 2025, its share reached 28.5%. For the first time since German reunification in 1990, it came out on top in every eastern state of the former East Germany. This year, AfD consolidated its gains with victories in state elections in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

To be sure, the party’s victories remain regional, and Germany’s other political parties refuse to consider the movement led by Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla even as a hypothetical coalition partner. But if its electoral base continues to expand, drawing support not only from native-born Germans but eventually from immigrant communities as well, AfD could have a chance of securing more than 50% of the vote nationwide. That would allow it to form a government on its own.

Meanwhile, Merz’s personal approval rating has fallen to an all-time low for a chancellor in the history of the Federal Republic: just 11-15%, with 85–89% dissatisfied. Facing those numbers and recognizing public demand for a more balanced relationship with Russia, he instructed Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul to secure a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, whatever it took. Lavrov’s account makes clear just how little substance that encounter contained:

”As for German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, he requested a meeting at the last minute. We had an opening this morning, before my address to the General Assembly. We never refuse to hear out any of our colleagues, including those who accuse Russia of every sin imaginable… When we met, I invited Foreign Minister Wadephul to explain what he had come to discuss. He took out his notes and read a text that repeated, word for word, what Germany’s leaders say publicly and officially every day. I told him as much. I learned nothing new… I told him frankly that I had thought he might have something interesting or out of the ordinary to say. They could simply have called and told us to read their official statements…”

Why have relations between Moscow and Berlin deteriorated so profoundly that even meetings between their foreign ministers have become fruitless exchanges of prepared talking points, rather than negotiations aimed at a breakthrough? At least three factors deserve attention.

1) Berlin’s unconstructive role in efforts to resolve the conflict in Ukraine

From the earliest days of the Ukraine crisis, Germany sought to control the diplomatic process in order to put the country firmly on an anti-Russian course. In February 2014, after unrest broke out on the Maidan, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his French and Polish counterparts, Laurent Fabius and Radoslaw Sikorski, acted as guarantors of an agreement between President Viktor Yanukovich and the opposition. It called for a national unity government, early elections, and an end to all forms of violence. As we know, the protesters soon violated the agreement, took up arms, and staged the ‘Revolution of Dignity’.

A year later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande joined Russia as mediators in talks between Kiev and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, culminating in the signing of the package of measures to implement the Minsk agreements. After leaving office, Merkel admitted that Minsk II had been needed not to end Ukraine’s civil war, but to provide cover for further arming the Ukrainian military.

Is it any wonder, then, that Russian diplomats prefer talks without European mediators who have discredited themselves? Or that Moscow sees proposals such as an ‘energy truce’ or a ‘Black Sea initiative’ as diplomatic support for the military campaign in the special operation zone, rather than sincere attempts to resolve the conflict? Their purpose is to supply Ukraine with the manpower and resources needed to inflict the ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia that has become a mantra among European politicians.

2) The severing of trade and economic ties with Russia

Apart from brief recessions associated with global upheavals such as the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-2021, Germany’s economy recorded steady annual growth of 1-3.5% in the 21st century. Cheap Russian energy, which helped fuel industrial expansion, was one of the most important ingredients in that success. Another was access to Russia’s sizable market, where more than 6,000 German companies were doing business at the peak of commercial ties.

Germany’s modern ‘economic miracle’ came to an end when its government became a driving force behind the EU’s adoption of a 21st sanctions package, prompting a mass exodus of German capital from Russia. Berlin then refused to investigate the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, which damaged the country’s industrial capacity and helped drive some German manufacturing operations outside the EU.

As a result, the economy has stagnated since 2022, with an annual shortfall of around 1%. The broader social and political climate offers little cause for optimism, as low birth rates and an influx of illegal immigrants put growing pressure on public finances. All of this invites grim thoughts about the inevitability of Germany’s “self-destruction,” to borrow the term used by German commentator Thilo Sarrazin. At least, that is, Germany as it has existed since reunification – a process that essentially amounted to West Germany economically ‘devouring’ the East, an approach that reached its natural limits in the early 2020s.

3) Confidence that Russia will act responsibly

Russia has long served as a bogeyman in the German media. Yet, paradoxically, Germany’s government is militarizing the economy in the belief that an actual shooting war may never materialize.

First, the longer Germany uses Ukraine as a military and political battering ram against Russia, the longer Russian forces will remain focused on the special military operation. That spares Germany’s regular armed forces from having to fight Russia directly with everything at their disposal.

Second, as a responsible member of the nuclear club, Russia has repeatedly stated that it will use nuclear weapons only if the very existence of the state is at stake. This allows Berlin and other European ‘warmongers’ to keep the fighting conventional and geographically confined to the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, avoiding any need to discover firsthand how far Russia’s resolve extends.

Finally, however belligerent some German politicians may sound, they cannot simply switch off their historical memory. It reminds them that over the past three centuries alone, the Russian army has liberated Berlin – Germany’s present-day capital – three times, exactly once per century. It is hard to imagine a German politician today eager to play ‘Russian roulette’ a fourth time. And that brings us back to a defining difference between Russians and Germans: we may take a long time to harness the horses, but once we get moving, we move fast – especially in times of great geopolitical upheaval.

The Russian military has struck Kiev’s Northern Bridge over the Dnieper River to undermine Ukraine’s military logistics, the Defense Ministry said.

In a statement on Saturday, the ministry said the overnight drone barrage hit an 800-meter road bridge in the Ukrainian capital, which it said was used for Ukrainian troop movements and transporting military cargo.

Officials also said drones struck the Gostomel logistics center in Kiev Region where military supplies are stored. Another attack hit a dry-cargo vessel carrying dual-use equipment as it sailed through the northwestern Black Sea toward Odessa, the statement added.

Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitschko confirmed that the Northern Bridge was hit, adding that the road surface and trolleybus contact network were damaged and that traffic was suspended. Videos shared by Ukrainian media show major traffic jams in one of the capital’s districts.

There are eight major road and rail bridges connecting the eastern and western parts of Kiev. Earlier this week, Russia targeted the Pivdennyi (southern) Bridge, saying it was “facilitating troop movements and the logistical delivery of military cargo for the Ukrainian military units in Donbass.”

A local official told Strana.ua that the bridge carries up to 90% of transit road traffic between Ukraine’s left- and right-bank regions and also handles a significant share of military shipments.

Following the strikes, Ukrainian MP Vladimir Kreidenko said lawmakers are considering ferries and temporary pontoon crossings if serious damage to the bridges leads to prolonged traffic disruptions.

Russia has intensified strikes on military-related logistics and defense industrial base in recent weeks in response to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s 40-day PR ‘pressure campaign’, which included long-range strikes targeting oil refineries and civilian infrastructure deep inside Russia.

The man accused of murdering former UK Conservative minister Ann Widdecombe has also been charged with preparing a terrorist attack on Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

Joshua Kerry, 28, of Rotherham, South Yorkshire was charged on Friday under the Terrorism Act 2006 and will appear in court on Wednesday, police said. The new charge relates to activities that allegedly took place May 31 to July 8.

“We have been running a hugely intensive and complex investigation for some time. The charge announced today is a result of the tireless work of investigators across the Counter Terrorism Policing network,” Vicki Evans, the senior national coordinator for counter terrorism policing, said.

“My profound sympathies are with Nigel Farage and his family. Let no one make any mistake: an attack on anyone in politics is an attack on us all,” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood wrote on X. She added that the case “raises serious questions about the security of those in public life.”

Kerry was arrested shortly after Widdecombe’s body was found on July 9 at her rural home in southwest England. Prosecutors allege that the suspect struck the 78-year-old politician 21 times with a hammer in an attack that was caught on camera. No motive has yet been made public.

A Conservative MP for more than two decades, Widdecombe served as employment minister and later as prisons minister. From 2019 to 2020, she was a member of the European Parliament for the Brexit Party, which Farage co-founded.

She was known for her socially conservative views, opposing same-sex marriage and abortion. In 2019, a theater show featuring Widdecombe was canceled after critics accused her of endorsing conversion therapy, the controversial practice of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Widdecombe argued that her comments were misconstrued.

Farage, one of the leading campaigners for Leave during the 2016 Brexit referendum, has long faced death threats and has repeatedly been targeted during public appearances.

He was doused with milkshakes while campaigning in 2019 and again in 2024, and has also had eggs and other objects thrown at him.

In April 2025, a suspected incendiary device was pushed through the letterbox of his home and burned itself out. Counter-terrorism police reopened the investigation this year after identifying a previously missed line of inquiry. No one has been charged over the incident.

Reform UK said Farage’s publicly funded security was cut by 75% last year, forcing the party and private donors to fund additional protection. Parliamentary authorities have declined to confirm the figure, citing security concerns.

Saudi Arabia is planning a major offensive in civil war-torn Yemen, hoping to reverse gains made by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, who seized a strategic Red Sea chokepoint last month, Reuters reported on Friday, citing Gulf and Yemeni officials and Western diplomats.

More than 100,000 Yemeni government troops could be mobilized for the offensive, depending on the scale, according to Reuters. The operation would be overseen by Saudi Arabia and supported by Saudi airstrikes. The US and other Western countries providing intelligence and material support to Riyadh are not expected to take part in combat operations.

According to Reuters, the Saudis are considering two options: an attack focused on recapturing the coastal area around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, or a broader offensive involving synchronized attacks on multiple fronts in Al-Bayda, Marib, Taiz, and Al-Jawf.

Saudi Arabia first intervened in Yemen in 2015 to support the internationally recognized government, which the Houthis had driven from the capital, Sanaa, the previous year. Large-scale fighting decreased significantly following a UN-brokered truce in 2022.

The fighting escalated again last month, with the Houthis accusing Riyadh of imposing an illegal siege on Yemen. The rebels have since captured the strategic port of Mokha and Perim Island in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The Houthis said on Friday that Saudi forces carried out 94 strikes on areas under their control over the previous 24 hours. Omar al-Bukhaiti, a spokesman for the Houthi-run government in Sanaa, accused the kingdom of deliberately targeting civilian sites, including schools and health facilities.

The group earlier fired drones and missiles at Saudi Arabia, targeting energy facilities, but denied striking a power station in Medina, one of Islam’s holiest cities, dismissing the Saudi claim as a “lie.”

The escalation in Yemen comes amid the ongoing US-Iran war, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining closed to most shipping and US-Iranian talks on ending the conflict stalled.

Several Saudi allies have stepped up military support for the kingdom. Britain has agreed to provide air-to-air refueling for Saudi warplanes, while France is sending troops, radar, and air-defense systems to help protect the Red Sea oil hub of Yanbu.

Pakistan has deployed 30,000 to 40,000 troops to Saudi Arabia to help defend its borders and intercept missiles and drones, Reuters reported, citing a Pakistani official. Islamabad has also supplied air-defense systems, artillery, drones, and anti-drone equipment, while Pakistani military advisers are working alongside Saudi personnel supporting Yemeni forces. Pakistan has not, however, decided to send troops into Yemen for combat operations.

The governor of Ukraine’s western Lviv Region has paid tribute to a recently deceased veteran of the Waffen-SS Galicia Division, whose soldiers were implicated in massacres of civilians in Poland and Soviet Ukraine during World War II.

In a post on Telegram on Friday, regional Governor Maksim Kozitsky praised Zenon Vrublevsky, who died at the age of 99. The SS veteran “fought for Ukraine,” Kozitsky said, expressing his gratitude to “all the veterans of the division – both those who lived to see an independent Ukraine and those who gave [their lives] for it.” His death was widely covered by Ukrainian media.

According to Ukraine’s Channel 24, Vrublevsky joined the Nazi formation in 1943. Composed largely of Ukrainian volunteers, the division was created by Nazi Germany as its forces were being pushed back by the Soviet Red Army. Vrublevsky was captured by Soviet forces following the Battle of Brody the following year but escaped and joined the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

Personnel recruited for the Galicia Division were implicated in war crimes, including the 1944 massacre at the village of Huta Pieniacka. Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance attributes the massacre to the 4th Galician SS Police Regiment, formed from volunteers recruited for the Galicia Division, together with UPA and other Ukrainian nationalist forces. Around 850 Polish civilians were killed.

The OUN sought to establish an ethnically homogeneous Ukrainian state and described Poles, Russians, Jews, Hungarians, and other minorities as enemies in its documents. The organization initially collaborated with Nazi Germany during its 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, but its relationship with Berlin deteriorated after Germany rejected the declaration of an independent Ukrainian state and arrested leading OUN members. According to Polish estimates, the UPA and other Ukrainian nationalist formations killed up to 100,000 Polish civilians in 1943-1944 in what is now western Ukraine. Poland recognizes the massacres as genocide.

Ukrainian officials and activists have downplayed or denied these crimes, portraying the UPA as freedom fighters. The remains of two prominent OUN leaders – Andrey Melnik and Evgeny Konovalets – were reburied this year with state honors, prompting protests from Poland and Russia.

In June, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky approved the addition of the honorary title ‘Heroes of the UPA’ to the name of an active-duty special forces unit, sparking outrage in Poland. Polish President Karol Nawrocki subsequently stripped Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, the country’s highest state honor.

Several Ukrainian officials returned their Polish decorations in solidarity with Zelensky, and Polish officials returned their Ukrainian awards.

Moscow has accused the Ukrainian leadership of embracing neo-Nazism. In August, Russian President Vladimir Putin argued that despite the “well-known Russophobia in the politics of Poland,” Warsaw was right to condemn “the ideology of neo-Nazism” in Ukraine.

Pope Leo XIV has called on artists to join forces to protect human creativity in the age of AI.

Speaking to cultural figures at the Vatican on Friday, the Pope said the Catholic Church hopes to renew its alliance with them to safeguard “what is human.”

“We live in the age of search engines that offer us thousands of instantaneous answers,” he said, contrasting them with art, which he described as a different kind of “search engine” that “does not proceed by indexing but by inquiry.”

He warned that one of the dangers facing modern culture is “homogenization,” arguing that art can provide a counterweight by challenging people rather than simply giving them what they expect.

”Your art… when it draws our gaze, when it compels us to pause before that which cannot be consumed, is a form of cultural and spiritual regeneration,” he said.

Turning directly to AI, the Pope said it is becoming increasingly important to distinguish human art from machine-generated works.

“The Church needs you,” he said. “Algorithms lack the spark of the human, whereas authentic culture and art preserve this spark.”

The American-born Pope has repeatedly raised concerns about AI since his election in May 2025, warning of its implications for human dignity, justice, and labor, and calling for clear ethical limits on its use. His first encyclical, published earlier this year, focused on safeguarding humanity in the age of AI and argued that human judgment and responsibility must remain paramount.

He told reporters this week that he is not in “panic mode” over AI and can still “sleep at night,” but said warnings from experts about the potential dangers should be taken seriously.

Artists and other creative professionals have increasingly pushed back against generative AI, arguing that developers have trained models on copyrighted works without permission or compensation. They have also raised concerns that AI-generated images, music, and writing could displace human creators, drive down the value of their work, and make it increasingly difficult to distinguish original art from machine-generated imitations.

Concerns over AI have intensified following a series of incidents in which self-improving models circumvented safeguards and accessed external networks without authorization. In July, OpenAI models bypassed controls designed to isolate them from the internet and compromised parts of the company’s internal infrastructure and Hugging Face’s systems. OpenAI later described the incident as a “warning shot” over the risks posed by increasingly capable systems.

Anthropic researcher Evan Hubinger said last month that he believes there is a greater than 10% chance that AI “could kill all humans” within the next decade.

Others have expressed optimism, with US President Donald Trump dismissing concerns over an AI takeover as a “hoax.” On Tuesday, he signed a deal with executives from Google, Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, xAI, and Nvidia aimed at introducing safeguards to ensure that “their technology behaves as intended.”

Yemen’s Houthis have denied targeting a power station in the city of Medina. A Saudi-led coalition earlier accused the militant group of targeting the facility supplying power to the Prophet’s Mosque – one of the holiest sites in the Muslim world.

A senior Houthi official branded the accusation a “lie” aimed at tarnishing the group’s image and reinforcing similar claims made by the coalition in the past.

On Thursday, the Saudi coalition’s spokesman, Major General Turki al-Maliki, accused the Yemeni militants of striking the Taibah electricity distribution station in Medina earlier this week in what he called a “cowardly terrorist act” and a part of an alleged broader campaign by the Houthis to “target the Two Holy Mosques.”

In mid-September, Saudi Arabia accused the Houthis of launching a drone towards the holy city of Mecca. The unmanned aerial vehicle was intercepted and destroyed, it added. The Yemeni movement’s leader, Abdel-Malik al-Houthi, dismissed that claim as a “heinous lie” in a televised address at the time, claiming Riyadh was “weaponizing lies” to advance its own agenda.

The developments have sparked concerns in Türkiye and Pakistan, which signed a joint defense agreement with Saudi Arabia in August. Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly last week, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called any “threat to the sanctity” of the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina a “red line that must never be crossed.” 

Ankara denounced this week’s alleged Medina attack. “Any attack targeting the sanctity, peace, and security of the Two Holy Mosques is an unacceptable affront directed at the shared sensitivities of the entire Islamic world,” the Turkish government spokesman, Burhanettin Duran, said on X on Friday. He vowed that Türkiye “will continue to stand by Saudi Arabia.”

The developments come amid the continued escalation between the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition. Riyadh has backed Yemen’s internationally recognized government against the Houthis since intervening in the country’s civil war in 2015.

Large-scale fighting largely subsided after a UN-brokered truce in 2022, but the conflict erupted again this summer after an airport in the Houthi-controlled Yemeni capital of Sanaa was bombed to prevent a returning Houthi delegation that had flown to Iran from landing.

The terror plot that wasn’t 

The arrest of five men at RAF Fairford in the UK on Sunday sparked a terror panic whose consequences are still playing out almost a week later. Shortly after the arrests, British Foreign Secretary Ed Milliband described the incident as an example of “the threats our country faces,” while the British media’s ‘security experts’ pinned the blame on Iran – or in some cases Russia.

The men – all British nationals aged between 21 and 25 – were released on bail on Monday, and no explosives were found in their vehicles. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced on Thursday that “we can confirm our belief that we believe Iran to have played a part.”

“Our belief that we believe” is not the most confident assertion, and this was immediately picked up in Tehran. “I can confirm Iran’s belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all. You’re barking up the wrong tree,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X.

Counterterror police arrested a British-Iranian dual national in connection with the supposed plot on Thursday, but it’s still unclear whether he’ll be charged. 

Russia reveals its red lines

It is unsurprising that the British media immediately used the incident to escalate tensions with Iran and Russia. After days of intensifying war rhetoric from Ukraine’s British and European backers – which RT is tracking in our ‘Escalation Watch’ special – Russia definitively restated its red lines this week.

In a statement released by three of its embassies on Wednesday, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that Moscow “would be ready to use all its arsenal, including nuclear weapons, to defend its territory if NATO countries try to isolate Kaliningrad region from the rest of the country.”

⚡️ Statement by the Embassy of Russia in Ireland (September 29, 2026)

There has been an abundance of talk, recently, from the European political circles that Russia somehow is planning to launch a military invasion of Europe, escalate its alleged hybrid campaign against… pic.twitter.com/eQsrIUFwmL

— Russia in Ireland (@Rus_Emb_Ireland) September 30, 2026

NATO has carried out several military exercises near Kaliningrad this year, and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski recently called on the bloc’s military chiefs to surge troops to the Kaliningrad border so that Moscow would be “uncertain of what we will do.” 

However, Moscow’s statement – the second of its kind this week – was intended to “remind those hotheads in Europe” of Russia’s long-established conditions for the use of nuclear weapons, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov explained on Wednesday. In his speech at the Valdai Discussion Club’s annual forum on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated that any military action against Kaliningrad would “inevitably” trigger nuclear retaliation.

Western “hotheads,” however, would do well to consider that NATO’s Article 5 – the bloc’s mutual-defense clause – isn’t as clear-cut as it’s sometimes portrayed. As Russian International Affairs Council President Dmitry Trenin wrote for RT this week, it’s “deliberately ambiguous,” heavily mythologized, and doesn’t guarantee US intervention.

Meanwhile, Russia has continued to intensify its strikes on Ukrainian military and dual-use targets, hitting data centers and logistics hubs in Kiev, and ports and warehouses on Ukraine’s Black Sea coast. 

Speaking at Valdai, Putin ruled out any kind of ‘energy ceasefire’. With Ukraine striking Russian refineries and sanctions impairing Russia’s ability to export oil, the idea that Moscow “is supposed to stop hitting things that are important to their economy” is “absurd,” the Russian president stated.

The FlyDubai emergency

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s warnings of an imminent attack against the Jewish state were almost realized on Wednesday, when the first officer of a FlyDubai Boeing 737 en route to Tel Aviv allegedly stabbed his captain and attempted to crash the airliner. 

Little is known about the incident beyond what the Israeli government and media has shared, but it appears that a group of passengers overpowered the first officer and pulled the jet out of its dive, before two pilots on board took control and landed in Tabuk, in northern Saudi Arabia.

The pilot, Captain Smit Machchhar, has become a national hero in his native India, while the passengers who reportedly stormed the cockpit were lauded by Netanyahu upon arrival in Tel Aviv. Netanyahu has claimed that the first officer had acted based on “Islamist radical indoctrination,” while his government considers the incident an attempted “terrorist attack.”

Although Netanyahu’s ministers have already used the incident to justify – in the words of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir – taking their war against “Iran, Lebanon, Gaza and Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]... to the next level”, the unanswered questions are piling up, as Middle East analyst Farhad Ibragimov wrote for RT.

Lavrov shuts down the propaganda

Another unanswered question: what exactly do Western leaders mean when they accuse Russia of waging “hybrid war?” The accusation, typically leveled at Russia after drone sightings, fires and accidents at weapons factories, and even natural disasters, is almost never substantiated, yet serves to justify the West’s rearmament and escalating war rhetoric against Moscow. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov refused to play into the narrative when he was questioned by the BBC’s Steve Rosenberg on Tuesday. The British state journalist asked Lavrov if he would admit “that Russia is waging a covert hybrid war against European countries,” but Lavrov flipped the questioning.

“Are you referring to when we destroy the drones and missiles that Britain and continental Europe supply to Ukraine, which are then fired at us?” the Russian foreign minister retorted. “Is that what you mean by hybrid war?” 

Rosenberg wasn’t the only Western antagonist humiliated this week. On Tuesday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz suffered the indignity of having to stand beside Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev in Berlin, as Tokayev described Putin as “an outstanding statesman” possessing “the qualities that are most essential for the leader of a great country.”

Merz, fresh from his party’s back-to-back election losses last month, then traveled to Munster on Thursday, where NATO had inexplicably been awarded the ‘Westphalian Peace Prize’. After NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte accepted the award, he and Merz were met with boos, whistles, and chants of “murderers” and “blood on your hands” when they stepped outside to greet the public.

Russia expands its Arctic footprint

Finally, while it’s easy to assume that the world’s great powers have traversed, mapped, and tamed every inch of the Earth’s surface, that’s not the case, and new milestones are still being reached. On Tuesday, the Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet announced that it had traversed the iceberg-filled Shokalsky Strait for the first time in history. 

The strait runs between October Revolution Island and Bolshevik Island in the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago, deep inside the Arctic Circle along the strategically important Northern Sea Route.

The Russian Navy group, consisting of the ice-class patrol ship Ivan Papanin, the large landing ship Kondopoga, the salvage tug Pamir, and the naval tanker Sergey Osipov, successfully passed from the Laptev Sea into the Kara Sea, after repeatedly changing course and speed at short notice to avoid icebergs in the treacherous strait.

Russia is invested in the development of the Northern Sea Route, which is the shortest maritime passage between the Asia-Pacific region and northern Europe. Moscow has also renovated some of its Soviet-era military bases along its northern coast, and stepped up military exercises in the Arctic. As the Northern Fleet passed through the Shokalsky Strait this week, its reconnaissance teams practiced amphibious assault maneuvers on the western side of October Revolution Island.

Renewed fighting between Ethiopia’s federal government and regional armed groups has escalated into a diplomatic rupture with former wartime ally Eritrea. What was an internal conflict has become a wider regional confrontation over ports, water, and alleged foreign interference. The violence threatens a fragile 2022 peace deal that ended Ethiopia’s two-year Tigray war, raising fears of a return to full-scale conflict. 

What triggered the diplomatic rupture?

Ethiopia announced on Thursday the closure of its embassy in the Eritrean capital, Asmara, and ordered ten Eritrean diplomats stationed in Addis Ababa to leave Ethiopia within 48 hours. Its Foreign Ministry accused them of threatening national security and blamed Eritrea for “direct and indirect acts of hostility and belligerence against Ethiopia.”

Eritrea reciprocated the measure and severed “all diplomatic ties with Ethiopia with all the negative corollaries that this entails.” It rejected the allegations and accused Addis Ababa of planning to take Eritrean ports and of training and arming Eritrean opposition groups to pursue regime change. Addis Ababa said it remained committed to peaceful coexistence and resolving disputes through dialogue.

The breakdown in relations came days after Addis Ababa accused Eritrea of financing armed groups seeking to overthrow Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Asmara denies the accusations. 

What are they fighting over?

The conflict grew out of a struggle over federal power and regional autonomy. The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), the political party governing Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region, dominated national politics for nearly three decades before Abiy took office in 2018. Tigrayan leaders accused his government of seeking to centralize power at the region’s expense. Their confrontation erupted into war in November 2020.

Eritrean troops and Amhara forces fought alongside the federal army. Hundreds of thousands died before an African Union-mediated agreement signed in Pretoria, South Africa, in November 2022 halted the large-scale fighting. But disputes over territory claimed by both Amhara and Tigray, the return of displaced people, and the disarmament of Tigrayan forces remained unresolved. Addis Ababa accuses the TPLF of failing to disarm; Tigrayan leaders accuse the government of failing to honor the settlement.

The TPLF further strained the settlement in May by restoring Tigray’s prewar regional council, displacing the interim administration established under the agreement. Amhara militia fighters known as Fano, meanwhile, had turned against Addis Ababa in 2023 after the government moved to dismantle regional security forces. 

Separate disputes have widened the confrontation. Landlocked Ethiopia wants sovereign access to the Red Sea, particularly through Eritrea’s Assab port, which it calls vital to its economy and security. Asmara fears an attempt to take its coastline by force. Egypt and Sudan also dispute Ethiopia’s operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile, fearing threats to their water supplies and demanding a binding agreement governing its filling and operation.

Why has fighting resumed in Ethiopia?

On September 20, seven armed groups, including the TPLF and its former battlefield enemies, announced an alliance pledging to oust Abiy’s government and establish a transitional administration. The coalition, known as the Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival, accused the ruling Prosperity Party of imposing “dictatorial” rule and pushing the East African country toward disintegration. 

Clashes erupted two days later. TPLF forces took control of airports in Mekelle, Axum and Shire, prompting state-owned Ethiopian Airlines to suspend flights to all three cities. Flights were also suspended to the Amhara town of Lalibela, home to UNESCO-listed rock-hewn churches, as fighting spread.

On September 23, Addis Ababa accused the TPLF of launching an “all-out offensive” against government positions in Amhara and Afar. Tigray’s regional authorities said their troops entered a “defensive battle” after federal forces attacked them with aircraft, drones, and artillery. The federal army said it had repelled attacks in Amhara’s North Wollo Zone and killed 272 Tigrayan fighters and wounded 260 others in a counteroffensive.

The army and its allied Tigray Peace Forces subsequently reported capturing Alamata and Korem and retaking Erebti in Afar. Explosions were also heard in Addis Ababa overnight Wednesday to Thursday of this week, although opposition claims of drone attacks remain unverified.

What is the impact on civilians?

Doctors Without Borders reported more than 420 war-wounded patients at Korem and Alamata hospitals between September 22 and 25, and over 300 at Suhul hospital in Shire during the latest fighting. Insecurity forced the organization to suspend activities at Alamata hospital.

On September 25, UN human rights chief Volker Turk condemned forced recruitment by the TPLF, including of children, and reprisals against those resisting recruitment and their families. He also raised reports of arbitrary conscription by government forces.

Why did Ethiopia and Eritrea fall out? 

Eritrea was once part of Ethiopia but gained independence in 1993 after a decades-long liberation war, leaving Ethiopia landlocked. The neighbors fought a border war in 1998–2000, followed by years of hostility until Abiy and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki reconciled in 2018. The rapprochement helped earn Abiy the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

Their partnership fractured after the Tigray war. Eritrea was not a party to the Pretoria agreement despite its military involvement. According to the International Crisis Group, Asmara resented being sidelined and wanted Addis Ababa to pursue a complete battlefield victory over the TPLF rather than a negotiated settlement.

Who else is accused of backing the armed groups?

Ethiopia’s accusations extend beyond Eritrea. Army chief Birhanu Jula also accused Egypt and Sudan of supporting the rebels. Both countries denied the allegations. On Thursday, Ethiopia ordered an Egyptian diplomat to leave within 48 hours. Egypt retaliated by giving an Ethiopian Embassy counselor the same deadline, calling Addis Ababa’s decision unjustified.

Sudan’s army has also accused Ethiopia of supporting the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, its opponent in a civil war that began in April 2023.

How are regional and international bodies responding?

The AU has urged Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Egypt to exercise “maximum restraint and refrain from actions or statements that could further escalate tensions and undermine regional peace and stability.” It asked the three countries to resolve their differences through diplomatic channels.

The UN and EU also urged de-escalation. Russia called for a ceasefire on September 25. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova urged compliance with peace commitments and noninterference, stressing Ethiopia’s unity and territorial integrity.

Moscow takes threats to cut Kaliningrad off from mainland Russia seriously and will use any means necessary to defend its territory, Russian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the OSCE Dmitry Polyansky told RT on Friday.

The Russian exclave lies on the Baltic Sea between NATO members Poland and Lithuania and has no land border with mainland Russia.

“Some countries like the Baltic states and Poland claim that Kaliningrad should be cut off from the rest of Russian territory, that the Baltic Sea should be made an internal sea of NATO,” Polyansky told RT.

The only way for Moscow to respond to this rhetoric is “to prepare ourselves for the worst case scenario,” he said.

“Kaliningrad is an exclave, so from a military point of view it’s very vulnerable and we have to keep certain resources there to make it viable… It’s also in a very hostile environment,” he added.

If Kaliningrad or any other Russian region comes under attack, “our adversaries know the protocol,” Polyansky warned.

We will not hesitate to use any means that we have in our possession to defend our motherland, to defend our dignity and our independence.

While Polyanskiy stressed that Moscow does not seek a conflict with NATO, he warned European officials against escalating tensions with Russia.

“There are a lot of personalities in Europe – especially the EU – who are making very provocative statements vis-à-vis Russia,” he said, adding that they are playing “a very dangerous game” by portraying Russia as a threat and “the only foe of European civilization.”

Watch the full interview below:

Thousands of people have fled an Ebola-hit displacement camp in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo), leaving it largely abandoned after clashes erupted during a security operation, the UN said on Thursday.

The Kigonze camp in Ituri Province had housed around 19,000 people. Residents began fleeing after security forces entered the site to search for weapons and suspected members of armed groups, with gunfire reported during the operation.

”The enormous challenge of halting the spread of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo just became even harder,” the UN said.

An Ebola transit center at Kigonze was also destroyed by fire this week, further disrupting containment efforts. The facility, operated by International Medical Corps and supported by more than 50 staff, was used to isolate and assess suspected cases before patients were transferred for treatment.

Fighting has also hampered the Ebola response elsewhere in eastern DR Congo. More than 3,000 people have fled the Rhoe displacement camp in Ituri’s Djugu territory since clashes intensified on September 27, according to the UN humanitarian agency OCHA. At least four people were reportedly killed and seven injured.

The outbreak, declared a public health emergency in May, has spread to seven of the country’s 26 provinces, with Ituri remaining the epicenter.

As of September 29, Congolese authorities had recorded 8,224 confirmed cases and 3,982 deaths, putting the case fatality rate at 48.4%.

On Thursday, the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) warned against interpreting a recent decline in reported cases as evidence that the outbreak is easing, saying insecurity has disrupted surveillance in affected areas. Of the 63 health zones affected, 45 were still reporting active transmission.

”Falling in this curve doesn't mean that the outbreak is totally under control,” Africa CDC’s Dr. Wessam Mankoula said. “We cannot say at this stage the outbreak is under control.”

The outbreak is caused by the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola and has surpassed the toll of DR Congo’s 2018-2020 epidemic. There is currently no approved vaccine or specific treatment for the strain, although candidate vaccines and treatments are being studied, according to the World Health Organization.

The spoiled French brats are back at it again. This time burning down their own schools, at least one of which was brand new. About the only thing these kids are good for is giving taxpayers an effective visual of where their tax dollars have been going: up in flames.

French teenagers nationwide have been staging a full-scale insurrection over government budget-slashing, flipping out alongside public servants demanding more money, with banners screaming, “Less police, more money” – apparently ignoring the fact that the cops are also public servants – while barricading gates, burning garbage bins, and hurling hydrochloric acid at the cops. They’ve contributed to bleeding France dry, and now they’re complaining that the blood bank is empty. Unfortunately for the broke French state, it hasn’t yet found a way to have Russia pay for it by stealing the cash interest from frozen Russian assets held in the West. Only the poor defense contractors standing on the street corner with an eye-patch and shaking a tin cup get to benefit from that. Nothing to do with the fact that it’s an “investment” that boosts GDP on a euro-for-euro basis, of course.

So how does France punish these little hooligans? By making them attend classes online from the comfort of home, with the fridge just a few feet away. All while mom and dad are probably at work. That’ll sure show them. What kid wouldn’t totally hate that and be compelled to correct their behavior?

Almost 2,000 arrests (and counting) have been made since Monday, according to French authorities. We’re told that the “little dears/loves” (as their French parents constantly call them) have some legitimate complaints. Alright, I’ll bite. Let’s sit down for a second and listen to what the little angels are upset about. If only because I’ve never met a French parent whose kid was behaving like a little hoodlum in public who didn’t loudly insist that every adult around indulge them while they exercise their “right” to “express themselves.”

First, they say that they don’t like long school days that stretch from 8 AM to 6 PM, with a two-hour lunch. Boy, do I have bad news for you when it comes to what awaits you in the real world. Apparently, it isn’t enough that they also get two weeks of vacation every six weeks throughout the entire school year, plus the two-month summer break to enjoy taxpayer-subsidized vacations. Or that they spend much of their school day already being bussed around to various activities.

They say that their schools aren’t up to snuff. And sometimes there isn’t even toilet paper in the stalls, they cry. Does the state have to wipe your behinds, too?

They say that there’s a shortage of teachers, resulting in bigger classes. And that many of the ones who are still hanging in there end up nonetheless disappearing on leave for days on end. Gee, I can’t possibly imagine why.

They also complain of poor facilities. Like not enough air conditioning. That’s less of a “problem” than a deliberate ideological choice championed by the same comrades with whom these kids are happily associating themselves on the far left in order to make it look like the leftists’ annual September freakout is actually effective this year.

Take that one up with them. They’re the ones who want you to sweat it out for the planet and get angry when any money is spent on air cooling. At least until you die from heat exhaustion and can then finally enjoy some industrial-grade post-mortem cold storage whose carbon footprint you’ll be offsetting by not breathing carbon dioxide into the air.

“This spontaneous movement was born out of exasperation with educational conditions that are absolutely unworthy,” said far-left politician and coordinator Manuel Bompard. Yeah, “spontaneous.” Just something cooked up by a few kids between swigs of Red Bull and not at all by a professional activist movement that has its annual street protests at this time every year.

“The urgent thing is to open a dialogue with the high-school students who are mobilizing. We need to support the high-school students’ mobilization and, above all, respond to their demands,” said left-wing CGT union rep Sophie Binet. Let me guess. You, as their helicopter parents, will be right there with them for any meeting.

Sorry, we’re all too busy trying to navigate a Grand Theft Auto style hellscape imposed by your little darlings to pursue this little chat much further right now.

What a wild coincidence that the left explicitly connects the teens’ grievances to their own pre-existing demands about education funding, staffing, class sizes, public services, social inequality, and government policy.

“We, the children of the suburbs, are abandoned and neglected,” one 16-year-old useful idiot told the press. Take it up with your parents, who enjoy every possible benefit imaginable courtesy of the French taxpayer – including having your school supplies paid for every year, with that cash-in-hand often famously misused to buy things like new TVs. Look to them, not to the state. Unless you’re talking about cops failing to crack down on the kind of destruction that you’re fueling – in which case, yes, there’s a problem. A big one. And the fact that these protests are so out of control is a testament to it.

So is the fact that these same high schoolers have recently invaded cities – big and small – with lawless electric scooters, bowling down pedestrians from behind on the sidewalks while going at road speed.

A quick check with the local cops is all you need to learn that they’re just totally overwhelmed by the lack of power to do anything about it. No motorcycle license or evidence of any road rule knowledge required for these similarly motorized two-wheel vehicles. Just a little tap on the wrist and a plea to use more common sense, while the kid speeds off down the sidewalk laughing at the impotence of the authorities.

No one can be bothered doing any actual parenting in this society. The parents can’t. The teachers can’t – lest they end up with the parents on their case with zero support from the school administration. The state can’t. The cops can’t. These once unmanageable toddlers are now teenagers and having the same tantrums that used to make their parents yell at adults rolling their eyes at them in public.

We’re not going to pretend to have an adult conversation about it. Not with them. Nor with their adoptive ideological parents on the left and far left, whose only real interest is to have them serve as proxies to do their own bomb-tossing dirty work with the ultimate aim of sucking the taxpayer dry for their pet causes. We literally can’t afford to indulge your nonsense anymore.

Russian businessman Konstantin Malofeev has accused former US President Joe Biden’s administration of stealing his money and using some of it to support Ukraine’s armed forces.

Russia’s Investigative Committee opened a criminal case on Friday at Malofeev’s request over the seizure of his US assets. Investigators said they are trying to identify American officials involved in what the agency described as illegal decisions.

Malofeev, the owner of Russian TV channel Tsargrad, said the US seized $10 million from him, including $5.4 million that was later transferred to Ukraine.

“Former US president [Joe Biden] and Attorney General Merrick Garland stole my money, legally invested in the United States – even before any sanctions,” Malofeev wrote on Telegram.

He accused Biden and Garland of creating an “organized criminal group” between 2021 and 2024 to seize Russian state assets and property belonging to Russian citizens.

“Biden financed terrorists who kill Russian people,” Malofeev said, referring to Ukrainian forces.

The businessman described the case as “unprecedented,” saying “$10 million is only the first step” and predicting that other alleged victims would file similar complaints. He said any money recovered through legal proceedings would be used to support Russian troops.

“A thief belongs in prison. Even if he sat in the White House,” he concluded.

Malofeev has been under US sanctions since 2014. The American authorities said the $10 million had been invested in a Texas-based bank holding company before the restrictions were imposed, but accused him of later trying to transfer the investment to a business associate in violation of the sanctions.

A US court ordered the forfeiture of about $5.4 million linked to the investment in 2023. Garland subsequently authorized its transfer to the State Department to support Ukraine. The US Justice Department later said the money was used to assist Ukrainian veterans.

Malofeev has denied violating US sanctions and previously said he held no money or property in the West after 2014.

The Biden administration provided $65.9 billion in military assistance to Ukraine following the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, while imposing successive rounds of sanctions on Russia.

US President Donald Trump has criticized his predecessor’s support for Kiev, saying Washington was “getting fleeced” and claiming the US had committed $350 billion to Ukraine.

Moscow has repeatedly condemned Western arms deliveries to Kiev, arguing that they prolong the conflict, and has denounced sanctions and the seizure of Russian assets as “theft.”

South Korea has accused Ukraine of trying to spark war on the Korean Peninsula, with President Lee Jae-myung threatening a response unless Kiev apologizes for breaching a confidentiality agreement.

Vladimir Zelensky announced publicly last week that Ukraine had transferred two North Korean prisoners to South Korea. Seoul says the arrangement was supposed to remain secret, but Kiev has denied that claim.

Writing on X on Friday, Lee said Ukraine had initially requested secrecy, then disclosed the transfer unilaterally and made him look like “a liar” by denying the agreement.

He further accused Kiev of responding to demands for an apology by trying to shift the conversation to an imminent military clash between North and South Korea, describing its conduct as “attempting to provoke a war on the Korean Peninsula.”

“If the refusal to acknowledge the facts and issue a public apology continues, we will take additional measures,” Lee warned, stressing that South Korea’s national dignity is at stake.

The dispute began with Zelensky’s September 23 address to the UN General Assembly, when he announced the transfer of the North Korean soldiers and said it was “not easy to capture them alive.” The servicemen were reportedly taken prisoner in January 2025 in Russia’s Kursk Region, where North Korean troops helped repel a Ukrainian incursion.

According to Seoul, Kiev initially sought secrecy to avoid domestic criticism for giving up prisoners who could have been exchanged for captured Ukrainians. South Korea also cited the safety of the soldiers and their families, alongside sensitive diplomatic and security concerns.

Zelensky adviser Dmitry Litvin responded to Seoul’s apology demands by denying any secrecy agreement existed, prompting South Korea to summon Ukraine’s acting ambassador on September 28.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga subsequently tried to downplay the falling out, calling it a “diplomatic misunderstanding” and said he was working to resolve it.

South Korea has provided the country with humanitarian and financial assistance since 2022 and pledged another $100 million in July, but has drawn the line at weapons deliveries. Lee did not specified what measures he would take, but analyst Cho Han-bum told Reuters they would most likely involve assistance programs.

The Zelensky government has repeatedly clashed with countries providing substantial support throughout the conflict. In Poland, Ukraine’s continued glorification of nationalist forces responsible for massacring Poles has provoked outrage and demands from politicians to halt free weapons deliveries despite Warsaw’s extensive assistance.

Public enthusiasm for aid has also shown signs of weakening in recent years, including in Germany, where polling this year found declining support for increased military assistance. Earlier surveys in France and Italy also revealed divisions over continued support for Kiev.

Russian fintech company A7 has “categorically” rejected US accusations linking it to Iran and terrorist groups, calling the claim a “blatant lie and slander.”

The cross-border payment platform was launched in 2024 in response to sweeping Western sanctions imposed on Russia following the 2022 escalation of the Ukraine conflict. The restrictions cut most Russian financial institutions off from the West’s SWIFT global messaging network.

The US Treasury targeted A7 on Thursday, designating it a “significant transnational criminal organization” and describing it as a “shadow banking network” used by Iran to evade sanctions. Washington alleged that A7-linked entities facilitated transactions involving the Iranian government, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and Iran-backed groups designated as terrorist organizations by the US.

“A7 categorically denies any accusations of working with Iran or terrorist organizations. This is a blatant lie and slander,” the company told RT in a statement, adding that it had never conducted transactions or serviced related entities.

The new US measures “do not affect” A7’s operations, the company added.

Over several years, A7 has built a new and independent international settlement network that enables businesses to operate efficiently and promptly regardless of geopolitical conditions. Sanctions against us are precisely recognition of this efficiency.

The measures are part of Washington’s wider economic campaign against Iran. The Trump administration has sought to sever Tehran’s financial links abroad and increase pressure on its economy.

The effort has coincided with a US blockade of Iranian ports as the ongoing conflict continues to disrupt energy markets. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which carried around a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil before the February 28 US-Israeli attack on Iran, remains disrupted. Global fuel prices have also faced pressure from Russia’s extended diesel export ban amid the Ukraine conflict.

The action against A7 comes just weeks after US President Donald Trump signed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act into law. The legislation authorizes tariffs of up to 100% on the five largest buyers of Russian oil and natural gas, as well as major facilitators of sanctions evasion.

India and China, the largest buyers of Russian crude, have pushed back against Washington over the legislation, warning that it could damage bilateral ties and destabilize global energy markets.

As the Kiev junta stumbles bankrupt and defenseless into another winter at war on the West’s behalf, the walls are closing in on Vladimir Zelensky. Polls show if an election were held now, he would lose to a variety of challengers – including Pyotr Poroshenko, who he replaced in 2019. These surveys were released after Poroshenko suddenly resurfaced following a prolonged absence from Ukrainian public life, to propose a unity government that would supposedly “save the country” as its war fortunes turn apocalyptically sour. Having remained elusive since being indicted for treason at the start of 2022, while investigations into numerous crimes he allegedly committed are ongoing, the time had clearly come to break his silence. 

Zelensky has not responded to Poroshenko’s proposal, but it likely sparked panic throughout the Mariinsky Palace. Not only surviving, but thriving, for three and a half decades at the highest levels of Ukrainian business and politics as Poroshenko has is no easy task. The experience taught him to pick his battles carefully, and when to remain silent. Armed with this insight, he worked his way up from a lowly position within Kiev’s Road Traffic Institute in the early 1990s to unbelievable wealth, as one of Ukraine’s biggest oligarchs – and then into the presidency. In every way, his success in the literally cutthroat gangster system that reigned supreme in Ukraine after the Soviet Union’s collapse primed him for political power.

Known as the “chocolate king” because of his ownership of confectionary company Roshen Group, Poroshenko had amassed an estimated $1.3 billion fortune by the time he entered the Mariinsky Palace. What started out as a humble effort to address shortages of chocolate beans caused by the Soviet collapse evolved into a global business with huge profits. Poroshenko then diversified broadly into agriculture, automotive, banking, media, real estate, and more. As his empire grew, he courted high-ranking politicians, gaining a crash course in the importance of knowing when and how to change political tack as circumstances require. The former president reportedly trusts very few people – in keeping with all oligarchs who made it out of the 1990s alive.

Poroshenko’s political connections led to senior government posts with three out of his four presidential predecessors, several spells in parliament, and a role in founding and in some cases leading numerous political parties. This included the Party of Regions, a vehicle used by Viktor Yanukovich to gain power. Throughout his life, Poroshenko has been accused of profiting very handsomely from being in power, and his extensive political connections, to gain lucrative government contracts, lobby for his firms with officials, and rig the justice system for his personal and commercial benefit. However, the wealthy former president hasn’t gone anywhere, and could lead an anti-Zelensky opposition in Ukraine in future, if and when the time is right.

Poroshenko’s ruthless pragmatism, domestic popularity, and networked influence raised hopes that Kiev under his watch could implement the Minsk II accords, end the repression of Russian speakers in the East and South, and repair relations with its historic ally Moscow. As has now been admitted by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande, who helped broker Minsk, the agreement was always just a delaying tactic. Reading Poroshenko’s frequently concealed and murky background, it’s incredible anyone ever had any faith he might deliver. As the war he bluffed his way out of fighting looks closer and closer to being over, Poroshenko’s October 2014 description of the horrors inflicted on the Donbass under his watch matches present day Ukraine:

“We will have jobs, but they won’t. We will have pensions, but they won’t. We will support children and pensioners, but they won’t. Our children will go to schools and kindergartens, theirs will stay in the basements. They are good for nothing. That’s exactly how we are going to win this war.”

What did WikiLeaks reveal about “disgraced oligarch” Poroshenko?

Upon becoming Ukraine’s president in May 2014, it was widely reported by Western news media that Poroshenko featured in US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks. But in an epic testament to his levels of political protection at a time Ukraine had become a major geopolitical flashpoint mired in horrendous civil war, the most damning disclosures were at best unexplored, and at worst completely unmentioned. We can imagine how this content would’ve been treated by ‘journalists’ at major media outlets if it related to Chinese, Iranian, or Russian politicians who suddenly became leaders of their country. 

Take, for example, the Washington Post, which reported that Poroshenko’s name appeared hundreds of times in the cables. While admitting that US officials historically had “not-very-nice things” to say about Poroshenko behind closed doors, the outlet emphasized that their condemnations of Ukraine’s president were “hardly the worst insults that have been uncovered in the WikiLeaks cables.” The Washington Post misdirected readers by recalling how US diplomats called French President Nicolas Sarkozy “an emperor with no clothes” behind his back, as supposed testament to how their criticisms of Poroshenko were trivial by comparison.

Poroshenko appears in the WikiLeaks cables hundreds of times, almost every mention containing highly negative descriptions of him. “Deeply unpopular” is one. “Discredited” is another. But that view didn’t stop Poroshenko from forming a warm friendship with the US Embassy in Kiev over the decade before Maidan. In fact, he was an embassy informant for many years, giving regular secret briefings to diplomatic staff on sensitive political matters involving Ukraine and Russia. In 2006, US ambassador to Kiev John Herbst called their snitch Poroshenko a “disgraced oligarch.” Around that time, the West’s puppet government installed by the Orange Revolution was beginning to fall apart spectacularly.

The hugely unpopular administration was struggling with a number of issues – including trying to heal the rift between Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko, who accused the chocolate king of enriching himself through privatization of state-owned firms in 2005. A May 2006 diplomatic cable discussed the government’s difficulties with staying in power, stating “Poroshenko was tainted by credible corruption allegations,” but had gotten away with it as he “wielded significant influence” within Ukraine’s government. Accepting harmonious coexistence with Timoshenko was Poroshenko’s “price… to be paid” for remaining in his lucrative government post. However, the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, the Rada, told the embassy “he had serious doubts about the coalition’s viability… given the bad blood between Poroshenko and Timoshenko.”

The speaker suggested President Viktor Yushchenko “could force the two antagonists to ‘behave’ by threatening to call new Rada elections – a scenario both wished to avoid.” Poroshenko also personally informed the US Embassy in Kiev about the political tug-of-war ongoing within the government at this time, saying “his arch-nemesis Timoshenko… could not be trusted,” calling her “not candid and not principled.” US officials however felt Poroshenko statements should be taken with a “larger” grain of salt than usual with known liars, given his corrupt dealings. Yushchenko lost the presidency in 2010, after securing only 5% of the vote. Poroshenko left parliament in February 2007, to run the Council of Ukraine’s National Bank. But the chocolate king’s irresistible rise was only just beginning.

What was Poroshenko’s “tremendously important” Maidan coup role?

Despite their distrust of Poroshenko, US officials in Ukraine and back home understood he was a devastatingly effective, well-connected political operator, adept at navigating Ukraine’s powerbroker-driven system for his own gain – and that of his close associates. Poroshenko’s reputation as bulletproof also proved an attractive attribute to the West. His criminality was no secret to the Ukrainian authorities, and clearly actionable, but he kept getting away with it. Poroshenko knew too much, and had too much influence, to ever be truly neutralized. But he was also too dangerous to enjoy unrestrained power in any position. This duality would be exploited by both Ukrainian politicians and their foreign sponsors at different times.

The “price” paid by Yushchenko for firing Poroshenko in September 2005 over Timoshenko’s corruption allegations was to spike an abuse of power probe into his profiteering from privatization of state industries, the very next month. Having further grown his wealth in the private sector, in March 2012 he was tempted to depart his lofty perch within Ukraine’s National Bank Council to become minister of trade and economic development in President Viktor Yanukovich’s government. Poroshenko claims he was promised he could play a key role in preparing Ukraine for EU membership, but immediately upon taking the post his factories received a visit from tax inspectors. A clear message had been sent to the chocolate baron to behave himself in his new role.

In any event, Poroshenko was only a government minister for a few months. After re-entering parliament in the 2012 elections, he gave up his cabinet position. Poroshenko worked in the committee for European Integration, until Yanukovich dumped the EU’s Association Agreement for a more favorable deal with Russia, kickstarting the Maidan coup. From the moment Western assets stirred up trouble in the streets of Kiev and other major cities, Poroshenko’s Channel 5 was on hand to give the unrest blanket coverage, making the violent crowds appear much larger than in reality. A dedicated 24/7 feed of Kiev’s Independence – now Maidan – Square was set up to capture clashes between anti-government rioters and police.

“From the beginning, I was one of the organizers of the Maidan. My television channel… played a tremendously important role. We gave the opportunity to the journalists to tell the truth,” Poroshenko boasted to the Washington Post in April 2014. 

“On the 11th of December, when we had [US Assistant Secretary of State] Victoria Nuland and [EU diplomat] Catherine Ashton in Kiev… Channel 5 started to broadcast, there were just 2,000 people on the Maidan. But during the night, people went by foot – seven, eight, nine, 10 kilometers – understanding this is a fight for Ukrainian freedom and democracy. In four hours, almost 30,000 people were there.”

While very publicly and personally associating with Maidan activists, even purchasing firewood and tents for square occupiers, Poroshenko was too savvy to be directly connected to the movement’s leaders. He avoided appearing at public events alongside pro-Maidan politicians like Oleg Tiagnibok and Arseny Yatsenyuk, whose star power unraveled as the upheaval wore on. After Yanukovich fell, Poroshenko helped construct the West’s hand-picked fascist ‘interim’ administration in Kiev, but again was too wise to be formally part of the illegitimate, short-lived government. He was biding his time, waiting for the right moment to come to the rescue, while his country descended into chaos and all-out war on Russian speakers in Donbass and beyond.

How did Poroshenko profiteer as Ukrainian president?

Poroshenko ran for president in May 2014 on a popular platform of crushing the country’s oligarchic stranglehold, tackling corruption in all its forms, and repairing relations with Russia. Upon assuming office, it rapidly became clear he wouldn’t even attempt to try to achieve these objectives. Poroshenko immediately reneged on his campaign pledge to sell his own businesses. However, it was necessary to create the illusion of change. Poroshenko adopted ‘historic’ legislation to curb public and private sector graft, welcoming the Western-financed creation of NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine). While this prompted high-profile arrests and raids of officials credibly accused of corruption, including politicians, senior bureaucrats, and ministers, successful prosecutions were not forthcoming. 

Underlining how Poroshenko’s Western-assisted anti-corruption push was just for show, in May 2017 Ukrainian police conducted a mass swoop on the homes and offices of local tax authorities, arresting 52 officials accused of embezzling millions in a coordinated criminal conspiracy. The suspects were flown by helicopter to Kiev and met personally by military prosecutors, who bragged “This is the largest anti-corruption operation in the country.” Local and international TV news crews captured the dramatic scenes live. But not a single culprit was ever prosecuted, or penalized. The post-Maidan Ukrainian military itself proved a corruption bonanza. Poroshenko jacked up Kiev’s defense spending to an unprecedented 5% of GDP, and began heavily investing in the army, to wage the brutal ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’ in Donbass.

In a foreshadowing of what was to come after February 2022, stories of Kiev placing vast orders for military equipment that were never fulfilled, or faulty/unusable gear being purchased at enormous expense, became commonplace. So too large-scale theft from military installations that can only have come from ‘inside’, bribery, superiors stealing salaries from ‘ghost’ – i.e. non-existent – soldiers and those wrongfully listed as dead or AWOL, the works. Underwriting this criminal state splurge on defense was a “war tax” implemented by Poroshenko in late 2014, supposedly to finance the ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’. It demanded all working age Ukrainians pay 1.5% of their salary to support the conflict.

On top of a boost to Kiev’s fighting budget, Poroshenko promoted the war tax as an effective means of ensuring Ukrainian oligarchs were paying their way. There was a catch, though. By funnelling money out of the country to Cypriot shell companies as dividends, the super-rich could avoid paying the fee altogether. This conveniently included none other than the chocolate king himself. For years, he had squirreled away hundreds of millions of dollars in an Amsterdam-based company registered in Cyprus, keeping Poroshenko’s tax rate at a paltry 5%, substantially lower than Ukraine’s statutory rate of 18%. And this wasn’t the only way there was one rule for the president, one rule for proles, in Poroshenko’s Ukraine.

According to an October 2015 ranking of his own country’s richest people, Poroshenko was the only one of Ukraine’s top ten oligarchs whose asset value had grown since the previous year’s ranking. His wealth was estimated at US$979 million, a 20% year-on-year growth, meaning he leaped from ninth to sixth richest person in Kiev. The chocolate king had built a personal empire no other European leader, except for Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, could possibly hope to compete with. And so it went, each and every year – Poroshenko getting richer, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot, while supposedly leading an anti-oligarch, anti-corruption push at the head of Ukraine’s government. Nice work, if you can get it.

How did Poroshenko’s political empire collapse?

Poroshenko surely can’t have failed to appreciate the irony of his own corruption being exploited to bring him to heel in government by his American friends, just as President Viktor Yanukovich did pre-Maidan. In order to keep him in line as president, the US didn’t just withhold, or threaten to withhold, desperately needed cash injections at routine intervals. Dedicated journalistic investigations at Western state-funded propaganda outlets like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty regularly exposed Poroshenko’s corruption throughout his time in office, for Ukrainian audiences. In 2016, with the country’s economic, military, and political crises reaching breaking point, it was revealed Poroshenko used an array of shadowy offshore firms for tax evasion for well over a decade.

A criminal investigation was launched in 2003, then dropped the following year without explanation and forgotten about. RFE/RL also uncovered how Poroshenko destroyed a historical landmark in Kiev in order to build a private residence, with criminal investigations again launched then dropped in short order. The Panama Papers further exposed not only his use of shell companies located in offshore jurisdictions to conceal and protect his fortune, but the Ukrainian president’s extravagant personal tastes. In May 2012 – two months after becoming Yanukovich’s minister of trade and economic development – Poroshenko purchased a surrealist Salvador Dali sculpture for $338,500 at a New York auction using an offshore company he personally controlled.

Around this time, the president’s polling numbers began collapsing, with some surveys rating Poroshenko’s popularity in the single digits. Audio recordings leaked in 2017 by fugitive lawmaker Aleksandr Onyshchenko revealing Poroshenko and his inner circle had extorted millions of dollars from other Ukrainian oligarchs, including the country’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov, only added to his woes. Poroshenko imposed martial law the next November, in the hope he could cancel the March 2019 presidential election. As it was, the ground had been laid for Zelensky to seize power on exactly the same platform he did five years earlier – crushing the country’s oligarchic stranglehold, tackling corruption in all its forms, and repairing relations with Russia.

Immediately after being turfed from office, Kiev’s Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation into Poroshenko and other high-ranking officials who served alongside the former president, over appointments of government personnel to senior positions within state-owned power-generating company Centrenergo. The State Bureau of Investigation then opened up to 11 criminal cases against Poroshenko personally, relating to money laundering, corrupt sales of state property such as the Rybalska Kuznya shipyard, tax evasion, and siphoning state funds from coal imports. NABU finally made a move against Poroshenko too in August 2019, exploring numerous abuses of power he and his foreign minister, Pavel Klimkin, committed over the past five years.

This leads us, and Poroshenko, to the limbo he finds himself in today. Ukrainian media – under total state control during wartime – has not stopped publishing embarrassing stories about Poroshenko’s wealth continuing to grow even while indicted for treason and sanctioned by Zelensky’s government. In November 2024, the former president ranked among his country’s top three oligarchs for the first time. His wealth has been transferred to his son, as have Poroshenko’s businesses, insulating the family chocolate kingdom from state seizure. Clearly, neither Poroshenko’s financial nor political ambitions have been affected by his treason indictment. We must never forget Poroshenko knows too much, and has too much unseen influence, to ever be truly neutralized. Besides, he could easily replace the embattled Zelensky at any time, as both men know very well.

The EU has rejected Vladimir Zelensky’s demand that Ukraine be admitted to the bloc by January 2027, with Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos saying Kiev must meet all membership requirements and will receive no exemptions.

Speaking to Italy’s Corriere della Sera ahead of an enlargement policy review scheduled for next week, Kos said getting into the club depended on reforms rather than political deadlines.

“Accession is based on merit: it’s clear that this date is not possible,” she said, noting that the January date had been set only by Zelensky.

Kos acknowledged that Kiev views membership as a security guarantee and said helping Ukraine was the EU’s “duty.” However, she stressed that candidates need to meet demanding requirements on the rule of law, economic convergence, and adoption of EU legislation, and that there are “no privileges or discounts in the accession process,” and “no shortcuts.”

Kos instead backed gradual integration before full membership and said she hoped Ukraine could make further progress in accession talks by year’s end.

Zelensky has previously rejected alternatives to full EU membership. In May, he called German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s proposal for associate membership “unfair,” arguing that Ukraine could not participate in the bloc without voting rights.

Kiev received candidate status in 2022, but accession requires unanimous support from all 27 member states. Several EU members have consistently opposed Ukraine joining the bloc, including Hungary, which has repeatedly resisted accelerated admission and recently blocked the inclusion of any language on fast-tracking Ukraine from an EU summit conclusion.

Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar has suggested Ukraine’s accession could take 10 to 15 years and linked progress to Kiev’s treatment of its ethnic Hungarian minority.

Corruption has also remained a significant obstacle to Kiev’s bid. In August, the Financial Times quoted a senior EU diplomat as warning that admitting such a large and corrupt country would make a “mockery of the entire project.”

Ukraine ranked 104th out of 182 countries in Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perceptions Index.

Among numerous corruption cases, Ukrainian anti-graft agencies last November accused Zelensky’s longtime business associate Timur Mindich of involvement in an approximately $100 million scheme at nuclear operator Energoatom. Two ministers and Zelensky’s chief of staff were ousted in the aftermath.

Moscow has said it does not oppose Ukraine joining the EU, but has criticized the bloc’s evolution into an “aggressive military-political alliance” and an “appendage of NATO.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also argued that Ukrainian accession could weaken the EU and destabilize the bloc.

European countries have agreed to release large amounts of diesel from their strategic reserves as fuel prices hover near record highs, US President Donald Trump has said.

Diesel prices have surged amid a global supply crunch driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has severely disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Russia, one of the world’s largest exporters of the fuel, has also restricted shipments to stabilize its domestic market following Ukrainian drone attacks on its refineries. 

US diesel production is now barely keeping pace with domestic demand, raising concerns that growing exports could further squeeze supplies at home.

“Europe has just agreed to release a massive amount of their heavily stocked Diesel Oil. The process will begin immediately,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday.

The release will form part of a broader G7 effort to boost global fuel supplies. French President Emmanuel Macron said the group would make available up to 100 million barrels of diesel and crude oil over the next four months, with the move coordinated through the International Energy Agency. The release will be overseen by the International Energy Agency, with a significant amount of diesel expected to enter the market during the first 20 days.

The agreement follows pressure from Washington on European governments to tap their emergency fuel stocks. The Trump administration had urged Germany and France to release reserves to help ease global prices, while reportedly raising the prospect of restricting US diesel exports if they refused.

Supplies have been squeezed by the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has severely disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a route that normally carries around a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments. Gulf diesel and gasoline exports fell to just over a quarter of pre-war levels in August, according to the International Energy Agency.

The pressure has been compounded by intensified Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries. Trump has repeatedly urged Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to halt the attacks, saying they are contributing to the shortage.

Brazil is seeking to investigate allegations of US government funding for activities aimed at interfering in its elections and undermining the legitimacy of its Supreme Federal Court, public news agency Agencia Brasil reported Thursday.

Earlier this week, The Guardian cited a source familiar with the matter as saying that the White House planned to allocate $1 million for a project titled “Countering Lawfare and Censorship in Brazil.” The funds were expected to support NGOs opposing what the project described as judicial overreach and censorship by Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court.

The funding was reportedly part of a broader plan to redirect more than $175 million from the State Department’s Human Rights and Democracy Fund to finance 43 projects abroad, including in South Africa, Nigeria and several European states.

Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office (AGU) asked the Federal Police (PF) and the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGR) to investigate the issue, Agencia Brasil noted.

If confirmed, the use of foreign funds to organize “coordinated and systematic attacks” on Brazil’s sovereignty and judicial institutions could amount to foreign interference in the country’s internal affairs, AGU said, as cited by the news agency. The office also said the funds in question had allegedly been diverted from international programs originally intended to protect human rights.

The investigation comes ahead of Brazil’s presidential election, with the first round set for October 4. Polls show a close race between left-wing incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro. A second vote is scheduled for October 25.

Last week, Lula’s election campaign warned that US President Donald Trump wanted to “colonize” the South American country and gain control of its natural resources by interfering in the upcoming vote.

US social media giant Meta, meanwhile, blocked the advertising account used by Lula’s campaign on Facebook, preventing it from running new ads just days before the first round. The campaign said the tech giant provided no explanation for the step, and demanded that access be restored, threatening legal action and describing the restriction as another example of alleged Big Tech interference in the vote.

Tensions between the US and Latin America’s largest economy have been soaring for months, as Trump fiercely backed right-wing former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro during his trial over a plot to overturn his 2022 election defeat and keep himself in power.

The two countries are also locked in a dispute over commerce. The US imposed an additional 25% tariff on certain Brazilian goods in July after a trade investigation accused Brazil of a litany of unreasonable practices. Washington also revoked the Brazilian ambassador’s visa in August as tensions escalated during the election campaign.

On Thursday, Washington suspended consular services at its diplomatic missions in Brazil, citing unspecified security concerns.

In recent days, Ukrainian and Western media have been talking a lot about Operation Vivaldi – purportedly a major offensive by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) in the Liman sector.

Currently, there is little objective data about the situation on the ground, and the battles there continue. Therefore, we will cover the events around Liman in a separate report.

Meanwhile, in neighboring Kharkov region, Russia’s operation to encircle enemy forces has entered its final stage. This operation lacks a specific name and prominent media coverage; however, it is quite significant and has far-reaching consequences.

A security zone along the border

Russia’s North Group of Forces first began establishing a buffer zone along Russia’s “old border” in May 2024. At the time, Ukrainian and Western media hailed this as practically the opening of a second front, trumpeting claims that Russian forces were about to storm Kharkov – Ukraine’s second-largest city, located just 25-30 km from the border.

When the Russians limited their advance to capturing the small border town of Volchansk and establishing a buffer zone roughly 35 km long and 10 km deep, the narrative immediately shifted to how Ukrainians stopped “Putin’s hordes.”

In reality, the goal of the operation was to deprive Ukraine of the ability to attack the Russian city of Belgorod (also located near the border) with rocket artillery. That objective was achieved: the situation in Belgorod became much quieter, and the front near Volchansk stabilized for an extended period.

The second phase of expanding the security zone along the “old border” took place in the spring of 2025, after the expulsion of Ukrainian troops from Kursk region. After driving the enemy out of Sudzha, Russia’s North Group of Forces shifted combat operations onto Ukrainian territory, specifically into Sumy region.

Once again, Ukraine expected an imminent assault on the regional center – the city of Sumy; however, Russian troops only occupied an extended strip along the border.

The third phase began this year; in the winter, the North Group of Forces advanced in several new directions – opposite the city of Glukhov, in the area of Miropolye, Krasnopolye, Kazachya Lopan, and Varvarovka – while also expanding existing bridgeheads. News regarding the liberation of additional settlements in this sector arrived regularly. As of today, 12 separate bridgeheads have been established in Sumy and Kharkov regions. Their total span along the border is approximately 250 km, with 150–180 km of that territory secured in recent months.

Volchansk and further south

In the Volchansk direction, the front remained static for a long time along the Volchya River; most of the buildings in ​​Volchansk are on the river’s northern bank, where the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) maintained a presence near the aggregate plant.

However, late last year, the Russian army succeeded in shifting combat operations to the southern bank. Following the liberation of the remainder of Volchansk, the important town of Vilcha was captured (this is Ukraine’s youngest town, built from scratch in the early 1990s for people relocated from from the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone). Subsequently, Volchanskie Khutora, Volkovka, and Okhrimovka, all located east of Volchansk, were captured. 

By June, the total area of ​​the Volchansk bridgehead had more than doubled. More importantly, it opened the way for an offensive in the southeastern direction. Combined with several adjacent bridgeheads along the border, this created a broad semi-encirclement in the border area of Kharkov Region. 

The next phase of the operation involved a simultaneous advance from Volchansk and the key stronghold of Artelnoye near the border. 

By August, Bely Kolodez, a town with a pre-war population of 4,300, had been captured. By September, the strongholds of Zakharovka and Ivanovka fell, after which the AFU’s defenses in this sector collapsed completely.

The cauldron

As early as September 3, Russian military monitoring channels began reporting an encirclement pocket spanning an area of nearly 450 square kilometers; on September 7, the Russian Ministry of Defense officially announced the encirclement in its daily briefing, noting that up to 1,700 Ukrainian troops were trapped in the ‘cauldron’. 

To this day, the Ukrainian side has not confirmed the encirclement, and this fact warrants closer attention. Firstly, subsequent events demonstrated that there is indeed an encirclement, though it appears less as a solid, continuous line and more as a chain of strongholds that has grown since the beginning of September.

Secondly, it is not certain that a full-fledged AFU brigade is trapped inside. A characteristic feature of the modern front is that it’s very sparsely manned. This applies to both sides, but even more so to the AFU.

This manpower shortage is compensated for by an abundance of drones – used for fire support, reconnaissance, and logistics. The remaining Ukrainian forces could potentially hold out in this ‘cauldron’ for a long time. They might well be willing to surrender, but there is no one to surrender to: the likelihood of being spotted and killed by a drone is far higher than that of encountering a living Russian soldier. Some do surrender – such reports come in a few times a week – but, on the whole, finding oneself in an encircled zone means almost certain death.

After the encirclement

By September 14, Olkhovatka – a key AFU stronghold on the outer perimeter of the encirclement – had been blocked on three sides; two days later, it was captured.  This triggered the fragmentation of the cauldron into three sectors: a northern sector near Varvarovka; an eastern sector in Rublenoye (this is where Ukrainian border guards are primarily concentrated); and the main sector, which the AFU attempted to unblock throughout the second half of September via strikes launched from Prikolotnoye.

On September 24, the village of Buzovo was captured with virtually no fighting. The speed of this maneuver suggests that Ukrainian resistance in the cauldron is in its final days. 

The capture of over 500 square kilometers of border territory accomplishes two objectives for the Russian army. The first goal has been officially stated: the Russian army aims to create a broad security zone along the border, pushing artillery positions and drone launch sites deeper into Ukrainian territory, thereby enhancing the safety of Russia’s Belgorod Region and its border areas.

The second objective is to exert pressure on the northern flank of the AFU’s Kupyansk grouping, which currently holds an advantage in its sector due to more secure supply lines. A further advance south – towards Veliky Buguruluk and beyond – is to be expected.

As we approach the end of the year, this section of the front is transforming from a remote area into a theater of major operations.

Crowds of protesters jeered at NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, after the US-led military bloc was awarded the Westphalian Peace Prize on Thursday. 

The prize, awarded by the Economic Society for Westphalia and Lippe, commemorates the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War and legally enshrined the modern concept of the nation state. 

Rutte, known among protestors as the “Lying Dutchman,” collected the award in the German city of Munster on Thursday on behalf of the interventionist US-led military bloc. 

Speaking at the ceremony, North Rhine-Westphalia Minister-President Hendrik Wust declared that “military strength can prevent war and preserve peace,” and that “NATO has demonstrated for more than 75 years that strength secures peace.”

Protesters gathered outside Munster Town Hall disagreed. When the Dutchman, the German, and other dignitaries stepped onto the balcony, below which a blue-blazered band played, they were met with chants of “murderers” and “blood on your hands” from the square below (perhaps the greatest show of anger in the town since the anabaptists in 1534).

The NATO chief and the German chancellor gritted their teeth and smiled and waved through the boos and whistles.

Wust’s speech did not mention NATO’s bombing campaigns against Serbia in 1995 and 1999, or its bombing and subsequent breaking up of Libya in 2011. More recently, NATO exercises on Russia’s Kaliningrad border have been interpreted as reckless provocations by the Kremlin, with the Russian Foreign Ministry reminding NATO leadership this week that Kaliningrad is integral Russian territory, which Moscow is prepared to defend with “all its arsenal, including nuclear weapons.”

Less than 24 hours earlier, Rutte declared that NATO’s European members should have attacked Iran on behalf of the US and Israel. “Europe was not able to take out the nuclear capability of Iran. We couldn’t. We didn’t have the capabilities. In ten years, we can and we should…it should be us doing this, not the Americans,” he said at a Euronews summit in Brussels.

Merz took the opportunity to swipe at his political rivals too, falsely claiming the AfD – currently Germany’s most popular political party – is “Russian-backed.”  

“A peace prize for a military alliance – at first glance, that seems contradictory, but in fact it is entirely logical,” he reasoned. “It protects our freedom, it protects our security, it protects our prosperity, and it serves the cause of peace in Europe.”

The organizers of the Westphalian Peace Prize did not always share NATO’s confrontational stance toward Russia. Two years ago, the prize was awarded to French President Emmanuel Macron for “his diplomatic skill in maintaining dialogue with the Russian leadership despite serious upheavals.”

Algeria’s lower house of parliament has approved expanding the death penalty to cover forest and field arson and crimes against children. The North African country retains capital punishment, but no executions have been carried out since 1993.

The People’s National Assembly moved to make the amendments to the Penal Code on Thursday. The legislation must still pass the Council of the Nation, parliament’s upper house, before taking effect.

“The adoption of the death penalty for these acts is the appropriate legal response to curb these crimes,” Justice Minister Lotfi Boudjemaa said following the vote.

The legislation introduces capital punishment for “anyone who deliberately sets fire to forests, bushes, or fields, whether planted, unplanted, trees, or parts of forests” and timber stored within forest areas. The amendments would raise the maximum punishment for such offenses from 20 years in prison to death. Algerian law already allowed the death penalty for arson if the fire resulted in a person’s death.

The changes follow a wave of deadly wildfires that swept parts of Algeria in late summer. At least 12 people were killed, while on August 27 alone, Civil Protection recorded 193 fires across several provinces. Three days later, President Abdelmadjid Tebboune instructed the justice minister to amend the Penal Code to expand the application of capital punishment for arson.

The amendments also apply capital punishment to certain forms of intentional destruction of public or private property carried out on behalf of foreign parties in cases involving treason, espionage, or organized crime, according to Algeria Press Service (APS).

The revised code expands the use of the death penalty for crimes against children, prescribing capital punishment for anyone who abducts, tortures or sexually assaults a child or amputates one of a child’s limbs. Those convicted of the offenses would also be barred from invoking mitigating circumstances.

The tougher penalties for crimes against children were added to the proposed amendments in early September, amid public outrage over the killing of a five-year-old boy in Blida Province. The authorities have also linked the measure to an increase in such crimes in recent years, without providing nationwide figures.

The NADA Network for the Defense of Children’s Rights has estimated that around 1,000 children in Algeria are victims of abductions or attempted abductions each year, according to figures cited in a 2026 academic study.

In Algeria, capital punishment is already provided for offenses including murder and certain terrorism and state-security crimes. In 2025, its scope was expanded to cover several drug-related offenses. Algerian courts have continued to hand down death sentences, but no executions have been carried out for more than 30 years.

The death penalty remains on the books in a number of African countries, although most have either abolished it or stopped carrying out executions. 

Amnesty International criticized the bill and urged Algeria’s upper house to reject it. The group called the move a “dangerous step backwards” and warned that it comes alongside government statements indicating that executions could resume after more than three decades.

Washington has waived human rights conditions on $320 million in military aid to Egypt, citing the North African country’s assistance during the US-Israeli war against Iran. The move comes despite continuing concerns over Cairo’s treatment of government critics.

The State Department confirmed the decision on Thursday, saying top diplomat Marco Rubio approved the waiver “in the interest of US national security.” It cited Egypt’s importance to Washington and security cooperation between the countries, AP reported.

A September 21 letter to congressional committees, cited by Reuters and AP, said Rubio “has made a determination to waive the certification requirement with respect to $320 million in FY 2025 Foreign Military Financing for Egypt.” An accompanying September 4 memo described the decision as essential to US security priorities, “particularly in light of Egypt’s helpful role following Operation Epic Fury.”

The memo did not explain that role. Operation Epic Fury is Washington’s name for the campaign launched alongside Israel against Iran on February 28. The war has killed thousands across the region, disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and driven up energy prices. Egypt has been working with other countries to mediate between Washington and Tehran. Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty discussed proposals to de-escalate the conflict with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, in New York on September 24, urging renewed US-Iran negotiations and safeguards for international shipping, according to Egypt’s Foreign Ministry.

Egypt has received around $1.3 billion annually in US military aid since the late 1980s, following its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, which formally ended decades of conflict between the two countries. Part of the funding requires certification of progress on human rights and democracy, subject to national security waivers. The military financing enables Egypt to buy US-made weapons.

The announcement comes after Egyptian security forces arrested six journalists from Matsadaash, an independent fact-checking and investigative outlet, late last month. The Interior Ministry accused the platform of spreading misinformation and having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement banned in Egypt as a terrorist organization since 2013. Matsadaash denied any political affiliation.

US-based democracy watchdog Freedom House rates Egypt “Not Free,” with 18 out of 100 points for political rights and civil liberties in its 2026 report. It claims government critics risk prosecution and imprisonment, and that press freedom and public assembly are tightly restricted. Human Rights Watch’s February report also accused Egyptian security forces of torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial executions. Egyptian authorities say they are improving rights, with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi emphasizing stability and meeting basic needs.

Aid restrictions have previously strained relations between Washington and Cairo. In 2013, the US suspended $260 million in cash assistance and deliveries of tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, and missiles after Egypt’s army removed its first democratically elected president, Mohamed Mursi, amid mass protests. Cairo condemned the decision and said it would not bow to American pressure.

The administration of former US President Joe Biden also withheld portions of Egypt’s military aid over human rights concerns before approving its full allocation in September 2024. It waived conditions on $225 million and released another $95 million after certifying progress on political prisoner releases, citing Cairo’s Gaza ceasefire mediation.

The US is pressuring France and Germany to tap emergency diesel reserves to help bring down soaring global prices, and has threatened not to export the fuel if they refuse, Reuters has reported.

Washington wants the EU to release 120 million barrels over the next six months as US President Donald Trump seeks to reduce domestic fuel costs ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Diesel prices have surged to record highs in both the US and the EU. Average US prices topped $6.50 per gallon in the third week of September, up $2.60 from a year earlier, according to the US Energy Information Administration, while EU prices climbed to €2.23 per liter, European Commission data shows.

The US fuel crunch has become particularly severe in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott declared a statewide disaster on Sunday over soaring diesel prices and supply disruptions. Some filling stations have run short of diesel, while tight supplies have forced others to ration fuel or raise prices sharply.

The order temporarily eased fuel and trucking restrictions, including allowing wider use of untaxed dyed diesel on public roads.

The US-Israeli war on Iran has disrupted Middle Eastern supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, while Russia, one of the world’s largest diesel exporters, has restricted shipments to protect domestic supplies after Ukrainian drone attacks damaged its refineries. China has also suspended October fuel exports to bolster domestic stocks.

Washington threatens EU with diesel export ban

Washington has stepped up pressure on Paris and Berlin, with the Trump administration particularly “frustrated” with France and Germany for failing to fully follow through on earlier commitments to release emergency oil and petroleum-product stocks, the outlet said on Thursday, citing people familiar with discussions.

“It is in Europe’s best interest to work with the United States as we pursue multiple pathways to boost the supply of refined products and lower costs for consumers,” a US official told Reuters.

The threat comes as Trump said earlier this week that Washington was “very seriously” considering restricting US diesel exports to force down domestic prices ahead of the midterms.

 A ban could hit Europe particularly hard, given that the EU has mostly cut itself off from Russian fuel and become increasingly reliant on US supplies.

Europe cornered by diesel crunch

European diesel imports already fell to a record low of around 1 million barrels per day in September, with seaborne shipments more than 25% below last year’s levels, according to Vortexa data. Russia, which accounted for around 9.5% of global diesel exports before the latest restrictions, has extended its export curbs through October.

The US supplied 41% of Europe’s diesel imports in September, shipping around 400,000 barrels per day, according to Vortexa. US diesel exports themselves remained close to record levels at around 1.6 million barrels per day during the month. Soaring fuel costs have already hit several European economies particularly hard, including Finland, Denmark, Greece and Germany, while France has reported shortages at some filling stations.

European refineries are already running at near-maximum capacity, according to the European Commission. Fuel distribution is also being squeezed by exceptionally low water levels on the Rhine caused by drought, restricting tanker shipments into Europe’s interior.

In a bid to replace lost supplies, French President Emmanuel Macron earlier this month asked European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to temporarily relax EU diesel-quality rules and increase the use of bio-components, a move that could boost output by up to 20%.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Thursday he was “highly confident” Europe would release more fuel, arguing that additional supplies were needed ahead of the winter heating and harvest seasons. “Now’s the time to bring more diesel to the market, and that diesel is available,” he told Fox News.

Crisis talks turn to emergency stocks

European governments held back-to-back emergency talks as they sought a response to the deepening diesel crunch amid mounting US pressure to release reserves. Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the European Commission discussed a possible drawdown on Thursday, before EU countries and the Commission reconvened for crisis talks on Friday.

European Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen said a fresh release was “a possibility,” while Ireland, which holds the rotating EU Council presidency, described the diesel market as “very tight.”

The requested 120 million barrels would amount to roughly 40% of the EU’s emergency diesel stocks, based on the latest available Eurostat data from May 2025. France and Germany together held about 35% of the bloc’s strategic diesel reserves.

Europe has already tapped emergency stocks once this year, committing 107.5 million barrels to the IEA’s record March release, with 68% of its contribution coming in refined products. Comparable 2026 figures showing how much emergency diesel remains have not yet been published.

IEA chief Fatih Birol has urged European countries to make use of their diesel stocks, while Berlin said the agency has not yet formally asked Germany to release reserves.

France is also pushing for a coordinated response. Macron spoke with Trump about the energy crisis overnight, with the French presidency saying both sides favored coordinated action “without export restrictions.” France has reportedly proposed that European countries release 50 million barrels of diesel, while IEA members would release another 50 million barrels of crude.

EU governments have also discussed making any further diesel release conditional on a US commitment not to impose a unilateral export ban.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, who is dealing with a major hole in his country’s budget and high-profile corruption scandals in his government, has criticized Kiev’s Western backers for their reluctance to provide him with more money.

Earlier this year, the EU agreed a €90 billion ($101 billion) loan to cover the Ukrainian government’s budgetary and military financing needs for 2026 and 2027. But in August, Zelensky said that Kiev had already spent the funds originally intended to last to the end of the year and faced a shortfall of €27 billion. The announcement came after the Ukrainian leader’s 40-day PR pressure campaign on Russia, which involved long-range strikes on energy and civilian infrastructure, failed to deliver the desired results and triggered a harsh response by Moscow.

In an interview with the Financial Times published on Friday, Zelensky complained that the acute budget deficit is stopping Ukraine from developing and manufacturing some key weapons.

When asked if he believed that his foreign supporters were doing all they could to assist, the Ukrainian leader replied: “Not enough, of course not enough.”

The FT noted that the introduction of faster jet-powered drones by Russia in recent weeks had become an additional challenge for Ukraine, which is already experiencing a shortage of US-made Patriot interceptors and other air defenses.

Zelensky acknowledged that a lack of money to purchase engines for interceptor UAVs was one of the hurdles. “We really import a lot of engines. There are some engines of our production, but not enough,” he said.

A Russian drone and missile campaign against military-related targets in Ukraine intensified this year in response to terrorist attacks by Kiev, crippling its energy infrastructure and leading to blackouts and fuel shortages. It has also destroyed most of the country’s storage spaces, affecting the supply of food and other goods. Wheat and other exports have also been reduced significantly by attacks on the port of Odessa and Ukraine-bound vessels in the Black Sea, leaving Zelensky’s government almost entirely dependent on foreign aid.

Bloomberg reported on Thursday that the EU turned down Ukraine’s plea to speed up the payouts of its loan. Officials in Brussels expressed belief that doing so would not solve the problem, but only delay it until 2027, the agency said. The bloc suggested that Kiev’s other partners, including Canada and Japan, could provide the funds to cover its pressing needs, it added.

EU bureaucrats were surprised to learn that Ukraine ran out of money so fast, according to Bloomberg. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned earlier this year that the bloc’s loan to Kiev would be swiftly plundered by Zelensky and other corrupt officials from his team.

On Thursday, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) reported about a scheme involving the supply of EU-funded handguns to Ukrainian security services at prices inflated threefold. Kiev and it Western backers are “traditionally” plugging the $27-billion hole in Ukraine’s budget “using funds taken from ordinary citizens of European states,” the SVR said.

The captain of the FlyDubai plane who was allegedly attacked by his co-pilot has recounted to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi how he summoned his strength to open the cockpit door while his colleague was raining blows on him with the plane’s emergency crash axe.

Speaking to Modi on a video call from his hospital bed in Abu Dhabi on Thursday, Machchhar said he had fallen on the cockpit floor, but realized he had to get up as he felt the aircraft dive out of control.

“I was fighting for my life,” he told Modi. “But there was a moment when I realized – because I had fallen and sustained so many injuries, that I was lying on the ground – that if I didn’t get up ... I just opened it, sir; the others arrived.”

“One last push, Smit. Do it,” Machchhar recalled telling himself. “The door is right there.”

The pilot, with 17 years of flying experience, added that the passengers and crew who intervened played an equally important role in securing the aircraft.

FlyDubai FZ1073 from Dubai to Tel Aviv was carrying 174 passengers and eight crew members when the co-pilot allegedly attacked Machchhar on Wednesday. The aircraft plunged around 14,000 feet in less than 30 seconds with no one at the controls. After the attacker was overpowered, two other FlyDubai pilots traveling aboard took the controls and the plane made an emergency landing in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Modi praised the captain’s courage and presence of mind, saying he had prioritized the passengers’ lives despite fighting for his own. He told Machchhar that people across India were praying for his recovery and looking forward to welcoming him home.

The captain became emotional as he recalled his ordeal and apologized to the prime minister for tearing up. But Modi comforted him, “If you can’t get emotional in front of me, where else can you?”

Machchhar said he had recited the Hanuman Chalisa, a Hindu devotional hymn, during the emergency and continued to turn to prayer whenever he experienced pain. He also spoke about his two-year-old son, who joins him during morning prayers, and the importance of maintaining Indian cultural traditions while living abroad.

Modi said he had spoken with Machchhar’s parents and wife and praised their composure. The captain thanked Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for his medical care.

Preliminary Saudi investigations have indicated that the co-pilot assaulted the captain, and both men were injured in the scuffle that followed. UAE authorities are investigating the circumstances and motive behind the incident, including whether it was linked to terrorism.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has rewarded her personal communications adviser with a permanent job in the commission’s media department, in a move that reveals how the EU bureaucracy really works, and how von der Leyen has created a royal court in Brussels.

Von der Leyen’s College of Commissioners – the 27 unelected bureaucrats who run the EU’s executive branch – met on Wednesday and signed off on the appointment of Jens Flosdorff as the bloc’s new ‘Director for Citizens Communication’.

Flosdorff was given the role after a “merit based and very highly competitive selection procedure,” the commission said in a statement. According to the EU-focused Rapporteur news site, however, Flosdorff was parachuted into the role by von der Leyen, whom he served for more than two decades as ‘personal communications adviser’. 

Flosdorff’s new position will net him a largely tax-free salary of €216,000 ($245,279) per year, plus expenses and benefits. 

Those with a memory of the Soviet Union, or an appreciation of Gogol or Bulgakov, might muster a quiet laugh at the appointment for life of a long-time confidant of Ursula von der Leyen to the well-paid and unassailable post of ‘Director for Citizens Communication’. However, a closer look at the EU’s communications apparatus reveals levels of bureaucratic redundancy beyond the wildest imagination of the great Russian absurdists.

From Byzantium to Brussels 

In his new role, Flosdorff will lead “lead the Commission’s citizens communication actions

and the analysis of public opinion,” according to the job advertisement that the commission was legally required to post before handing the sinecure to von der Leyen’s man. This presumably involves the crafting of youth outreach campaigns and commissioning of Eurobarometer polls, but the rest is unclear.

Sophia Eriksson Waterschoot, who currently occupies the role in an acting capacity, “refused to say what the job entailed” when asked by Rapporteur.

Waterschoot stepped in when previous Director for Citizens Communication Stefan de Keersmaecker was named ‘Director for Political Communication’ late last year. The differences between these two roles are blurred, with both responsible for social media campaigns, both analyzing media and public opinion, and both pushing the commission’s message (one as a ‘rapid response’ outfit, and the other organizing longer-term campaigns).

Both directors lead separate departments within the commission’s ‘Directorate-General for Communication’ (DG-COMM), and together employ around 500 people. DG-COMM has a yearly budget – excluding salaries – of €116 million, and it’s not the only communications department on the commission’s books: most of the commission’s 41 directorates-general have their own in-house spin offices too, which sometimes collaborate with the ‘citizens’ and ‘political’ bureaus of DG-COMM.

If that wasn’t complicated enough, none of these departments write von der Leyen’s speeches. That task falls to her personal speechwriter, Lorenzo Biondi, who announced his retirement on Wednesday.

This is the last speech I drafted for @vonderleyen.

After 7 years with the President and 5 with @federicamog, time for a new beginning.

Back in Rome as head of publications at @IAIonline.

So much gratitude for all that Brussels has given me… stay tuned https://t.co/dgKTZZIMhE

— Lorenzo Biondi (@lorbiondi) September 29, 2026

Biondi is leaving the commission for a job at the Institute of International Affairs, an Italian think tank. But it’s not a straightforward move from the public to the private sector. The Institute of International Affairs’ Europe-focused work is funded almost entirely by the European Commission. There is now just an extra middleman between him and his former employer.

Queen Ursula’s court

Atop this bureaucratic superstructure, von der Leyen has consolidated her power. Her efforts go beyond appointing her loyalists to lucrative lifetime gigs: von der Leyen began the year by appointing 26 commissioners without running the list past the European Parliament first, as well as deliberately withholding budget and internal market strategy documents from member states until hours before publication, making deliberation impossible.

Former European Council President Charles Michel has described her governance as “super authoritarian.” Surrounded by a “tight-knit” and “micromanaged” circle of mostly German advisers, including Flosdorff, von der Leyen has reduced her commissioners to little more than administrators, whose opinions and criticisms rarely make it past her advisers.

Von der Leyen is “obsessed with demonstrating that she’s in charge,” and “is constantly jumping into the middle of the latest crisis, even when it’s outside her remit,” unnamed EU diplomats complained to Bloomberg in May. 

Some of the commission chief’s ambitions are grand – she has pushed for the creation of an intelligence agency answering to her office, and backed a Franco-German plan to strip some of chief diplomat Kaja Kallas’ foreign policy powers. Others are more petty. On the day of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration last year, every commissioner under von der Leyen reportedly received strict instructions from Flosdorff: their own communications teams were only allowed to repost von der Leyen’s message to Trump on social media, without adding any comments of their own.

All of this is to illustrate two characteristics of the European Commission under von der Leyen. Firstly, with its jobs for life, its three-dozen communications departments, and its web of interconnected think tanks, it is a bloated organism whose reform would be a generational undertaking. 

Secondly, with its unelected president controlling everything from job appointments and social media posts to foreign policy and intelligence gathering, it is an autocracy so at odds with its democratic rhetoric that it requires 43 communications offices to explain away its contradictions to the public.

Meta Platforms is facing between $35 billion and $40 billion in civil penalties from the US state of New Mexico, Reuters has reported. At the upper end, the fine would rank as the largest financial penalty ever imposed on a US corporation.

The case stems from the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, which erupted after a whistleblower revealed that the British political consulting firm had obtained data from tens of millions of Facebook users without their consent through a third-party app.

The data was used to profile voters and target them with political messaging, including during Donald Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign. Cambridge Analytica filed for bankruptcy months later, while Facebook faced billions of dollars in fines and compensation claims over its handling of user data.

It comes a week after a jury found the Facebook parent company liable for misleading statements about the privacy of users’ data.

The jury in Santa Fe found that Meta had willfully deceived consumers, resulting in more than 43 million breaches of the state’s consumer protection law. The violations were deemed to have affected the state’s entire population of some two million people.

Attorneys for Meta and New Mexico clashed over the appropriate penalty, with the company arguing that the up to $40 billion sought by the state did not match the conduct at issue in the trial, Reuters reported Wednesday. The news agency said that Judge Francis Mathew is expected to rule later this month on how much Meta must pay.

The ruling marks Meta’s latest major legal defeat in New Mexico. In March, another Santa Fe jury found the company liable for 75,000 violations related to child safety and ordered $375 million in penalties. A local judge later deemed Meta’s platforms a “public nuisance” and ordered it to pay additional $567 million. The corporation has said it will appeal.

Meta’s legal exposure stretches beyond the state of New Mexico. In August, it agreed to pay roughly $17 billion to settle claims brought by dozens of US states and territories that it deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to addict children and misled the public about the associated risks. The deal also included claims stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but New Mexico did not join the settlement, allowing its case to proceed to trial.

Meta, which operates Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads, is not alone in facing scrutiny over Big Tech’s data practices. Last month, TikTok and its parent company ByteDance agreed to pay $400 million to settle US allegations that the platform illegally collected children’s personal data without parental consent. Google, Apple, Netflix and other tech giants have also been involved in privacy-related litigation.

A US drone company linked to President Donald Trump’s sons wants to bring Ukrainian military technology to America, Reuters has reported, as Kiev pursues billions in arms exports despite multiple corruption scandals in its procurement programs.

Powerus is negotiating with Ukrainian defense firms and wants to manufacture their technology in the US, potentially including long-range attack drones. Its Guardian interceptors, introduced in March, were also jointly developed with Ukrainian partners, according to company president Brett Velicovich.

The company completed a merger with golf course operator Aureus Greenway Holdings on Thursday. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump hold an indirect investment in Aureus through American Ventures, which regulatory filings projected would own 9.9% of the combined business.

Velicovich, a former US Army Special Operations intelligence analyst, told Reuters he wants Powerus to become a “one-stop solution” for the Pentagon, offering foreign technology with an “American face.”

Company executives and representatives of the brothers say they are passive investors with no operational role. However, Powerus adviser Keith Kellogg, Trump’s former Ukraine envoy, said “it never hurts to have their name on something.”

Powerus has secured a US Air Force contract with a ceiling of $90 million, although purchases are not guaranteed. It has also received an initial Pakistani order for drones and associated support.

Kiev has meanwhile been seeking billions in weapons-export revenue while continuing to rely heavily on Western military and financial assistance. Vladimir Zelensky has announced overseas export hubs and previously touted a proposed US drone agreement worth $10-30 billion.

Kiev’s weapons export ambitions come as multiple corruption scandals have rocked its military procurement system, including programs intended to supply drones to its own forces.

On September 23, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) announced new charges in a case involving border guard officials and a private supplier. Investigators say a manufacturer won a drone tender by offering a lower price, only for a rival working with officials to demand $1 million to allow the contract and equipment deliveries to proceed.

In a separate investigation, NABU said in August that suspected losses from drone purchases reached approximately $5.7 million. Investigators alleged prices were inflated by 60-90%, competing bids were staged, and illicit proceeds were transferred to company accounts, including abroad.

European officials have also raised concerns over weapons supplied to Kiev disappearing and potentially reaching criminal networks.

The US and India are not on the cusp of a trade deal despite negotiations nearing completion, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on Thursday following talks with Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal in Milwaukee.

The two sides have identified the remaining sticking points and are working to resolve them, Greer told reporters after the G20 Trade Ministers’ Meeting. “I don’t think there is something imminent,” he said, adding, “We’re in the short strokes” and that negotiations were approaching their final stages. He did not specify which issues remained unresolved.

Greer described his meeting with Goyal as constructive and said officials from both countries were continuing discussions. The Indian minister said the talks focused on concluding an interim agreement under the broader India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA).

The meeting came on the heels of a phone call between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump on Wednesday. The leaders reviewed cooperation in trade, defense, energy, and critical technologies. Greer called their conversation “very constructive” and said the two leaders could speak again soon to assess progress.

India and the US agreed on a framework for an interim trade agreement in February, but subsequent changes in Washington’s tariff policies have prolonged negotiations. The framework envisaged lower Indian tariffs on US industrial and selected agricultural products, alongside tariff relief for certain Indian exports.

Goyal said last week that the pact was almost “done and dusted,” but its implementation depended on India securing competitive tariff treatment relative to rival exporters.

The negotiations are also taking place amid renewed US tariff pressure over India’s Russian oil purchases. Trump signed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act last month, authorizing tariffs of up to 100% on major buyers of Russian energy.

New Delhi has warned that such measures could affect bilateral relations and international energy markets. Greer did not identify Russian oil as one of the remaining obstacles to the trade agreement.

Washington is sending more warships and troops to the Middle East as US President Donald Trump is considering the resumption of large-scale strikes against Iran after the midterms, AP has reported.

Trump told reporters on Thursday that he has “to make a decision: either Iran signs a very fair deal, or it won’t exist any longer.” In a Time magazine interview published the same day, he said that new attacks on the Islamic Republic were “possible” after the US election on November 3, but declined to reveal any further details.

In its article on Thursday, AP said that a third aircraft carrier and some 9,000 additional service members, including 7,000 sailors and 2,000 marines, are currently on their way to the area of the conflict with Iran.

It would increase the US military presence in the Middle East to more than 20,000, which is “an unusually high number,” it stressed.

The forces on the move include the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group, with the cruiser USS Chosin and the USS Makin Island amphibious readiness group, which includes the USS John P. Murtha and USS Anchorage amphibious landing ships, an unnamed American official told the agency.

With the USS George H.W. Bush and the USS George Washington already being deployed, three US aircraft carriers could be in the Middle East simultaneously as early as the end of October, according to the source.

Washington last had as many carriers in the region in April at the height of the American-Israeli missile exchanges with Iran. Before that, it happened back in 2003.

Axios reported on Friday, citing a US official, that it wasn’t yet clear if the USS Theodore Roosevelt would join the two carriers or replace one of them.

Washington also sent two additional Patriot missile batteries to protect oil and gas facilities in Saudi Arabia and Qatar in recent weeks, according to Axios. It was done to make it easier to get permission from Riyadh to use Saudi airspace for possible strikes on Iran, the outlet explained.

When asked by Time if the conflict with Tehran would harm the Republican Party’s chances in the midterms, Trump first acknowledged that “it’s possible,” but then said that “it should help, because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

A poll by AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, which was published on Thursday, suggested that some 70% of Americans disapprove of the war with Iran.

After the initial US-Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic in late February, Trump claimed that the conflict will be over in a few weeks, but it’s still ongoing, with the diplomatic process remaining in a stalemate.

Trump told Time that he rejected Iran’s latest peace proposal, made during the UN General Assembly last week, because “things that I wouldn’t have approved a year ago I wouldn’t have today.”

In September, Iranian Parliament speaker and top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned that further aggressive actions by the US will be met with “faster, heavier and more painful” retaliation by Tehran.

“The Americans have surely understood that the era of proportionate responses has come to an end and our recent strikes against aggressor bases were only a start,” Ghalibaf said.

Reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignored warnings from Egypt and the UAE shortly before the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack should not be assumed to doom him politically, US President Donald Trump has said.

The Israeli leader, whose Likud party is facing a difficult election in late October, has been accused of either failing to properly assess the threat posed by Gaza militants or deliberately allowing the attack to happen in order to justify a major military campaign against the Palestinian enclave.

Trump commented on the allegations and Netanyahu’s record of political survival in an interview with Time magazine published on Thursday.

“People have written off Bibi many, many times, just like they’ve written off me many, many times. I wouldn't underestimate Bibi,” Trump said.

He said his primary concern is “to help them defend Israel,” and suggested that if Netanyahu knew about an imminent attack, “he would have done something about it.”

Netanyahu losing sway in US media

The latest wave of accusations against Netanyahu was triggered by a Haaretz report in early September claiming UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed had warned him that Hamas was preparing a major attack. According to the outlet, Netanyahu downplayed the warning and did not pass it on to his security chiefs. Reports about a separate Egyptian warning date back to the immediate aftermath of the incursion three years ago.

Netanyahu’s office has rejected the claims. The Associated Press reported this week that the Israeli prime minister sought to persuade the UAE leader to publicly deny the story during a surprise visit to the Arab nation over the weekend.

The allegations have become a major political issue in Israel and have also received significant coverage in the US mainstream and international media.

MS Now host Mika Brzezinski said Israel’s border with Gaza was “wide open, the gates were empty” on the day of the attack, arguing that the Israeli government “had practically opened the door” by moving security forces to the West Bank.

“Netanyahu was warned repeatedly that it was coming, and yet he continued funding Hamas through Qatar,” her husband and co-host Joe Scarborough added.

Brzezinski and Scarborough are part of the US media establishment and are consistent pro-Israeli voices on cable television, whose criticisms of Netanyahu indicate he is losing sway in the US.

In August, Netanyahu claimed personal credit for influencing American policy, saying that his nearly 1,000 hours of appearances on American television had helped him shape opinion in Washington and eventually bring the Trump administration around to attacking Iran.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has “very good ideas” for ending the Ukraine conflict and has repeatedly pressed for its peaceful settlement, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Modi has refused to take sides in the conflict, despite pressure from the West to isolate Russia. This neutrality has given India the room to discuss the need for a peaceful end to the conflict with both Moscow and Kiev.

Putin told the annual Valdai Discussion Club meeting on Thursday that Modi raises the Ukraine conflict at every meeting between them, despite their close personal relationship, and has proposed ideas aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions. He thanked Modi for those efforts but did not disclose details of the proposals.

The Russian leader briefed Modi on the ongoing peace initiatives when they met on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in New Delhi last month, where the Indian prime minister reiterated his call for dialogue and diplomacy and said India stood ready to assist peace efforts.

❗️Putin: PM Modi Has Very Good Ideas for Finding Mutually Acceptable Solutions in Ukraine Conflict

‘We are grateful to the Prime Minister for his ideas and for his desire to end the conflict peacefully and as quickly as possible,’ Putin added. pic.twitter.com/o7BvzJ5EP7

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) October 1, 2026

At the earlier Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Modi told Putin, “We need to move from endless war to an end to the war.”

Moscow, too, has welcomed New Delhi’s efforts at peace. Ahead of the BRICS Summit, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia appreciates Indian initiatives to help end the conflict.

In an August interview with Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun, Modi said both Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky had shared their perspectives on the conflict with him. Putin said last week that proposals for a settlement remained on the table, although Moscow would have to assess them against its own interests.

Meanwhile, Washington has proposed a trilateral meeting with Russia and Ukraine in the United Arab Emirates, Zelensky said last week. The proposed talks would take place at a technical level, but a date has yet to be agreed. The Kremlin said such a meeting could take place soon.

For the Global South, energy security is no longer a policy talking point – it is a question of survival. With traditional shipping routes rattled by the Middle East conflict, developing countries are being hit by rising costs, broken supply chains, and shortages they did not create.

At the 81st UN General Assembly in September 2026, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and other leaders from the Global South made that frustration unmistakably clear: poorer nations are being squeezed by a deepening crisis across energy, food, fuel, fertilizer, finance, and logistics.

Nepalese Prime Minister Balen Shah put it starkly: “We have built a world with flawless logistics for war and broken logistics for food. And this is not Nepal’s private misfortune. Ask Bangladesh. Ask Bhutan. Ask India. Ask the Maldives. Ask Pakistan. Ask Sri Lanka. Ask any other country in our region and you will hear the same account: hit by the climate we did not warm, and hit again by the wars we did not start.”

Weeks earlier, on the other side of the world, BRICS leaders gathered in New Delhi had already framed the same problem in strategic terms. Their summit declaration called for stable energy markets, “undisrupted flows of energy from diverse sources,” and stronger protection of critical infrastructure.

Events soon put that ambition under strain. Drone attacks disrupted Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, an important route for moving crude to the Red Sea while bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. With loadings at Yanbu affected, Saudi Arabia began offering more crude to Asian buyers through ship-to-ship transfers off Oman. The episode showed how quickly even an alternative route can become vulnerable.

BRICS now includes some of the world’s biggest oil producers as well as major importers. Yet membership alone does not guarantee access to another member’s oil when supplies tighten. Producers may have other buyers, while prices and transport conditions can change quickly. The grouping has major oil resources. The harder part is making some of those barrels reliably available to members when supply pressures grow.

What Russian trade reveals

Russia is a useful example of how these energy ties can help during a shortage without guaranteeing supply. As Middle Eastern supplies became less reliable, Russian crude helped India make up some of the shortfall. In July, Russia accounted for a record 50.83% of India’s crude imports, showing how quickly buying patterns can change when supply is disrupted. But the increase in Russian supply did not amount to assured access. As Chinese refiners stepped up purchases, competition for Russian barrels intensified.

A separate analysis estimated India’s Russian crude imports falling to 1.87 million barrels a day in August from 2.79 million in July. Even when BRICS opens another source of supply, its members may still be bidding against one another for the same barrels.

Russian oil, however, now faces another constraint. US President Donald Trump earlier this month signed legislation authorizing tariffs of up to 100% on goods from major buyers of Russian energy, potentially including India and China. For major buyers such as India and China, sanctions now add another layer of uncertainty to securing Russian barrels.

Trade has also begun to flow the other way. After repeated Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries contributed to domestic fuel shortages, Russia began importing gasoline from India: according to data from Kpler, Russia’s Murmansk port received 40,000 tonnes of gasoline from Nayara Energy, 49% of which is controlled by Rosneft. By late August, Russian gasoline production had fallen to about 70% of domestic consumption as more refineries were forced to temporarily suspend operations or reduce output.

India’s shift toward more Russian crude, and Moscow’s later purchases of Indian gasoline, were both responses to supply disruptions that had already begun to unfold. They showed how quickly energy flows can adjust when circumstances change. BRICS could try to organize some of that flexibility in advance, rather than leaving its members to scramble for alternatives only after a disruption has started. That would make the group’s energy cooperation less reliant on improvisation.

Making stored oil usable in a crisis

One way to reduce that improvisation is to position oil closer to the buyer before it is urgently needed. India already has one such bilateral example. The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited already have a storage relationship at Mangalore. A May 2026 agreement explores increasing ADNOC crude stored in India to as much as 30 million barrels, including possible new storage at Visakhapatnam and Chandikhol. It also considers Indian strategic crude storage in Fujairah.

The arrangement is bilateral and does not give India a guaranteed right to all the stored crude in a crisis. Even so, it shows that a producer can place oil inside an importing country before a shortage hits. The harder part is agreeing beforehand how much of that oil the buyer could draw on.

One option is a voluntary emergency oil arrangement among interested BRICS members, rather than a common reserve for the entire grouping. Clear ownership is only one part of it. The importing country would also need a defined right to draw an agreed quantity when an emergency occurs. The terms could set how much oil is covered, where it is stored, and how it is priced. They would also spell out who can release it and how the stock is replaced. Refinery compatibility and transport would have to be worked out as well. This would remove some of the uncertainty before markets become even more difficult. India or any other buyer should not be negotiating access after ships have been diverted and prices have already jumped.

India is already working on some of these practical questions outside BRICS. A July India-Japan statement on energy resilience covers stockpiles, emergency response, supplies from third countries, and maritime transport. The India-Japan framework is different, but it shows that many of these operational questions can be worked through in advance. New Delhi therefore does not have to start from scratch. Some of those ideas could now be adapted to voluntary cooperation between BRICS producers and importers.

The test before the next summit

Getting hold of the oil is only part of the problem. The payment also must go through. BRICS finance ministers and central bank governors have already called for better cross-border payment systems. A promised barrel is of little use if the payment cannot be cleared when it is needed. Companies and banks should run payments through the agreed route beforehand and keep a backup ready.

The arrangement should then be put through realistic exercise. The New Delhi Declaration specifically welcomes the work of the BRICS Energy Research Cooperation Platform. There is no need to create another institution. The platform could work with participating oil ministries, national oil companies and storage operators on one or two pilots.

Suppose Hormuz traffic falls further just as a bypass pipeline is damaged and war-risk insurance becomes unavailable. If an importer invokes its agreed right to the oil, how long does it take for the stored crude to reach the refinery? The time it takes would show whether the arrangement is useful in a real emergency.

The New Delhi pledge will matter more if it works when supplies tighten. A member facing a shortage should be able to draw on an agreed volume without having to negotiate the terms again. That is where BRICS can begin to turn its promise of resilient energy flows into something members can use.

French President Emmanuel Macron has rejected what he described as “American free speech” as he defended the EU’s controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), which US officials have branded an instrument of censorship.

Speaking to reporters during a trip to Spain on Wednesday, Macron said he had asked the EU to enforce the DSA “much more extensively, much faster and much more forcefully” to tackle the spread of misinformation.

“So-called American ‘free speech’ – at least as it exists today and has been promoted by some people – is the opposite of free speech,” Macron said, arguing that individual freedoms come with responsibilities and respect for the freedoms of others.

“I know this when I walk down the street: my freedom cannot mean that I am free to hit you, insult you or vandalize the public space that belongs to everyone. Yet that is some people’s idea of ‘free speech,’” he added.

“Until we hold those who disseminate content on social media accountable, we will not be able to regulate it,” the French leader said. “When someone writes something – when a journalist writes something completely false or an editor publishes it – they can be held accountable.”

Adopted in 2022, the DSA requires online platforms such as Facebook, X, TikTok, Google and YouTube to address illegal content, increase transparency around advertising and algorithms, protect minors, and assess and mitigate systemic risks such as disinformation. The largest platforms face additional obligations and can be fined up to 6% of their worldwide annual turnover for violations.

In December 2025, the EU imposed its first fine under the DSA, ordering Elon Musk’s X to pay €120 million ($140 million) for violating the law. Last month, the US government backed X’s appeal, arguing that the bloc had overstepped its authority in targeting an American company.

“We will not tolerate the European Commission engaging in regulatory overreach to try and control American engines of innovation and economic growth,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the US Justice Department’s Civil Division.

US officials have accused the EU of eroding freedom of speech and attempting to silence dissenting voices for political reasons. “The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage,” US Vice President J.D. Vance wrote on X in December.

Last year, the US imposed visa restrictions on European officials and heads of online monitoring groups, including Thierry Breton, the former EU internal market commissioner and a key architect of the DSA. Breton compared the move to McCarthyism, the Cold War-era campaign in the US to purge suspected communists and alleged subversives.

US President Donald Trump has also faced accusations of restricting press freedom. Last month, he barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, accusing them of spreading “fake news.” A federal judge subsequently ordered their access restored, ruling that the outlets were likely to succeed in their claim that the ban was unconstitutional.

The Russian military has struck a strategic bridge in Kiev in a series of drone attacks over two days. Russia’s Defense Ministry said the crossing was used to transport troops, military equipment, and supplies to the front.

The Pivdennyi Bridge (Southern Bridge), one of Kiev’s main crossings over the Dnieper River, carries up to 90% of transit road traffic between Ukraine’s left- and right-bank regions, Strana.ua reported, citing a local official. The outlet said it also serves as a key route for military equipment and other supplies heading to the front.

The Russian Defense Ministry said on Friday that a “road and railway bridge” in Kiev had been hit in overnight strikes, saying it was “facilitating troop movements and the logistical delivery of military cargo for the Ukrainian military units in Donbass.”

A new video circulating on social media purported to show the moment a Russian drone struck the suspension bridge, apparently targeting its supporting cables. The footage shows a powerful explosion at the site.

Ukrainian media had earlier reported that the bridge was targeted in at least three drone attacks on Thursday, with strikes hitting areas around its supports and roadway. Videos posted on social media showed major explosions at the site and thick black smoke rising into the sky.

Initial inspections following the first two strikes found no critical structural damage, and surface traffic was subsequently restored. A later strike, however, damaged a bridge support, guardrail, roadway and the protective concrete structure surrounding the metro line, according to Kiev Mayor Vitali Klitschko. Traffic across the bridge was again suspended.

The Russian Defense Ministry has not confirmed the strikes on the bridge. Moscow has previously said its forces target critical infrastructure and logistics used by the Ukrainian military.

Ukrainian media and officials have been sounding the alarm over Russia’s new jet-powered Geran drones, which fly much faster than earlier propeller-driven models and are more difficult to intercept.

Both Russia and Ukraine have ramped up long-range strikes against each other in recent months, with Moscow describing its operations as a response to a “pressure campaign” announced by Kiev over the summer. The Russian Defense Ministry has said its forces struck port infrastructure, ships carrying military equipment and weapons factories, including facilities producing components for drones and missiles.

Riot police fired tear gas at protesting students in Saint-Denis, a suburb of Paris, amid nationwide strikes that led to nearly 2,000 arrests across France on Thursday.

High school and university students joined striking firefighters, healthcare workers, transport staff and other civil servants, demanding the hiring of more substitute teachers and better learning conditions. They erected makeshift barricades, blockaded schools and universities, and set garbage bins on fire during standoffs with police.

A total of 1,949 people were arrested on Thursday, up from 625 the previous day. Interior Minister Laurent Nunez condemned what he described as “unrestrained violence,” while the ministry reported that 305 police officers and gendarmes were injured.

Tensions en cours à Saint-Denis : face à face entre lycéens et policiers devant le commissariat.

Usage de gaz lacrymogène pour disperser la foule. pic.twitter.com/qrJXq9xKz3

— CLPRESS / Agence de presse (@CLPRESSFR) October 1, 2026

French Education Minister Edouard Geffray said that more than 400 schools would be closed on Friday due to the unrest. He argued that the student movement had been “held hostage by violent groups.”

Mortiers d’artifice contre gaz lacrymogène ce matin aux abords du lycée Diderot dans le 19e arrondissement de Paris pic.twitter.com/6Y5JVe2JB9

— CLPRESS / Agence de presse (@CLPRESSFR) October 1, 2026

Nunez said France’s police watchdog, the General Inspectorate of the National Police, had opened three investigations into incidents in which students were injured. In one case, prosecutors said a young man in Tours sustained head injuries consistent with being struck by a projectile fired from a less-lethal police weapon, according to RFI.

The interior minister, however, defended the overall police response as proportionate.

Aujourd’hui avec les étudiants de Paris 8 on est allés rejoindre les lycéens de Saint-Denis et d’Aubervilliers pour les soutenir face à la répression. La réponse de la police ça a été de nous gazer et nous matraquer, comme ici devant Le Corbusier. 👇 pic.twitter.com/qY4x5QLgQW

— Irène Karalis (@polystirene_) October 1, 2026

In Marseille, protesters attacked firefighters responding to a blaze outside Lycee Saint-Exupéry, looting and setting fire to one of their vehicles. One firefighter was injured.

Protesters also torched a city bus near Lycee La Floride, while several other buses were attacked, prompting authorities to suspend public transport across Marseille.

🔥🇫🇷 ALERTE - Des lycéens ont INCENDIÉ un bus à Marseille. (témoins)pic.twitter.com/F2N7NdwokT

— AlertesInfos (@AlertesInfos) October 1, 2026

The government held a crisis meeting on Thursday, after which the prime minister’s office, citing intelligence services, claimed that the violence had been organized by the left-wing La France Insoumise (France Unbowed, LFI) party and “its far-left proxies.”

🚨🇫🇷Chaos in a Paris suburbs as high school students set their school entrance on fire.

All the students at this school in Saint-Denis are from migrant backgrounds.

Yesterday, police had to use tear gas to disperse the crowd. pic.twitter.com/mHdfoTlgik

— Mario ZNA (@MarioBojic) September 29, 2026

LFI spokesman Manuel Bompard urged the government “not to descend into conspiracy theories or treat high school students like children.”

“This spontaneous movement was born out of frustration with utterly unacceptable educational conditions,” Bompard told AFP.

Jean-Luc Melenchon, LFI’s candidate in next year’s presidential election, called on students to use only nonviolent methods.

The students are demanding more funding for public education, less overloaded timetables and smaller classes. Christelle Kauffmann, deputy secretary general of the SNPDEN-Unsa school administrators’ union, said principals lacked the resources to reduce class sizes.

Speaking to BFM TV, she condemned attacks on school principals, several of whom had been injured during the protests.

Several schools were damaged and vandalized, including Lycee Diderot in Paris, where the facade was blackened by a large fire involving garbage bins and scooters, and Lycee Nelson-Mandela in Nantes, where a deliberately set fire damaged the building.

La façade du lycée Diderot (Paris 19e) noircie après un important incendie de poubelles et de scooters aux alentours de 10h. Retour au calme pic.twitter.com/OCQNKDyrSu

— CLPRESS / Agence de presse (@CLPRESSFR) October 1, 2026

The unrest comes as French President Emmanuel Macron’s popularity has fallen to near-record lows, with recent polls putting his approval or confidence rating at around 16-18%.

Former US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has filed for divorce from her husband of 34 years, Bryon Noem, according to court filings seen by multiple outlets.

The former DHS chief, dubbed ‘ICE Barbie’ online over her glamorous appearance while overseeing US President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration crackdown, filed the divorce papers on Monday in Hamlin County in her home state of South Dakota, citing “irreconcilable differences.”

“Kristi Noem has filed for the dissolution of her marriage to Bryon Noem. She has great faith in the South Dakota judicial system and will reserve any further comments for the legal process,” her attorney told People magazine on Tuesday.

The couple married in 1992 and have three adult children – two daughters and a son.

Bryon Noem reportedly acknowledged receiving the divorce papers on April 8, two days after his wife’s legal team signed the complaint.

Shortly before that, reports emerged that he led a double life as a cross-dressing ‘bimbofication’ fetishist – a subculture centered on exaggerated hyper-feminine, Barbie-like aesthetics. The Daily Mail reported in March that Noem had posted multiple pictures of himself in exaggerated forms of drag online during his wife’s roughly 14-month tenure as DHS secretary. He also reportedly spent at least $25,000 on acquaintances from bimbofication forums.

His online activity could have posed a potential blackmail risk for his wife, national security experts cited by the Daily Mail said.

Just weeks before, Trump had fired Noem as DHS secretary over several mounting controversies. He later appointed her to a diplomatic role focused on security cooperation in the Americas.

Her dismissal came a day after Noem was questioned in Congress about an alleged affair with Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski – claims she dismissed as “tabloid garbage.”

Both controversies erupted at a particularly sensitive time for Noem and the DHS, with the department facing public criticism and intense congressional scrutiny following the fatal shootings of US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents during Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual keynote address and answered audience questions at the Valdai Discussion Club’s international forum outside Moscow on Thursday.

During a more-than-three-hour session moderated by foreign affairs expert and RT contributor Fyodor Lukyanov, Putin spoke on a broad range of topics, including tensions with the West, the Ukraine conflict and artificial intelligence.

A world in turmoil and the emergence of a new global balance

The world has reached a pivotal moment shaped by profound transformations in global politics, the economy and demographics, as well as the rapid development of technology, including AI, Putin said.

“We are confident that, in the long term, as we move away from Western hegemony, the global situation will gradually change for the better – toward a more stable, democratic, and free multipolar international order,” he said.

The risk of new conflicts

Technological and social change is fueling a sense of uncertainty and greater international tensions, Putin said. Governments may seek to preserve stability at home by “exporting instability” abroad, while new opportunities “fuel ambitions” and encourage countries to take greater risks.

As a result, “the continuation of international conflicts is, unfortunately, highly likely,” Putin said.

AI could herald an era of ‘digital totalitarianism’

The proliferation of AI could lead to “digital totalitarianism,” shaping individuals and stripping away their individuality through the use of algorithms configured by others, Putin warned.

“Such digital totalitarianism would be just as much of a dead end – as bleak and inhumane – as the totalitarian societies of the past that we know so well,” he said.

Countries and communities must join forces to find broadly acceptable solutions to the challenges posed by AI and other technologies capable of influencing human behavior, identity and thought, Putin said.

While AI can be a useful tool, any final political decision must remain in human hands, he stressed.

Relations with the West

Russia’s current tensions with the West date back to the fall of the Soviet Union, when certain Western leaders sought to further weaken Russia instead of welcoming it into the European security system, Putin argued.

“Despite the many years – and I want to emphasize this, many years – of attempts by the new Russia to become part of so-called Western civilization, in practice they did everything they could to truly isolate and further break apart the Russian Federation itself,” the president said.

“They still say this at various events and gatherings even today: ‘We need to finish breaking up the empire,’” Putin added.

He pointed to NATO’s eastward expansion, which he claimed violated assurances given to Moscow. Putin further argued that European politicians were using escalatory rhetoric toward Moscow to draw attention away from political and economic problems at home.

No saber-rattling around Kaliningrad

The president reiterated that Russia would respond to any potential attack on its Kaliningrad Region, an exclave on the Baltic Sea sandwiched between NATO members Poland and Lithuania. Any assault on Russian territory would “inevitably” be viewed as grounds for using all the weaponry at Moscow’s disposal, he said.

Putin was referring to recent statements by Western officials, including Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who have argued that NATO should be prepared for a potential conflict involving Kaliningrad.

Nuclear weapons as ‘Chekhov’s gun’

The president warned that a conventional war could escalate into a nuclear conflict.

“Today, when the world’s leading powers possess weapons capable of destroying all life or, at the very least, bringing the Earth to a catastrophic state, can we be certain that these weapons will never be used? Of course not,” Putin said.

Putin compared the risk posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons to “Chekhov’s gun,” a dramatic principle attributed to Russian playwright Anton Chekhov that holds that a gun introduced early in a story should eventually be fired.

”We all know the famous saying: if a gun is hanging on the wall at the beginning of a play, by the end it is bound to go off,” the Russian leader said. “We must bear that in mind and prevent it from happening.”

“If we want to live – and everyone wants to live – then, as I once said in a public speech, let’s live in peace. Let’s work together to find ways to make that happen,” he said.

The Ukraine conflict and Russia’s goals

Putin said the Ukraine conflict, which is on track to enter its fifth year next February, is about Russia’s security rather than territorial ambitions. He reiterated Moscow’s demand that Ukraine abandon its plans to join NATO in favor of permanent neutrality.

Russia is ready to end the conflict, but only on terms acceptable to Moscow, he said.

A massive fire has broken out in a historic apartment block located in St. Petersburg’s city center. Known as the Miller House, the building stands just across the street from the iconic Saint Isaac’s Cathedral.

The blaze that stated on Thursday evening quickly spread through the massive three-storey house. Videos from the scene that surfaced on social media show almost the entire building engulfed in flames, with sprouts of fire coming out of its windows and plumes of thick black smoke rising high into the night sky.

Built in the late 18th century, the Miller House got its name after its late 19th century owner, Colonel Karl Miller. It was known for its ornate interiors of historical and artistic value, including stucco decoration, fireplaces, tilework, and natural wood elements.

Nationalized after the Revolution in 1917, the house served as an apartment block until the 2010s when it was designated as in need of renovation. In 2021, it was added to the regional list of cultural heritage sites.

The repairs and renovation works began this past spring, with the building owners planning to turn it into a luxury apartment block.

According to the emergency services, the blaze engulfed an area of 2,000 square meters. Nearly 40 fire engines and 165 firefighters were deployed to the scene. At some point, the blaze spread to the neighboring residential building, prompting an emergency evacuation.

The regional emergency services announced at around 2am local time that the fire had largely been extinguished.

The fire allegedly caused a roof and floor decks collapse, local media reported, citing eyewitnesses. The witnesses also claimed that the fire spread through the entire building in mere minutes. Police have been deployed to the scene, with the reasons for the incident still being investigated.

The renovation works were “proceeding at full speed,” the company that owns the building told the local media. According to the company’s press service, the work was focused on reinforcing the floor structures, while no construction workers were present at the site when the fire started. “We are looking into the situation and are in constant communication with all relevant authorities,” TAS added. The work was expected to be finished by late 2027.

The European Commission’s attempt to bolster its “digital sovereignty” and reduce reliance on US technology has fallen flat, with its chosen “backup” internal communications app facing sharp criticism from EU officials, Politico has reported.

Dubbed ‘Element Pro’, the new app was described by the Commission as a “sovereign back-up to Teams” – the body’s main communications tool developed by US software giant Microsoft – according to an internal memo seen by the news site. Element Pro was introduced in July to help “ensure… business continuity” in the event of a potential “disruption.”

“In recent months, digital sovereignty has become increasingly important,” the Commission told staff in the memo. “In practice, this means having greater control over our data and systems so that we can reduce risks and limit disruption to our work, wherever possible.”

The app was developed by UK-based company Element Creations, which also has subsidiaries in France, Germany, and the US. The company, founded about a decade ago, advertises itself as a provider of a “digitally sovereign, secure and interoperable communications platform” that enables “mobile messaging, desktop collaboration, voice and video” communications, as well as email, through an “end-to-end encrypted” system. According to Politico, the Commission also hosts the app on its own infrastructure rather than on Microsoft’s cloud.

EU officials who have tried the new app do not consider it of much use, according to the outlet. “I don’t understand the added value here,” one of them reportedly said in internal communications, with another openly calling it “absolute sh*t.”

A third official contacted by Politico stated that Washington would still “instantly win the war” if it decided to cut off the EU from its digital technologies. Some officials reportedly defended the app, saying that it would “guarantee that Microslop will not peek inside.”

Element CEO Matthew Hodgson brushed off the criticism, saying that the app was still in a trial phase with the European Commission and blaming officials’ difficulties on “cognitive dissonance” linked to switching to a new app.

It comes amid broader EU efforts to develop alternatives to major US technology and social media platforms, in what Brussels’ critics describe as digital protectionism. Earlier this year, France announced plans to replace US videoconferencing platforms such as Teams and Zoom with the homegrown Visio app by 2027. The European Payments Initiative is also urging EU authorities to reduce the bloc’s reliance on Visa and Mastercard.

Swedish company W Social unveiled its Europe-focused social network, W, in early 2026 and plans to open it to the public across the bloc by the end of the year. In June, Politico reported that the European Parliament was planning to replace Google with a Franco-German backed search engine as the default tool on in-house computers.

American forces are completing their withdrawal from Iraq, yet the country that Washington once promised to turn into a model of democratic transformation in the Middle East is still facing questions that years of military presence never managed to answer.

For Iraq, this is a long-awaited political milestone, but the end of a foreign military mission does not magically fix the fragmentation of power it created. The consequences of the intervention, sectarian distrust, and competition among armed centers of influence are likely to remain part of Iraq’s political landscape for years to come.

How a military victory turned into a political dead end

Although the US had already fought Iraq in 1991, it was the invasion of March 2003 that marked the beginning of the occupation and the radical restructuring of the Iraqi state. The administration of George W. Bush justified the war primarily by pointing to the alleged threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, yet the supposed stockpiles were never found. Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown with remarkable speed, but building a stable state proved to be a challenge that American military superiority alone could not solve.

The dissolution of the Iraqi army and the sweeping process of purging the influence of Hussein’s Ba’ath party deprived the emerging political system of a substantial number of people who had previously kept the state apparatus functioning. As tens of thousands of professionals, civil servants, and military personnel found themselves excluded from the new order, social resentment merged with armed resistance, while the struggle for power became increasingly sectarian. Hussein’s dictatorship had undoubtedly left behind a deeply troubled legacy, but decisions made under the occupation catalyzed violence as a means of reclaiming lost influence.

At the same time, it would be an oversimplification to attribute all the disasters that followed solely to Washington. Iraqi political leaders who institutionalized the distribution of offices and resources along party and communal lines also contributed to the alienation of significant sections of society, while neighboring states used Baghdad’s weakness to advance their own interests. Yet it was the intervention that dismantled the previous order before institutions capable of preventing the country from fragmenting into competing political and armed networks had taken shape.

The first withdrawal of American forces was completed in 2011, but by 2014 the US had returned at the invitation of the Iraqi government after ISIS seized Mosul and large areas of Iraqi territory. At that stage, American air power, intelligence capabilities and the training of local forces genuinely contributed to turning the course of the war. Denying that contribution would diminish both the role of the international coalition and the importance of the support it provided to Iraq. Even so, the principal burden of the fighting on the ground was carried by Iraqi forces, including the army, counterterrorism units, the Peshmerga and the Popular Mobilization Forces.

The destruction of Islamic State’s territorial rule in Iraq in 2017 was a genuine military achievement, but it did not eliminate the conditions that had previously allowed jihadist forces to establish themselves in the country. If American policy is judged against its promise of creating a stable and secure Iraq, the outcome appears considerably less impressive than one would think from all the declarations of military victory. All Washington did was help suppress a threat its own intervention had helped create.

The regional consequences were equally contradictory, since the removal of one of Tehran’s principal adversaries created new opportunities for Iran to expand its influence inside Iraq. The US invested enormous resources in building a new political order in which the position of its main regional rival ultimately became considerably stronger. This does not mean that Baghdad lost its own political agency, but it demonstrates just how far the actual consequences of the war diverged from the expectations with which Washington had entered it.

Sovereignty begins with bringing armed power under state control

The American withdrawal will inevitably be regarded by part of Iraqi society as the end of a long era of occupation, even though the military presence established after 2014 rested on a different legal and political basis and took place at Baghdad’s invitation. This distinction allows the Iraqi authorities to emphasise their sovereignty without denying that foreign assistance had been necessary at a particular stage.

The far more difficult challenge will be ensuring that decisions of war and peace are genuinely made by the state. The Popular Mobilization Forces, an Iranian-backed paramilitary group, emerged as a broad mobilization structure during the Islamic State offensive in 2014, although some of the organizations that became part of it had existed long before then. The organization was later incorporated into the state system, yet it retained considerable internal diversity, which is why treating the entire Popular Mobilization Forces as a single Iranian-controlled army would be misleading.

This is one of the most difficult contradictions of post-war Iraq. Groups that helped save the state from jihadist forces acquired their own sources of political and economic influence, while some commanders developed an interest in preserving a system under which the state finances armed formations without exercising complete control over their decisions. Disarmament in these conditions affects the position of political parties, access to state revenues and the personal security of individuals who have become accustomed to relying on their own armed networks.

The government of Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is seeking to bring weapons under state control, while Iran-linked armed groups like Kataib Hezbollah are resisting these demands. The deadline imposed by the authorities has met direct opposition from several formations, while arrests of individual militia members have already prompted threats of retaliation.

Against the backdrop of the war between the US, Israel, and Iran, there is ever less space for compromise, since some armed groups view their weapons both as a means of supporting Tehran and as protection against American pressure. Baghdad, meanwhile, risks finding itself caught between Washington’s demands and the expectations of neighboring Iran, a country whose relationship with Iraq cannot be reduced simply to its ties with armed groups.

An attempt to disarm all formations simultaneously could unite against the government commanders whose interests had previously diverged, while endless concessions would merely institutionalize the autonomy of competing armed centers. A gradual process of bringing these forces under a unified chain of command, combined with tighter control over financing and credible guarantees for ordinary fighters, appears more sustainable. Otherwise, organizational rebranding may leave old networks of loyalty intact, while sovereignty remains little more than a political slogan.

New power vacuum

The Iraqi army today possesses experience that it catastrophically lacked in 2014, which is why it would be misleading to assume that the fall of Mosul could simply repeat itself. The number of Islamic State attacks in Iraq fell to a historic low in 2025 as a result of sustained pressure from Iraqi security forces. At the same time, the organization has not disappeared and continues to exploit instability in neighboring Syria.

The low intensity of attacks does not mean the underground networks are gone. The remaining cells of Islamic State, which itself grew out of the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda, continue to pose a real security threat, whereas portraying the two organizations as separate and equally powerful underground movements in contemporary Iraq would distort the actual situation.

The most dangerous scenario would play out if confrontation between the government and armed groups began consuming the resources required for everyday security. If army units were redeployed towards the capital, intelligence services became increasingly focused on internal political opponents and local commanders stopped exchanging information, jihadist networks would gain opportunities to rebuild their supply routes and recruitment mechanisms. They would not need to seize major cities immediately. A sustained series of attacks on roads and in rural areas could already be enough to undermine public confidence in the authorities.

Such a vacuum could emerge in areas where several security structures are formally present but none assumes full responsibility for maintaining order. Territories where political rivalry obstructs cooperation between Baghdad, the Kurdish authorities and local security forces would be particularly vulnerable. If arbitrary measures and collective accusations against local communities were added to this environment, underground groups could once again attempt to present themselves as defenders of those who feel excluded or mistreated.

The central question, therefore, is whether the Iraqi leadership can preserve unity of command, public confidence and effective intelligence work while simultaneously reforming the country’s armed formations. Continued external technical assistance and intelligence sharing could make this task easier, but foreign advisers cannot substitute for a domestic political settlement. The withdrawal creates a genuine danger when it coincides with the collapse of such a settlement, although the departure of foreign troops does not in itself make another war inevitable.

At the same time, the army’s ability to conduct raids against underground cells should not automatically be equated with its ability to confront large armed formations that enjoy political protection. In the latter case, an order to use force could divide the governing coalition, while commanders would inevitably have to take into account loyalties and connections within their own political camp. It is precisely this dependence of military decisions on elite rivalry that makes the possibility of internal confrontation particularly dangerous.

Why Washington is reducing its presence

Explaining the American decision solely through the current conflict with Iran would be historically inaccurate, since the timetable for transforming the coalition mission was agreed as early as September 2024. The decision reflected the decline in the terrorist threat compared with the period when Islamic State controlled substantial territory, pressure from the Iraqi authorities and a broader intention to move towards bilateral cooperation. Washington was able to reduce its direct military involvement while maintaining its relationship with Baghdad through training programs, arms cooperation, and diplomatic instruments.

Nevertheless, the conflict with Iran has clearly shown the costs of maintaining a permanent military presence. In early March 2026, Iranian drones struck Erbil airport, where an American base was located, and a coalition facility housing Italian personnel was later attacked as well. These incidents go to show that overseas military bases, while designed to project power, can simultaneously become accessible targets for retaliation.

When an expensive military facility can be repeatedly targeted with comparatively inexpensive drones, protecting that facility requires a constant expenditure of resources, and every military casualty creates political pressure for another round of escalation. Under these circumstances, reducing the number of vulnerable American garrisons can be a rational choice for Washington even though the overall military capabilities of the US remain incomparably greater than those of its opponents. This, however, explains the incentives behind current American policy rather than proving that Iranian attacks were the original cause of the withdrawal.

Even after the last military unit departs, political responsibility for the consequences of the intervention will remain. The US is leaving at a moment when the Iraqi state has still not secured a complete monopoly over the use of force and when the foundations of lasting political reconciliation are still shaky. The issue is not whether American troops should remain indefinitely against the wishes of the host country, but rather that the political project proclaimed at the beginning of the intervention was never fully completed.

The Iraqi withdrawal also raises the question as to whether it is part of a wider change in the American role in the Middle East, as Washington concentrates more resources within a strategic security belt extending from Latin America to the North Atlantic and Greenland.

There are grounds for such an interpretation, since the US has increasingly emphasized the Western Hemisphere while reconsidering the geographic distribution of its military presence. The expansion of American military opportunities in Greenland is also consistent with a growing emphasis on the security of the American continent and the North Atlantic.

Yet these decisions do not mean that the US is abandoning the Middle East altogether or that it no longer has the capacity to maintain bases there. The continuing confrontation with Iran demonstrates the persistence of powerful strategic commitments, while the reduction of one military contingent can be accompanied by a stronger naval or air presence elsewhere. Rather, Washington is adopting a more selective approach, seeking to reduce the costs of prolonged deployments where military presence has failed to produce a proportionate political return.

For Iraq, the consequences of that shift will ultimately depend less on the number of American soldiers who remain than on whether Iraqi leaders can create a functioning and accountable state authority before competing armed actors begin struggling to fill the vacuum once again.

Norway’s parliament has begun a public inquiry into ties the country’s political and diplomatic elite had with US pedophile and financier Jeffrey Epstein. Eleven current and former foreign and development ministers, including Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, who served as foreign minister from 2005 to 2012, will face questioning.

The Epstein files released by the US Department of Justice earlier this year revealed his often toxic connections to politicians, royals, and other prominent figures, for whom he is thought to have provided underage girls for sex. The disclosures have prompted parliamentary and police investigations in Norway.

The Norwegian parliamentary Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs is examining the Foreign Ministry’s handling of international aid funds, internal oversight mechanisms, and whether personal relationships involving Epstein may have influenced government decisions. Committee member Jonas Andersen Sayed has said the government must explain what it is doing to restore trust in the foreign service.

Questions are also swirling over Norway’s funding of the International Peace Institute (IPI), which received around 130 million kroner ($13.5 million) from the Foreign Ministry between 1997 and 2018. The international think tank was led by Norwegian diplomat Terje Roed-Larsen from 2005 to 2020.

Norway, home to the Nobel Peace Prize and a longstanding player in international diplomacy, has faced heightened scrutiny over Epstein’s connections to its political and diplomatic circles.

Roed-Larsen, a central figure in the 1990s Middle East peace talks and a key architect of the 1993 Oslo Accords, is among several prominent Norwegians under investigation by Norway’s economic crime authority, Oekokrim, following the disclosure of the Epstein files.

Former Prime Minister Thorbjoern Jagland and former diplomat Mona Juul are also under investigation. Juul and Jagland are suspected of aggravated corruption, while Roed-Larsen is suspected of complicity in aggravated corruption. All three have denied wrongdoing.

Former Foreign Minister Boerge Brende, meanwhile, testified before the committee after stepping down as president and CEO of the World Economic Forum in February amid scrutiny of his contacts with Epstein.

Separately, the parliament has appointed an independent commission of academics and legal experts to examine matters raised by the Epstein files. The commission is due to submit its findings by January 31, 2028.

The European Commission has halted foreign aid payments to Sierra Leone ostensibly over a Dutch demand that Freetown must extradite a convicted drug trafficker. The move has escalated a dispute that has led the West African country to accuse the Netherlands’ government of neo-colonialism.

Dutch Justice and Security Minister David van Weel announced the suspension on X on Thursday while attending a meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers in Luxembourg. He described the move as “a good start” to efforts to strengthen the “EU sanctions regime against organized crime.”

The dispute centers on Jos Leijdekkers, known as “Bolle Jos,” who was handed a 24-year sentence in the Netherlands in June 2024 for cocaine trafficking, an armed robbery and ordering a murder. He remains on the Dutch police’s most-wanted list. He has also reportedly received prison sentences totaling around 100 years in Belgium.

Sierra Leone had been due to receive €18 million (about $20.3 million) in aid before year-end for education, food programs and infrastructure, public broadcaster NOS reported. A further €22.5 million (about $25.4 million) pledged for 2027 could also be suspended if Sierra Leone continues to refuse cooperation, Van Weel said. The Commission has not yet publicly announced the suspension.

Reuters reported early last year, citing sources with direct knowledge of the matter, that Leijdekkers had found refuge and high-level protection in Sierra Leone and was married to President Julius Maada Bio’s daughter Agnes. Footage verified by the agency showed the fugitive seated two rows behind Bio at a church service on January 1, 2025.

In a statement that month, Sierra Leone’s Information Ministry said Bio had no knowledge of Leijdekkers’ identity or the allegations against him. It noted that the president attended numerous family events and public gatherings during the holiday season, where he was photographed with many attendees.

The government announced a “transparent and thorough” investigation and pledged cooperation with Dutch authorities, Interpol and other international law enforcement agencies.

The Netherlands submitted an extradition request to the West African country in February 2025. The two countries lack a bilateral extradition treaty.

Speaking on Sierra Leonean broadcaster AYV’s State of the Nation on September 9, Chief Minister David Moinina Sengeh said the country’s intelligence services do “not know where Leijdekkers is.” 
The minister accused Van Weel of acting like a “neo-colonialist.” He said Sierra Leone is an independent country that does “not live on EU aid.”

Van Weel dismissed the accusation as “ridiculous” in comments to NOS reported last month.

Sengeh also accused The Hague of double standards, saying it had refused to extradite Netherlands-based government critic Abdul Kamara (‘Adebayor’), whom Freetown accuses of inciting violence, including riots in August 2022 that left at least 26 civilians and six police officers dead.

Sierra Leone is a key transit hub for cocaine trafficked from South America to Europe, according to assessments by Interpol and the 2025 Global Organized Crime Index. Spanish authorities seized 30.2 metric tons aboard a cargo ship that had departed from Freetown in May this year, arresting 23 people, including Dutch and Filipino nationals.

Ukrainian officials are making so much money from EU-funded arms supplies that they have a financial stake in prolonging the conflict with Russia, Moscow’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has claimed.

Handguns purchased for Ukraine are being marked up threefold, with hundreds of thousands of euros from each shipment siphoned off to people close to the leadership of Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU), the agency said on Thursday.

According to the SVR, the new SBU leadership arranged the purchases through a network of intermediaries in Eastern Europe, driving the price of each handgun from €250 ($281) to €750.

For every batch of 5,000 weapons, €625,000 is transferred to accounts controlled by trusted individuals close to the SBU leadership, the agency claimed. Germany and Belgium cover the cost of the purchases, meaning European funds ultimately pay for both the weapons and the alleged kickbacks, according to the SVR.

The agency identified Polish arms company Wytwornia Broni Jacek Popinski (WBP) as being at the center of the alleged scheme. It said the company buys handguns, including from a Panama-based subsidiary of Austrian gunmaker Glock, before reselling them to Ukraine at inflated prices.

The SVR suggested that the sums involved in more expensive military procurement could be considerably larger, particularly for scarce components used in air-defense missile systems.

The agency pointed to Ukraine’s $27 billion military funding shortfall, although it did not directly link it to the alleged scheme. Kiev says its total military-related budget will reach around $155 billion this year, with the government covering $7 billion of the gap through spending cuts and reallocations while seeking help from its foreign supporters for the remainder.

Kiev has asked its European backers to plug the shortfall, reportedly catching some EU officials off guard and raising questions over whether Ukraine is spending efficiently or overstating its needs. Last month, EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said there were “open questions” requiring a “detailed assessment.”

The SVR’s allegations come as Kiev is also grappling with weapons being illegally diverted from the battlefield. Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigation recently said it had broken up an organized group accused of moving arms from combat zones to western regions for sale to criminal networks.

Investigators seized more than 17,000 rounds of ammunition, grenades, anti-tank grenade launchers, mines and other weapons worth over 4.5 million hryvnia ($100,000). The weapons were subsequently handed over to the notorious neo-Nazi unit, the Azov Corps.

Pakistani airstrikes on Afghanistan have killed nine civilians, including women and children, and injured 11 others, Kabul said on Thursday.

The strikes hit Afghanistan’s eastern Kunar and southern Helmand provinces, Afghan Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said. He condemned the attack as an “act of aggression and a crime that violates all recognized principles."

Islamabad claimed the raids killed 22 militants at hideouts in two locations. The operation was based on “credible intelligence” and selectively targeted militant camps and hideouts, Pakistan’s Information Ministry said.

"The threat to Pakistan emanates from Afghanistan. In this context, our action precisely targeted the terrorist hubs,” the ministry said, maintaining that the strikes were directed at militant hubs. Islamabad has repeatedly accused groups based in Afghanistan of carrying out attacks inside Pakistan.

The latest attack marks the third time in two weeks that Pakistan has struck targets inside Afghanistan. Last week, Pakistani airstrikes hit Kandahar and other provinces, killing four civilians, according to the Taliban government.

The renewed escalation followed a militant attack on a police facility in northwestern Pakistan last month that killed 24 people. Provincial police blamed the attack on the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as the Pakistani Taliban.

Islamabad accuses Afghanistan’s Taliban government of allowing the TTP to operate from Afghan territory and stage cross-border attacks. The TTP is separate from the Afghan Taliban but allied with it. Kabul denies providing the group safe haven and says militancy targeting Pakistan is its “internal issue.”

The latest flare-up ended roughly three months of relative calm between the neighbors. Fighting had escalated sharply in February before China-mediated talks produced a fragile ceasefire in March.

Commenting on the border standoff between the two neigbors in an exclusive interview with RT India, Mujahid said Afghanistan was only defending itself after Pakistan violated its territory. “Defending ourselves is our right, but we are neither the initiators nor do we want it to continue,” he emphasized.

The United Nations mission in Afghanistan has recorded over 1,100 deaths and injuries from cross-border violence so far this year.

Western countries are pressuring African states in an attempt to prevent them from attending the upcoming Russia-Africa Summit in Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.

The alleged pressure comes ahead of the October 28-29 gathering. The leaders of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger are expected to attend, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Alimov said on Thursday. The three Sahel states have strengthened ties with Moscow in recent years.

“We are certainly observing attempts by our detractors in Western nations to pressure African partners in an effort to prevent them from coming to Moscow,” Zakharova said.

She described it as a continuation of a colonial approach toward Africa, stating that “former colonial powers are failing to keep pace with a changing world” and that Western countries continue to seek to dictate foreign policy choices to African states.

The spokeswoman did not name the countries involved or provide specific examples. She said African states pursue independent foreign policies based on their national interests and expressed confidence that the summit would be held with broad African representation.

In September, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov singled out France, claiming that President Emmanuel Macron would use a trip to Africa to try to dissuade African leaders from attending the summit. Lavrov said Moscow’s suspicions were based on “certain facts,” but did not provide details.

Earlier this year, Zakharova raised similar concerns, saying Russia had encountered attempts to obstruct African participation in the 2023 summit and ministerial conferences in Sochi in 2024 and Cairo in 2025.

Ahead of the St. Petersburg summit in 2023, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov accused the US, France, and other Western countries of using their diplomatic missions in Africa to pressure governments to prevent active participation. He said such efforts denied African states the sovereign right to choose their own partners.

Tensions over African countries’ ties with Moscow have also spilled into economic relations. Senior US lawmakers that year questioned South Africa’s eligibility for trade benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), citing Pretoria’s military ties with Russia, and sought to move an annual US-Africa trade forum out of the country.

Washington has publicly claimed that African countries should be free to choose their own partners. “America will not dictate Africa’s choices. Neither should anyone else,” then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in 2022.

The inaugural Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi in 2019 drew official delegations from all 54 African countries, with 45 represented by heads of state or government. The second summit in St. Petersburg in 2023 drew official delegations from 48 countries, with 27 represented by a head of state or the second-highest-ranking official.

US rapper and fashion designer Kanye West cannot hold shows in Russia due to his glorification of Nazism, the Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, has said.

A Russian concert agency announced in August that West, also known as Ye, will perform at the 68,000-seat Gazprom Arena in St. Petersburg on October 10 and 11. However, there have been doubts about the shows taking place, with the city’s authorities saying later that no one addressed them for the permission to stage them. On Wednesday, the organizers said the concerts have been canceled.

During her interview with the social media channel Soloviev LIVE TV on Thursday, Zakharova said that holding West’s concerts in Russia was unacceptable.

“He sang songs about [Nazi German dictator Adolf] Hitler and sold merchandise... from his company and under his own name featuring the swastika and other coded symbols linked to Nazism... He performed the Nazi salute. In other words, it was an absolutely clear message; not just a one-off incident, but a distinct statement,” she recalled.

The rapper was not just seeking to rehabilitate Nazism, he was glorifying it, the spokeswoman added.

“How can he possibly perform in our country?” Zakharova asked rhetorically. Especially in St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad), where more than a million people died during the 872-day siege by the Nazis between September 8, 1941 and January 27, 1944, she added.

West’s concert would also be impossible in Moscow or any other city because of “our principled stance of rejecting Nazism, Hitlerism, fascism and things like that,” the spokeswoman noted.

The USSR played the key role in defeating Nazi Germany during the Second World War; around 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in the conflict referred to in the country as the Great Patriot War. The National Socialist ideology and its symbols are outlawed in Russia.

West has faced a string of cancellations and bans in several European countries over his anti-Semitic statements and praise of Hitler and Nazism. He has since apologized for some of his remarks, attributing them to bipolar disorder as well as “poor judgment and reckless behavior.”

The musician also spoke favorably about Russia on a number of occasions, expressed desire to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and even went as far as describing himself as “young Putin” in a 2021 podcast.

He has visited Moscow just once – in June 2024, but didn’t give any shows. The rapper attended the birthday of Russian designer Gosha Rubchinsky, with whom he had previously collaborated. Rubchinsky left West’s Yeezy fashion brand in 2025 shortly after he published his controversial messages on social media.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump held a phone call on Wednesday. The two countries are trying to reach a trade deal amid US pressure on India over its purchases of Russian oil.

The leaders reviewed cooperation in trade, defense, energy, and critical technologies and exchanged views on regional and international issues, according to statements issued by New Delhi and Washington.

The call comes days after Trump signed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act into law on September 18. The legislation expands sanctions, tariffs, and prohibitions on Russia while extending existing sanctions on Iran. The official Indian readout made no mention of the new law.

Last week, however, New Delhi raised the issue directly with Washington. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar reiterated concerns over the legislation during talks with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in New York. The law provides for tariffs of up to 100% on goods from major buyers of Russian crude oil and natural gas under specified conditions.

India has previously warned that measures targeting its Russian energy trade could affect bilateral relations and the international energy market, while maintaining that it will continue diversified oil sourcing.

Russia remains India’s largest crude supplier despite lower purchases in recent months. Russian shipments stood at about 2.1 million barrels per day (bpd) in August and were expected to fall to around 1.75 million bpd in September as export availability tightened and competition from Chinese refiners increased.

The Modi-Trump call also followed a meeting held by Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of the G20 Trade Ministerial in Milwaukee. The two sides are seeking to advance negotiations on the India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) that have stretched for months. The two countries finalized the framework for the first phase of the BTA in February, but since then US tariff pressure has forced New Delhi to review the terms.

The US remains India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral merchandise trade reaching $132.2 billion in the 2025-26 financial year. Indian exports accounted for $86.51 billion, while imports from the US totaled $45.62 billion.

A woman convicted of murder in the US state of Tennessee has been taken to hospital after surviving two doses of lethal injection drugs in a failed execution attempt, several media outlets reported Thursday, citing her lawyers and media witnesses.

Christa Pike, 50, was sentenced to death for the 1995 torture and murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, a fellow Job Corps student in Knoxville. If carried out normally, Pike’s execution, scheduled for Wednesday, would have been the first execution of a woman in Tennessee in more than 200 years.

Prosecutors said Pike and her boyfriend, Tadaryl Shipp, lured Slemmer to a wooded area. Pike beat and cut Slemmer with a box cutter, while Shipp, who was 17 at the time, admitted carving a pentagram into her body. While Pike received the death penalty, Shipp was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Pike did not lose consciousness after two syringes of pentobarbital were administered, her attorneys said in emergency legal filings seen by the New York Times. She still had a heartbeat, they said, and was audibly snoring.

According to her lawyers, as cited by the newspaper, Pike was later taken to a nearby hospital, although they did not know her condition. Tennessee officials reportedly confirmed to a federal judge later that day that Pike was receiving medical care.

AP cited media witnesses as saying that Pike remained conscious after the injection was administered and at one point asked prison officials about a sensation in her arm. She continued to be heard snoring behind the closed curtain before media witnesses were escorted out.

Pike was initially scheduled to be executed in the morning, but a federal appeals court issued a temporary stay to consider her lawyers’ claims that her history of childhood sexual abuse and neglect had not been adequately presented at sentencing. The US Supreme Court later lifted the obstacle, allowing Tennessee to proceed with the execution that evening.

Commenting on the apparent failure to carry out an execution, the Tennessee Department of Correction stated that it “had followed every step of the state’s lawful, established execution protocol approved by the attorney general’s office.”

It was the second failed execution in Tennessee this year. In May, officials called off the lethal injection of Tony Carruthers, convicted of kidnapping and killing three people in 1994, after executioners spent more than an hour trying unsuccessfully to place an IV for the pentobarbital.

Lethal injection is widely regarded as the most error-prone method of execution in the US. Since the beginning of 2020, 170 people have been executed in 17 states, with most executions taking place in Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma. During that period, six states have recorded botched lethal injections, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that provides data and analysis on capital punishment.

Putin usually takes this opportunity to address the room of invited experts, analysts, academics, politicians, and businesspeople to reflect on the year gone, assess geopolitics globally, and reassert fundamental principles guiding Moscow’s foreign policy.

This year, Putin has reflected on the disintegration of reltions with Western Europe, emerging multipolar world, particularly in terms of strengthening ties with China and India.

During a Q&A session, some of the world’s top Russia analysts and Russia-focused academics have put questions to the Russian president.

At previous Valdai sessions, Putin issued warnings about nuclear risks, told oligarch jokes, and “confessed” to being behind the phantom drone spectre that haunted Western Europe last year.

Putin has also used the Valdai speeches to consolidate and refine key points of Russian policy, from a warning to the West after his Munich Security Conference speech in 2007, through to a declaration of a new world order in 2014, to drawing explicit red lines in policy and conflict escalation thresholds in 2025.

Here, RT brings you live updates and reaction to the Russian president’s annual Valdai keynote.

A helicopter carrying six people, including a close ally of Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa, crashed in the country’s east on Wednesday, leaving no survivors, officials have said.

The aircraft came down at about 5 PM local time near Waddilove Mission in Marondera district, east of the capital, Harare, Zimbabwean police said in a statement later the same day.

According to government spokesman Nick Mangwana, the helicopter was carrying a high-profile businessman, three other passengers and two pilots. “Current information indicates that there were no survivors in this crash,” Mangwana wrote on X, adding that police “will confirm the names of the victims in due course.”

State-owned newspaper The Herald identified businessman Wicknell Chivayo and his wife, Lucy Muteke, among the dead, citing a family spokesperson.

Chivayo founded Intratrek Zimbabwe, an energy and infrastructure company awarded the contract to develop the country’s 100-megawatt Gwanda solar project. He was a prominent supporter of Mnangagwa and the ruling ZANU-PF party. He visited the president at his rural home on New Year’s Day this year and joined him during a meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at Mnangagwa’s private farm in May.

Kenyan President William Ruto also confirmed the couple’s deaths in a condolence message on X on Thursday, describing Chivayo as “a dear friend whose warmth touched many people.” 

“I will remember him for his friendship, his energy and his deep conviction in the possibilities of our continent,” Ruto said. He extended condolences to the victims’ families, President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the people of Zimbabwe.

The crash is the latest in a series of aviation accidents in the southern African nation. On April 23, 2021, an Air Force helicopter struck a house during a training flight in Arcturus, about 30 kilometers east of Harare, killing three crew members and a child on the ground. Another child and her mother suffered burns.

A helicopter scheduled to transport Mnangagwa crashed at Masvingo Airport on September 15, 2024, after experiencing what officials described as a technical fault. The president was not aboard, and no fatalities were reported.

Other southern African countries have also recorded such accidents, some involving senior officials. A helicopter crash near Danielskuil in neighboring South Africa’s Northern Cape killed all three aboard in October 2025. Malawi’s Vice President Saulos Chilima and eight others died in a military plane crash in the country’s mountainous north in June 2024. Zambia’s Vice President Mutale Nalumango and all other passengers and crew escaped injury in a military helicopter takeoff accident at Nakonde on July 9 this year.

The cause of Wednesday’s crash has yet to be established. Zimbabwe’s Air Force has previously complained of an aging fleet, saying Western sanctions had hampered purchases of replacement aircraft, Reuters reported after the fatal 2021 crash.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has welcomed the US withdrawal from Iraq, adding that the Americans should also leave all other countries in the region.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon announced that the last American troops had departed from Iraq after being there for 23 years.

In its statement yesterday dedicated to the US pullout, the IRGC said that it “congratulates the proud nation of Iraq… and the revolutionary fighters of the Islamic world on this historic victory.”

The US lost a total of 4,419 troops in Iraq, according to the Pentagon. The Watson Institute at Brown University has estimated that the invasion cost American taxpayers some $2.8 trillion dollars. “These figures show America’s heavy and disgraceful defeat,” the IRGC statement read.

The Guard insisted that “America’s presence not only brought no security, but was itself the source of insecurity, terrorism and instability in West Asia.”

The US invaded Iraq in 2003, toppling the country’s longtime leader Saddam Hussein, and than carried out smaller-scale operations against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), which emerged in 2014 out of the chaos created by the American interference. According to some estimates, over a million Iraqi civilians lost their lives during the period, with millions more displaced.

“It can be firmly said that America’s expulsion from Iraq is the prelude to its expulsion from all of West Asia… America must leave the region and leave security management to the peoples themselves,” it said.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi said on Wednesday that the US withdrawal signaled the beginning of a “new phase, one defined by Iraq’s sovereignty, the strength of its institutions, the readiness of its forces, the unity of its decision-making, and balanced partnerships with its friends.”

In a post on his Truth Social platform on the same day, US President Donald Trump described the American involvement in Iraq as “a very expensive excursion into Hell.” Its conclusion is a win for both Washington and Baghdad, he claimed.

It was “very bad decision-making that got us involved in this quagmire in the first place,” Trump said.

The invasion of Iraq was launched under the administration of then President George W. Bush over accusations the country’s longtime leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were never substantiated by Washington.

Trump himself initiated a conflict with Iran in late February on the pretext of preventing it from obtaining a nuclear bomb, despite claiming the previous June that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program had been “obliterated” by US-Israeli strikes. Tehran has repeatedly insisted that it is not working on a weapon.

Washington’s position in the Middle East has been dealt a blow during the Iran war, as Tehran has damaged or outright destroyed key US radar, communications, and other military infrastructure at bases in Gulf nations, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait and others.

The Pentagon is now considering whether to reduce the US military footprint in the region after the Iran war ends, the Washington Post reported in August, citing anonymous officials. Diplomatic efforts to settle the crisis currently remain in a stalemate.

The resignation of Aleksandar Vucic as president of Serbia should be understood in the context of the internal political conflict between the ruling elites and Generation Z, which began several years ago as a result of the collapse of the newly renovated railway station building in one of Serbia’s largest cities, Novi Sad. 

Tactically, this step is connected with his aspiration to join the parliamentary election campaign (the vote is scheduled for October 25). This maneuver may indeed succeed. However, much more serious today are questions about Belgrade’s further strategic approach to young people and the patriotically minded population of the country.

For Russia, it is important to remain intellectually attractive to Serbian youth, thus denying opponents the argument that contemporary Moscow-Belgrade relations are grounded exclusively in economic benefits. It is precisely in this context that the possibility lies of preserving the special spirit of the connection between the two nations in an era when long-term alliances that previously seemed unshakeable have totally broken down.

Current state of affairs: Vucic, the Student List and other political forces

Ahead of the snap elections, Serbia’s domestic political landscape is defined by a fierce standoff between Vucic's ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SPP) and the opposition movement, which is rapidly gaining momentum. Experts say the election itself resembles a referendum on the ruling party.

The campaign has devolved into a fierce information and economic war, with unprecedented media polarization. In an attempt to stabilize its fluctuating ratings in major cities, the government has launched direct cash payments to citizens. The authorities are also placing emphasis on economic stability, the “Serbia 2030” program, and maintaining preferential prices for Russian gas ($318 instead of the market price of $868), which is being touted as the key to the economy’s survival.

The opposition coalition Student List – Students Win has bet on street mobilization, an aggressive media campaign, and horizontal network leadership. This coordinated movement of Generation Z is demonstratively distancing itself from the old, systemic, pro-Western opposition. By pointedly rejecting party flags in favor of the national tricolor, they have seized the patriotic agenda, demanding the depoliticization of the state apparatus and deep institutional reforms.

The movement’s growth followed a tragedy in the country’s second-largest city, Novi Sad, where 16 people died when a canopy collapsed at a recently renovated train station. Ordinary Serbians perceived the incident as a direct consequence of corruption, nepotism, and official negligence. Students led the popular outrage, turning months of protests into the largest anti-corruption movement in modern Serbian history.

It’s noteworthy that Generation Z’s share of Serbian society is small at only 15%. People over 45 are the largest cohort at 50% of the total. Therefore, in order to reach national prominence, the youth core abandoned the classic party format in favor of a “citizens’ group.” The electoral list, in addition to students, includes respected “adult” professionals, such as university professors, renowned doctors, lawyers, social activists, workers, and former train drivers. This approach has attracted voters of all ages who are tired of politics-as-usual.

According to summer polls conducted by the sociological center Crta, 44.9% of citizens were prepared to vote for the Student List, while 35.7% indicated their intention to vote for the ruling party. Currently, according to political analysts, the two forces are very close.

Meanwhile, traditional right-wing ‘patriotic’ forces, such as Milos Jovanovic’s conservative bloc NADA and the Dveri movement, are seeking seats in the Assembly by criticizing Vucic’s own ‘right-wing’ policies. Unlike the ruling forces, these parties take an uncompromising pro-Russian stance and demand an immediate end to Serbia’s EU accession negotiations, which obligate Belgrade to comply with Brussels’ directives. The main theme of their election platforms is a categorical rejection of any recognition of Kosovo’s independence. 

The right-wing forces view Russia’s veto power in the UN Security Council as the only reliable guarantor of the country’s territorial integrity and insist on formalizing the strategic alliance with Moscow, including Serbia’s integration into the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The growing popularity of the radical patriotic flank deprives the ruling coalition of its monopoly on the conservative electorate and seriously complicates Vucic’s task of forming a future government.

The external context is also raising the temperature: the cancelation of European Commissioner Marta Kos’ visit due to disputes over national heroes has given the opposition grounds to claim Serbia is isolated. However, Vucic’s team is pragmatically countering these accusations by demonstrating its continued policy of balancing between the main geopolitical powers in the Balkans. Belgrade successfully maintains contacts with both Moscow and Beijing, while simultaneously continuing dialogue with the West. A clear indication of this multi-vector approach was Vucic’s recent participation in the Ukrainian summit of the Carpathian Eight (C8), where his team demonstrated openness to initiatives supported by Brussels.

What is dangerous about what is happening 

The current situation poses a fundamental threat to Serbian statehood, as the opposition’s actions resemble a model of non-violent mass protest organized online, reflecting the methodologies used in color revolutions. In Serbia, the methodology has taken on unique characteristics, as it lacks an explicit link to Western donors and is focused on a youthful, patriotic agenda.

According to Ekaterina Entina, a professor at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, a new political strategy for rallying opposition forces is being developed in Serbia: “The whole intrigue from the start of the student protests has been that they haven’t revealed who’s behind them. And all attempts to uncover truly significant funding channels, significant channels of political and social influence, have come to nothing. Everyone knows who’s funding them in small ways, but the grand scheme remains unknown.”

The main question is why such a protest network is needed in the Balkans if there are no visible reasons for the country to change course. After all, the ruling party’s policy aimed at European integration has no visible alternatives. Moreover, even the administration of US President Donald Trump, while not perceiving Serbia as a powerful geopolitical player, pragmatically prioritizes Belgrade for diplomatic and economic contacts in Europe. Clearly, the goal of this network’s major but secret donors is much more far-reaching than the mere destabilization of Vucic’s system of governance, with all its pros and cons. One way or another, Vucic is a temporary variable in the equation. The primary goal is a fundamental reversal of the direction of Serbian society itself.

To understand this, it’s worth turning to renowned Western sociologist Manuel Castells, particularly his work 'Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age'. He argues that leaderless horizontal networks are inherently incapable of real, day-to-day governance; after the destruction of old institutions, they immediately become mired in discord and are unable to transform street energy into legislation. 

The organizers of the Serbian network, however, don’t need students to come to power. Their calculation is different: knowing that Serbian society is mentally oriented toward Russia, external players have hijacked patriotic, Orthodox slogans and led the Generation Z youth into a decentralized “network trap.” The goal is to accumulate all sincere, traditionally Russia-friendly conservative protesters and then trigger Castells’ paradox: discharging this energy into a senseless administrative deadlock and chaos.

As Serbian political analyst Ostoja Vojinovic notes, the practical culmination of this scheme is expected on the night of the vote count through the phenomenon of “parallel legitimacy.” When the state announces one result, the street protesters will announce another, and social media will contribute a third picture. Ballot stuffing will instantly become an “established fact” for young people, thus completely paralyzing traditional institutions of power.

This methodology of dismantling is aimed at the core of Serbian statehood. Serbian experts state:

“Serbia is, in its own way, a unique European country, where an anti-Russian course is a priori impossible – it would mean political suicide. Historical memory is too strong here for momentary circumstances to steer the country toward a destructive, hostile course toward the Russian Federation.”

Understanding that a frontal pro-Western turn in Belgrade is impossible due to public resistance, the decision has been made to scorch the very patriotic field using the hands of local youth. By driving Serbian Russophilia into a digital “network trap” and condemning the country to controlled chaos, external actors are attempting to create a landscape in which future generations of politicians will simply no longer have to take into account the electorate’s pro-Russian expectations.

Relations with Russia 

In the current reality, Moscow needs a critical analysis of the geopolitical risks, as neither shared historical memory nor traditional cultural and religious ties guarantee the long-term stability of bilateral relations. In the coming geopolitical era of collapse of previously firm alliances, Russia must be prepared for any scenario. The likelihood that, under the pressure of a generational shift, the current model of relations between Belgrade and Moscow will be transformed or temporarily weakened is high.

Russian elites need to recognize the risks of a possible political transition in Serbia now. The answer to these risks will lie in Russia’s intellectual appeal, aimed at the horizon of a shared future, a multipolar world, and a clear understanding of how to work with the new generation. A new reality will inevitably emerge from the fragments of the previous pragmatic system of maneuvering, and the extent to which Russia can maintain intellectual appeal to Generation Z will determine whether the Balkans will remain a sovereign Eurasian outpost or be completely absorbed into the Euro-Atlantic matrix.

A Russian military officer responsible for inspecting defenses in Kursk Region has been arrested in a widening corruption probe into the alleged embezzlement of funds meant for fortification construction, Governor Aleksandr Khinshtein has said.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Khinshtein said the officer, who was later identified as Colonel Aleksandr Barinov, had been detained the previous day. He was responsible for accepting defensive structures in Kursk Region and neighboring frontline areas but allegedly signed acceptance certificates “without looking,” effectively approving work without inspecting it.

Investigators allege that Barinov, a department head in the engineering troops directorate of Russia’s Leningrad Military District, approved reinforced-concrete anti-tank barriers known as “dragon’s teeth” that did not meet required standards. His actions are believed to have helped conceal the theft of at least 700 million rubles ($8.5 million) allocated for fortifications in Kursk Region.

The defenses came under intense scrutiny after Ukrainian forces launched a large-scale incursion into Kursk Region in August 2024, breaking through the border and seizing dozens of settlements. Russian forces subsequently pushed them back and announced the region’s full liberation in April 2025.

Barinov, who has partially admitted guilt, has been charged with abuse of office and remanded in custody until November 27.

“I am certain that this story does not end here,” Khinshtein said. He pledged that the regional government would continue cooperating with law enforcement to identify everyone involved in what he described as crimes of “unprecedented scale and cynicism.”

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, Kursk Region has been hit by a string of corruption scandals involving money earmarked for border defenses. The federal government allocated 19.4 billion rubles for fortifications in 2022-2023, including bunkers, firing positions, anti-tank barriers, and trenches, but prosecutors later alleged that contractors used sham deals and shell companies to siphon off funds.

The scandal has engulfed some of the region’s most senior former officials. Ex-governor Aleksey Smirnov was sentenced to 14 years in prison in April after being convicted of accepting particularly large bribes. Smirnov admitted guilt and claimed that his predecessor, Roman Starovoit, had proposed taking kickbacks.

Starovoit, who governed Kursk Region until becoming Russia’s transport minister in 2024, was found dead from a gunshot wound in July 2025, hours after President Vladimir Putin dismissed him. Investigators treated suicide as the main theory. Law-enforcement sources later said Starovoit had been under scrutiny over possible involvement in the theft of funds allocated for the fortifications, while the Kremlin said his dismissal had not been formally linked to a loss of confidence.

Other officials and contractors have also received prison terms. Former Kursk Region Development Corporation chief Vladimir Lukin was sentenced to nine years over the theft of 152 million rubles, while three businessmen were convicted in a separate scheme involving inflated construction contracts and the theft of more than 141.7 million rubles.

European NATO members should have been able to attack Iran instead of relying on the US and Israel, according to Secretary-General Mark Rutte, the head of the self-described defensive alliance.

Iran has been attacked twice in two years, both times over allegations that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons, which Tehran rejects as false. Speaking at the Euronews Defence & Space Summit on Friday, Rutte endorsed the idea that European nations should acquire the military capabilities needed to carry out such wars of aggression themselves.

In the future, “the Europeans will be able to take care of their backyard themselves. It should be us doing this, not the Americans,” he said.

“Europe was not able to take out the nuclear capability of Iran. We couldn’t. We didn’t have the capabilities. In 10 years, we can and we should,” he added, referring to multi-billion euro rearmament efforts now underway in European members of the military bloc.

Earlier in the day, the NATO chief dismissed Russian concerns over hostile rhetoric by some members of the bloc regarding the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Region.

“Basically what we said is, ‘hey, listen, we are a defensive alliance, and stop the nuclear threat’,” he told journalists when asked about a formal warning Moscow had sent to Brussels.

Russia cited remarks by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who proposed in September deploying additional troops near the Russian border so that Moscow would be “uncertain of what we will do.” Moscow said it would use its “entire available arsenal” to defend Russian territory from a possible attack by NATO states.

NATO was created in the early years of the Cold War, ensuring a continued US military presence in Western Europe. The Soviet Union later established its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, which no longer exists.

While NATO describes itself as a defensive alliance, it has carried out military attacks against other countries, including the UK- and French-led 2011 intervention in Libya, after which the North African state was balkanized.

Russia considers NATO’s eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War a major national security threat and has cited it as one of the principal causes of the Ukraine conflict.

Rutte’s argument in support of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran echoed remarks by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said in June 2025 that the Israelis were doing “[the] dirty work for us.”

The incident aboard FlyDubai flight FZ1073 has yielded some confirmed facts, but it is still too early to draw firm conclusions. The passenger jet was flying from Dubai to Tel Aviv on Wednesday when a confrontation broke out in the cockpit. The aircraft then transmitted a distress signal and made an emergency landing in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. All 174 passengers and crew members survived. According to media reports, the plane lost altitude rapidly, while passengers and airline employees aboard helped subdue the attacker and restore control to the crew. Early wire reports offered conflicting accounts, including claims of a hijacking, because the aircraft had transmitted the corresponding emergency signal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the copilot had attacked the captain and apparently tried to crash the plane. Defense Minister Israel Katz described the incident as an attempted jihadist terrorist attack. Israeli authorities have already characterized it as an attempted act of terrorism, drawing comparisons with the September 11, 2001 attacks. But the investigation is ongoing, and no final findings have been released. FlyDubai confirmed that an altercation had occurred in the cockpit and said investigators were working to establish its cause and the motives involved. Authorities in the United Arab Emirates also announced an investigation and urged the public not to spread unverified information. Saudi officials confirmed the emergency landing and said both pilots had been hospitalized.

The central question – what exactly happened – therefore remains unresolved. Israel has already said it views the incident as an act of terrorism. Yet the publicly available evidence is still insufficient to establish an ideological motive, an intention to kill Israelis specifically, or any connection between the attacker and an organization. Investigators are examining his motives, the circumstances of the attack, and whether it involved advance planning.

Media reports identified the suspect as the copilot and an Omani citizen, but those details came from Israeli sources and have not been confirmed by all parties. No information has been released about whether he made any statements, had contact with radical groups, or acted on someone else’s instructions. FlyDubai has explicitly warned against jumping to conclusions.

Two separate questions need to be distinguished here. The first is whether the attacker acted alone aboard the aircraft. Reports suggest that only one person carried out the attack in the cockpit. The second is whether he was a lone extremist in the political sense: someone acting on his own initiative, without outside connections, support, or a prearranged plan. That remains unknown. A single perpetrator does not necessarily mean there was no organization behind him. Equally, an attack on a plane bound for Israel does not, by itself, prove that such an organization existed.

If investigators establish that the copilot deliberately tried to destroy the aircraft because it was headed to Tel Aviv or because Israelis were aboard, the incident could be classified as a terrorist attack carried out through access granted by his job. That would distinguish it from the more familiar scenario of an attacker trying to board a plane with a weapon. In that case, the security challenge would extend beyond passenger screening to the possibility of someone exploiting a trusted position within the aviation system.

Radicalization as the political backdrop

Still, it is also too early to dismiss the incident as a personal dispute between two crew members. The flight was bound for Israel, and the confrontation occurred in a region where protracted conflict is a fact of daily life. This week, the Israel Defense Forces again struck Gaza, killing Palestinian civilians. Under those circumstances, there can hardly be any meaningful talk of a ceasefire. In September, further attacks took place in the West Bank, where no Hamas fighters were involved: an armed assailant attacked an Israeli, while settlers attacked a Palestinian family.

Radicalization in this context is not simply a matter of new armed groups emerging. It also means a growing number of people coming to see violence as an acceptable political response, assigning collective responsibility for a government’s actions to entire populations, and treating any compromise as betrayal. The longer military operations, civilian deaths, and mutual recriminations continue, the easier it becomes for extremists to portray violence as “retribution” or “resistance” instead of a crime. Different forces employ this rhetoric, but it does not absolve individual perpetrators of responsibility for attacking civilians.

Israel’s military operations in Gaza, conditions in the West Bank, settlement expansion, and inflammatory statements by Israeli officials deepen the region’s sense of injustice, particularly among those who identify with their “Palestinian brothers and sisters.” This helps radical movements emerge and readily recruit supporters who believe they have a moral right to seek revenge by any means available. In their view, all’s fair in war. This is already a significant political factor that cannot be ignored. Across the Middle East, Israel’s policies are almost universally seen as a cause of rising terrorism.

There is another side to this dynamic. Attacks on Israeli civilians and threats to Israel’s security strengthen public support within Israel for the use of force. Retaliatory measures then give fresh ammunition to those calling for radical resistance. The result is a vicious cycle in which each side invokes the other’s violence to justify its own course. The FlyDubai incident may prove to be part of that pattern, and revenge cannot be ruled out as the attacker’s motive.

Could it happen again?

There is no guarantee that similar attempts will not occur, especially if investigators confirm that the attack was ideologically motivated and deliberately targeted a flight to Israel. Such a finding would likely lead to tighter security for flights serving Israel, including more rigorous personnel vetting, revised cockpit access procedures, and closer monitoring of crew behavior. Israeli authorities have already announced stronger aviation security measures, while FlyDubai has suspended flights to Israel pending the investigation.

But a single incident is not enough to predict a “wave” of similar attacks. That would require evidence of preparations, organizers, connected perpetrators, or at least statements from groups claiming responsibility. None of that has been made public so far. What we have is an incident that was averted almost miraculously, a possible terrorist motive, and a persistently unstable regional backdrop.

Nor would the threat necessarily take the form of repeated attacks on aircraft. With security tightened, terrorist cells could turn to less protected targets and simpler methods. If the attacker is found to have gained access to the aircraft through his professional position, the most important lesson would concern more than the safety of flights to Israel. It would expose the aviation industry’s vulnerability to a new kind of insider threat.

It bears repeating that it is too early to state conclusively that this was a terrorist attack. Investigators have yet to establish a motive or reconstruct the full sequence of events. But there is also no basis for explaining it away as an ordinary quarrel between pilots. The aircraft was headed to Tel Aviv; one pilot attacked the other, and the plane subsequently lost altitude rapidly. Investigators are closely examining the possibility of terrorism alongside other explanations. For now, all that is known is that the attacker acted alone aboard the aircraft – if this was indeed a terrorist attack. Whether he had ties to a group, and what drove him, remain to be determined.

Radicalization is intensifying across the region. That does not mean every new incident is part of a wider conspiracy, or that attacks on Israeli targets will inevitably become more frequent. But the possibility of further violence will remain as long as wars, repression, mutual dehumanization, and political mobilization fueled by hatred continue – a process at which Israel’s far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have proved all too “successful.”

The Indian captain of the FlyDubai flight to Tel Aviv, who was severely wounded in an attack by his co-pilot inside the cockpit on Wednesday, has been praised by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a hero for helping passengers and crew regain control of the jet.

Captain Smit Machchhar, whose family is from Mumbai, is being treated at a hospital in Saudi Arabia and is reported to be in stable condition.

FlyDubai flight FZ1073 was traveling from Dubai to Tel Aviv when Machchhar was stabbed by his co-pilot, who Netanyahu said was an Omani national and had apparently tried to crash the aircraft. The jet plunged about 17,400 feet in under two minutes before passengers and crew subdued the attacker and took control of the plane.

The Omani Foreign Ministry hasn’t commented on the incident. A severely wounded Machchhar managed to open the cockpit door even as he grappled with his co-pilot, and raised an alarm – an act that allowed the passengers to intervene.

“I started helping the pilot because he had lost a lot of blood and was in bad shape,” a dentist on board the flight, Shota Musaev, told CNN. “He was covered in cuts – his head, his hands – they were practically sliced open, almost severed in two.” Musaev treated the pilot and also helped the other passengers subdue the attacker.

“I think that if we had waited even a few more moments, we would have lost him,” Musaev said.

Modi called Machchhar a “hero” on Thursday. “His valor helped save hundreds of lives and avert a great tragedy,” the Indian prime minister posted on X.

📹 ICYMI: Flydubai Hero 🇮🇳 Captain Who Helped Foil Mid-Air Attack Spoke About Crew’s Role A Year Ago

In the interview, Capt. Smit Machchhar spoke about how passengers depend on crew in an emergency.

After reportedly being stabbed by his co-pilot, the Indian captain managed to… https://t.co/x3N09Baz20 pic.twitter.com/Ph3H40NA8E

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) October 1, 2026

Netanyahu praised Machchhar’s “extraordinary bravery.” He called the Indian captain a “true hero” and said his actions had helped in preventing “a catastrophic mid-air disaster,” and saved the 174 people on board the plane.

Musaev said he spoke with Machchhar while treating him and learned that the 39-year-old has two children and lives in Dubai. Machchhar has nearly 9,750 flying hours on Boeing 737 aircraft. He spent about 11 years with the Indian carrier SpiceJet, where he became a senior commander and line training captain responsible for training and checking other pilots, before joining Flydubai in 2022. His experience includes more than 6,400 hours as pilot-in-command at SpiceJet.

“None,” Machchhar told an interviewer last year when asked what he considered more important, a smooth landing or on-time arrival. “Safety,” he added in a prescient comment.

“As long as you’re walking out of the aircraft is what I want,” he added.

India’s embassy in Riyadh and the consulate in Jeddah are monitoring Machchhar’s condition and remain in contact with his family and Saudi authorities.

Machchhar had originally planned to join his family’s textile business, but later pursued management studies in Mumbai and trained as a pilot in New Zealand, local media reported.

FlyDubai confirmed that an altercation occurred on the flight deck but said the underlying reasons and motive remain unknown and subject to a formal investigation.

The Pentagon will set up a new Autonomous Warfare Command to design, produce and field robotic systems across the military, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has said in his ‘State of the Force’ address.

The announcement comes as experts sound the alarm about the threat posed by military AI, saying that over-reliance on it could lead to the erosion of human critical thinking, increase the risk of accidental escalation due to the unpredictability of the decision-making by the algorithms and make warfare even more dangerous for civilians.

During his speech at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia on Wednesday, Hegseth said that the AutoWarCom would be granted “service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force in the fastest peacetime shift in modern military history.”

“Drone warfare supercharged by SI-enabled targeting is the biggest battlefield revolution in generations,” he stressed.

A day earlier, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order replacing the term “Artificial Intelligence” (“AI”) with “Super Intelligence” (“SI”) in the US government’s vocabulary.

The lessons of the Ukraine conflict, in which both sides actively rely on drones, have been one of the main motivations for launching the new command, according to the secretary of war.

In a memo published the same day, Hegseth noted that the Pentagon’s long-time strategy “of buying fewer, increasingly sophisticated weapons” has lost its effectiveness.

“Warfare… has changed dramatically and suddenly. Advanced computing now enables precise, low-cost weapons to be produced at massive scale. These systems increasingly threaten our costly legacy platforms and disrupt our force projection. Urgent change is required,” he wrote.

The Autonomous Warfare Command, which will be led by a four-star general, should become operational by October 1, 2027, the secretary of war said.

Bloomberg reported last month that heavy reliance on AI, staff cuts and rushed targeting procedures contributed to a US missile strike on an Iranian girls’ school in Minab on February 28, in which at least 157 people, including 123 children, were killed.

Officials involved in the Pentagon investigation told the agency that some US Central Command (CENTCOM) personnel expected Palantir’s Maven Smart System to flag stale or inconsistent intelligence when selecting potential targets, but it failed to do so. The US hasn’t publicly acknowledged responsibility for the Minab strike.

Last week, CNN reported that AI almost caused a serious incident between US and China in spring. The American forces were about to intercept a Chinese vessel, which, according to an intelligence report, was carrying components for a nuclear weapon to Iran. The mission was called off at the last moment when it became clear that a chatbot used by the analyst misidentified the cargo, according to the broadcaster.

During a defense conference in Beijing in mid-September, Thailand’s Defense Minister Adul Boonthumjaroen warned that the world was at “a critical turning point” due to the emergence of the military AI. “The most pressing is not who will be the most powerful, but rather, how can we build an international order,” he said.

India has approved a $19 billion expansion of its green-energy grid to remove the transmission constraints that are holding back the country from fully utilizing its fast-growing solar and wind power generation capacity, especially during peak hours.  

The Green Energy Corridor Phase III (GEC-III) will enable the country’s green grid to carry up to 135 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power, and deploy 50 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of battery storage. It is targeted for completion by fiscal 2032-33.

GW is a measure of generation capacity, while GWh measures the total amount of energy produced or consumed over time.

Nearly 21GW, or about 9% of India’s installed renewable capacity, is currently connected through temporary grid arrangements while awaiting dedicated transmission infrastructure. This infrastructure gap restrains the transmission of around 12GW of power to users during periods of peak solar generation. 

Grid operators had to restrict 8,133GWh of solar electricity during the April-June period, when peak power demand reached a record 270GW, because of these transmission constraints and the need to maintain grid stability, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy told India’s parliament.

GEC-III will pair the additional transmission capacity with Battery Energy Storage Systems, enabling the stored renewable electricity to be released during periods of higher demand. This will help to reduce peak-hour power restrictions and meet demand outside solar-generation hours.

New Delhi currently has about 8.66GWh of installed large-scale battery storage, against a projected requirement of 236GWh by 2031-32, according to Power Ministry data.

India crossed 300GW of installed non-fossil power capacity in July, with these now accounting for more than 54% of the country’s installed generation capacity. New Delhi is targeting 500GW of non-fossil power by 2030.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has rejected claims by UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham that Tehran is linked to the recent security scare near the RAF Fairford airbase in southwestern England.

Police arrested five men on Sunday near the military facility that hosts US bombers used in missions against Iran. The suspects turned out to be British citizens in their early 20s and were released on bail the following day.

“There are strong indications that Iran played a part in what happened over the weekend at RAF Fairford,” Burnham told the BBC on Wednesday, marking the first time UK authorities have publicly linked the incident to a foreign actor.

He declined to provide further details, promising to “say more in due course.”

PM Burnham says the UK Government "can confirm our belief that we believe Iran to have played a part" in the RAF Fairford incident.

I can confirm Iran's belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) September 30, 2026

Araghchi responded to Burnham’s claims on social media.

“I can confirm Iran’s belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all. You’re barking up the wrong tree,” he wrote on X.

The Iranian Embassy in London earlier issued a statement strongly denying any involvement in the incident near RAF Fairford and accused the UK government of peddling “Iranophobia.”

Burnham also defended the decision to release the suspects, which had been questioned by US President Donald Trump, insisting that the men were subject to the “strictest possible bail conditions.”

The American leader claimed the suspects were known to the law enforcement.

“I would have said, ‘Don’t let them have bail.’ I’m surprised that they released them. I wouldn’t have done that,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

The case has fueled much speculation in Western media, including theories that Russia or unspecified Islamist extremists may have been behind the incident. Police initially believed the suspects illegally held explosives, but none were found in three vans found in the vicinity of the base.

In another twist, the BBC reported on Wednesday that one of the five suspects had called the police himself shortly before the arrests – and about an hour before local residents alerted authorities to suspicious vehicles near the base. According to the Daily Mail, masked men reported by locals in the woods were apparently armed police responding to the initial tip.

Dubai-based airline FlyDubai has suspended flights to and from Israel after a Tel Aviv-bound passenger jet was diverted and made an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia following an apparent hijacking attempt.

Direct air travel has been one of the most visible signs of normalized relations between Israel and the UAE since the countries signed the US-brokered Abraham Accords in 2020.

“Following the incident involving flight FZ 1073 on 30 September, and in coordination with the relevant authorities, Flydubai flights to and from Israel will be suspended while the investigation continues,” the airline said in a statement on Wednesday.

“The safety and wellbeing of our passengers, crew and operations remain our highest priority. This temporary suspension will allow the relevant authorities to continue their work and establish all the facts surrounding the incident,” Flydubai added.

The UAE’s aviation regulator, the General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA), acknowledged that a “security incident” aboard the aircraft had forced the plane, which was traveling from Dubai International Airport to Ben Gurion International Airport, to land in Tabuk in northwestern Saudi Arabia.

According to Israeli officials and passengers, most of whom were Israeli nationals, a fight broke out in the cockpit during which the co-pilot stabbed the captain, causing the plane to plunge. Passengers and crew members eventually subdued the assailant, after which the aircraft landed safely, with no fatalities among the 174 people on board. The captain was reportedly seriously injured during the altercation.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attacker had apparently planned to crash the plane and that the actions of the captain and passengers prevented “a 9/11 disaster.”

US President Donald Trump, who discussed the incident with Netanyahu by phone, suggested that the co-pilot was “perhaps a terrorist, or perhaps a whack-job.”

Emirati-Israeli relations have faced growing strains since the start of the Gaza war in 2023, despite the two countries maintaining diplomatic, commercial and security ties.

Regional tensions escalated further after the US and Israel launched their war against Iran in late February. Tehran retaliated by firing thousands of missiles and drones at the UAE, which hosts US military forces.

Netanyahu visited the UAE on Sunday for talks with President Mohamed bin Zayed on bilateral ties and the war with Iran. Tehran condemned the visit and warned of “highly dangerous consequences,” arguing that Netanyahu’s presence threatened regional peace and security.

Lithuanian Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevicius has said there is no evidence that Russia is preparing an attack on NATO territory, following a meeting with the military bloc’s chief, Mark Rutte, in Brussels.

His remarks came amid heightened tensions between Russia and NATO, as some Western officials and intelligence agencies have warned that Moscow could be preparing operations against member states in Europe.

At a press conference on Tuesday, an AFP reporter asked Sinkevicius, whose Baltic country borders Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave and Moscow’s close ally Belarus, whether the “increasing hysteria and fear of hybrid attacks” could undermine Europe’s confidence and play into Russia’s hands.

“We’re not shaking. We’re not shivering. We are investing hugely in our defense capabilities,” Sinkevicius replied.

“I think it’s a must to say if the threat is there for the society. But you can’t exaggerate and say, ‘Oh, something is happening in the upcoming months or weeks,’” he added.

“I was addressing the secretary general [Rutte, asking] ‘Is there any proof, real proof intelligence services are providing, something on the table, that Russia is getting ready for something?’ And there is actually none,” Sinkevicius said.

“The risk remains but it is not fluctuating, increasing or decreasing. We have to calmly do our work, and we’re doing it,” he added. 

👀 Lithuanian PM: "I was addressing the secretary general [Mark Rutte asking,] 'Is there any proof, real proof intelligence services are providing, something on the table, that Russia is getting ready for something?' And there is actually none."

In other words, most of the “OMG!… pic.twitter.com/2UdYUWWKPR

— 1g0r.B0hm (@1g0rB0hm) September 30, 2026

Rutte said the bloc should respond to potential threats by strengthening its own defenses and doing “even more for Ukraine, and not less.”

Speaking at the Euronews Defence & Space Summit in Brussels the following day, the NATO chief similarly sought to play down fears of an imminent Russian attack.

“There is no imminent threat to NATO territory. If there is a build-up, we will see it and we will deal with it,” Rutte said.

European officials have increasingly discussed the possibility of a military confrontation with Russia, particularly around Kaliningrad, which is sandwiched between NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys argued in May that NATO must demonstrate its ability to “break into” the Russian exclave and destroy its air-defense and missile systems if necessary. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said last month that NATO members should closely monitor Russian forces in Kaliningrad and conduct exercises “so aggressively” that Moscow would be forced to divert troops from Ukraine to defend the region.

The Kremlin has described remarks about Kaliningrad as “borderline crazy,” while the Russian Embassy in Belgium condemned what it called “an unprecedented surge” in NATO military activity along Russia’s western borders.

“The Alliance is conducting a large-scale information campaign to propagate the myth of the ‘Russian threat’ and spread false information about Moscow’s alleged ‘intentions’ to attack one of the Baltic states by 2029 at the latest, or even sooner,” the Russian Embassy said on X on Monday.

It warned NATO members that “reckless and irresponsible” actions risked triggering a direct armed conflict.

Patrick Branco Ruivo, the director general of the company operating the Eiffel Tower, has said he will step down amid controversy over female employees being replaced by men during a visit by Hindu dignitaries.

According to French media, Branco Ruivo told staff and the board of directors of the Societe d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SETE) on Tuesday that he would leave by the end of the year. However, he denied issuing “any instruction aimed at sidelining or replacing women” during a September 5 tour of the monument by members of the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), a global conservative Hindu religious organization.

“Nevertheless, women were indeed sidelined, and I regret that,” Branco Ruivo said, as cited by Le Figaro.

His decision followed an internal investigation that uncovered “a series of dysfunctions and failures” in the organization of protocol visits, which SETE said had led to the “unacceptable” sidelining of female employees.

A separate investigation launched by the City of Paris is still underway, according to French media.

The scandal broke after Eiffel Tower employees said management had issued instructions that led to female staff “being sidelined, replaced and made invisible because of their sex” during the BAPS delegation’s visit in early September.

“Some [women] were asked to leave their posts and withdraw to other areas. In some posts they were replaced by men. And all female employees were instructed not to go through or cross certain areas while the delegation was present,” staff at the iconic landmark said.

The CGT trade union representing Eiffel Tower employees held a strike on September 7 to protest the treatment of female staff, forcing the landmark to remain closed for the day.

SETE said at the time that the Hindu delegation had requested arrangements limiting “interactions with women,” adding that “these conditions should not have been accepted.”

BAPS, however, denied asking for “female employees to be hidden, removed or excluded from the visit,” insisting that its monks observe their “personal spiritual commitments” without seeking to impose them on others. The organization nevertheless apologized for “any pain or inconvenience caused” by the incident.

BAPS is known for building large Hindu temples and cultural complexes around the world, including in London, Abu Dhabi and Robbinsville, New Jersey. The delegation’s Eiffel Tower visit coincided with celebrations surrounding the inauguration of a new BAPS temple in the Paris suburb of Bussy-Saint-Georges.

Nearly four years after Western governments set out to squeeze Russia’s oil revenues, Moscow is shipping crude worth more per week than at any point since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

The gross value of Russia’s seaborne crude exports surged to $2.75 billion in the week through September 27, the highest weekly figure in four years, according to tanker-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. Shipments averaged 3.71 million barrels per day over the latest four weeks, their highest since early August.

The rebound exposes a central problem with the Western strategy. Sanctions were designed to keep Russian oil on the global market to avoid a supply shock while forcing Moscow to sell it more cheaply.

Instead, Russia rerouted crude from Europe to China, India, and other markets, built alternative shipping networks, and reduced its reliance on Western services. Now, soaring global prices fueled by the US-Israeli war on Iran are making those barrels more valuable.

The plan: Keep Russian oil flowing but slash Moscow’s earnings

When the West moved against Russian oil in 2022, it faced an obvious problem: Russia was too large an exporter to remove from the market without risking a surge in global prices.

The EU was also Moscow’s biggest oil market. Europe took more than half of Russia’s oil exports in 2021, while Russia was the EU’s largest crude supplier, accounting for roughly a quarter of its imports. China, by comparison, was Russia’s largest single-country buyer.

The EU banned most seaborne Russian crude imports in December 2022, while the G7-led bloc imposed a $60-per-barrel price cap. Western shipping, insurance, and other maritime services could still handle Russian crude, but only if it was sold below the ceiling. Sanctions on petroleum products followed in February 2023.

The logic was simple: cut Russia’s revenues without removing its oil from the global market. The strategy therefore depended on keeping Russian crude flowing while using Western dominance of shipping and insurance services to constrain its price.

The plan backfired.

What went wrong?

The $60 cap initially coincided with steep discounts on Russia’s flagship Urals crude. But Moscow gradually reduced its dependence on Western shipping and insurance services by which the ceiling was supposed to be enforced.

Even the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) – a Helsinki-based research organization that has repeatedly advocated tougher sanctions on Moscow – now says the policy has “failed to impose a durable constraint on Russian crude export earnings.” It says the measure worked only for limited periods on Urals, while other grades and export channels were largely unaffected.

The EU repeatedly tightened the mechanism, lowering the ceiling first to $47.60 and then to $44.10 per barrel from February 2026. The latter was intended to remain 15% below the average market price for Urals.

Yet Urals averaged $60.22 a barrel in July – roughly $16 above the EU and UK ceiling. Russia’s ESPO crude, heavily oriented toward Asian buyers, has also consistently traded above both the old and new caps, according to CREA.

Brussels has responded by sanctioning hundreds of tankers, targeting traders, and tightening restrictions on third-country entities accused of helping Moscow circumvent the measures. Russian crude, however, continues to flow.

Four years later: Where is Russian oil going?

Russia did not stop selling oil when its biggest European customers turned away. It found other customers.

China and India emerged as the dominant destinations for Russian crude, while Türkiye also increased its role. In July alone, India imported $6.25 billion worth of Russian crude – a record high for a second consecutive month – while seaborne deliveries to China were 16% higher than a year earlier, according to CREA.

Russia also built up shipping capacity outside the traditional Western system. By June, sanctioned “shadow” tankers were carrying 66% of its seaborne crude exports, compared with just 31% aboard G7-linked vessels, CREA estimates.

Sanctions changed the routes, ships, and customers. They did not stop millions of barrels of Russian crude from reaching the global market.

Why is Russian oil worth more now?

The biggest twist has come not from Brussels or Washington, but from the Middle East. The US-Israeli war on Iran and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz have pushed global crude prices sharply higher, while attacks on regional energy infrastructure have further strained supplies.

The result is precisely the type of supply shock Western governments sought to avoid when designing the price cap – and Russia is among the producers benefiting from higher prices.

On a four-week basis, the gross value of Russia’s crude shipments has risen to $2.39 billion per week, up $290 million from the previous four-week period, according to Bloomberg.

The price shock has also complicated efforts to tighten the squeeze. Earlier this year, the EU considered a maritime-services ban that would have gone beyond the price cap by directly targeting Russia’s ability to ship oil. But soaring prices following the Hormuz disruption prompted a rethink over fears that squeezing Russian exports could worsen the global shortage, according to CREA.

The EU subsequently suspended automatic adjustments to its Russian crude price cap until July 2027, while retaining the option of an earlier review.

The dilemma is the same one Western governments faced in 2022: squeeze Russian supply too hard and global prices could rise further – making the barrels that still reach the market more valuable.

Not all barrels are created equal: The refinery factor

The surge in the value of Russia’s crude exports does not tell the whole story.

Ukrainian drone attacks have disrupted Russian refineries, reducing domestic processing and leaving more crude available for export. Moscow has also restricted diesel shipments to protect domestic supplies.

Russian oil-product loadings fell to 4.7 million tons in July, their lowest level on record and less than half the 9.6 million tons shipped a year earlier, according to CREA. Seaborne crude revenues, by contrast, rose 7%. Russia has also raised its 2026 crude-export forecast while cutting its outlook for refined-product shipments.

The crude boom is therefore being partly offset by weaker fuel exports. At the same time, reduced refinery activity is freeing up more unprocessed oil for shipment abroad – where higher global prices have increased its value.

Europe doubles down

Despite the limits exposed by the price-cap system, Western governments are continuing to tighten restrictions and pressing European states that still rely heavily on Russian energy to cut their remaining ties.

Slovakia and Hungary have resisted demands for a rapid cutoff, arguing that refineries, pipelines, and other infrastructure built around Russian supplies cannot simply be switched to alternatives overnight.

The dispute returned to the fore this week when German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul traveled to Slovakia and urged it to move away from Russian oil and gas and increase pressure on Moscow.

Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar pushed back, saying the country’s infrastructure was built around Russian supplies and that an immediate cutoff would create “enormous problems.”

The West’s Catch-22

The West can sanction more tankers and traders, tighten enforcement, pressure remaining buyers and target third-country networks. The EU’s latest sanctions package added another 41 vessels to a list that already includes 632 ships and targeted entities in China, India, Türkiye, Kazakhstan, and the UAE.

But directly targeting Russian export volumes brings the original dilemma back into focus: the West kept Russian barrels on the market because it feared soaring oil prices – only for soaring oil prices to make those barrels more valuable.

The Russian Defense Ministry has shared footage of troops practicing an amphibious assault against a simulated enemy deep in the Arctic.

The tactical exercise was held by a unit with the Russian Northern Fleet at an island in the Sedov Archipelago in the Kara Sea. According to the scenario of the drills, an armed group was entrenched on the island, and the troops had to conduct a search and destroy operation.

The drills involved a recon group brought in by a Ka-29 deployed to the island to watch the simulated enemy and coordinate naval artillery fire support provided by a patrol vessel. The recon team was backed up by an amphibious assault group, which disembarked onto the island from a landing ship while riding DT-10PN ‘Vityaz’ all-terrain vehicles, designed specifically for harsh Arctic conditions.

The force successfully captured the bridgehead and rapidly advanced into the designated area, finding and dismantling all the mines and improvised explosive devices along the way, the ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.

Russia possesses the largest coastline in the Arctic, measuring over 24,000 km. Moscow has repeatedly outlined defending its interests in the region as a major priority and has expanded its military presence there in response to hostile moves of the US-led NATO bloc, while developing the Northern Sea Route.

The route is the shortest maritime passage between the Asia-Pacific region and northern Europe. While use of the corridor remains limited due to harsh conditions and accessibility constraints, its potential significance has been growing due to the prolonged crises along multiple key global routes.

Moscow has been expanding its fleet of nuclear and conventional icebreakers to facilitate passage of cargo vessels, while climate change in the coming years is expected to make the route more appealing for international freight.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said the UK could eventually rejoin the European Union as his government considers options for reshaping relations with the bloc a decade after the Brexit referendum.

In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday, Burnham said Brexit had done “more harm than good,” arguing that the current settlement was holding back economic growth and had failed to deliver the promised control over immigration.

He said the government would examine alternatives ranging from maintaining the status quo to joining a customs union or the single market, or even potentially going “all the way” and returning to the EU. 

Talk of reversing Brexit has grown recently, with several prominent British politicians floating the idea. Burnham’s comments are the clearest indication yet that rejoining the EU could be on the table, although any such move would reopen questions over sovereignty, immigration, and regulatory control that drove much of the Leave vote.

Why did Britain leave the EU in the first place?

Britons voted 52% to 48% to leave the EU in June 2016, triggering years of negotiations over the terms of Brexit. The UK formally left the bloc in January 2020 and exited the single market and customs union at the end of that year.

For many Leave voters, Brexit was primarily about sovereignty and immigration rather than economics. An Ashcroft poll conducted immediately after the referendum found that 49% of Leave voters said their main reason was wanting decisions about the UK to be made in Britain, while 33% pointed to regaining control over immigration and borders. Only 6% primarily cited expected benefits from leaving the EU for trade and the economy. By contrast, 43% of Remain voters said their main concern was the risk Brexit posed to the economy, jobs, and prices.

What did Brexit achieve?

Brexit ended EU free movement and gave London control over who could move to Britain from the bloc. That did not, however, translate into lower overall immigration. Net migration instead surged as arrivals from outside the EU increased, reaching a record 944,000 in the year to March 2023 before falling sharply following tighter visa rules. Non-EU nationals continue to account for most immigration.

The change also worked both ways. British citizens lost EU freedom-of-movement rights and are now subject to the entry requirements that apply to non-EU travelers in the Schengen area.

Brexit also gave Britain an independent trade policy, allowing it to negotiate agreements without the approval of EU members. The UK has since struck deals with Australia, New Zealand, and India and joined the CPTPP, a major Indo-Pacific trade bloc. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimates that the long-term economic gains from post-Brexit trade agreements are small compared with the impact it expects from higher trade barriers with the EU.

The bloc nevertheless remains Britain’s largest trading partner, accounting for about 41% of UK exports and roughly half of imports in 2025.

Why is the issue being reopened now?

Critics contend that the economic costs of Brexit have overshadowed its benefits. The OBR estimates that Brexit will ultimately reduce the trade intensity of the British economy by around 15% and productivity by about 4% relative to remaining in the EU. These are long-term modeling assumptions rather than directly observed losses, while Britain’s economic performance since Brexit has also been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Ukraine conflict, and wider disruptions to global trade. 

Leaving the EU single market and customs union also created new barriers to trade with Britain’s largest trading partner. Businesses face customs declarations, rules-of-origin requirements, and additional checks that did not apply when Britain was an EU member.

While Brexit gave Britain greater control over legal migration, Burnham has argued that it weakened the country’s ability to tackle irregular migration by reducing cooperation with European countries, particularly over Channel crossings.

Is preserving the UK part of the calculation?

Burnham has not explicitly linked his EU rethink to preserving the United Kingdom. But it comes as pro-independence and Irish nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland push for independence or Irish reunification while presenting closer integration with the EU as part of their preferred future.

This month, the pro-independence SNP and Plaid Cymru, together with the pro-Irish-unification Sinn Fein, jointly asserted their nations’ right to self-determination and called on London to facilitate a constitutional change, declaring that their future “belongs in the European Union.” 

Burnham, meanwhile, has made preserving the UK an explicit priority. Responding on Tuesday to Scottish First Minister John Swinney’s prediction that he would be the UK’s last prime minister, he vowed to “fight with everything I’ve got to keep it together.”

Haven’t Britain and the EU already been moving closer?

In security policy, Britain and the EU have already moved significantly closer despite Brexit. The UK remains one of NATO’s leading European military powers, while the 2025 UK-EU Security and Defense Partnership established regular strategic consultations and expanded cooperation on Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, military mobility, and arms production. It also opened the way for greater British involvement in EU defense initiatives.

Much of the alignment has centered on Russia and Ukraine. London and its European partners have coordinated weapons supplies and training for Kiev, sanctions against Moscow, and efforts to expand European arms production.

In July, Britain secured participation in the EU’s €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan, allowing British defense companies to compete for procurement contracts financed through the scheme. The UK agreed to make a contribution proportionate to the value of contracts awarded to British companies.

Could Britain simply rejoin the EU?

Any return would be neither automatic nor a restoration of Britain’s previous membership terms. The UK would have to formally reapply and go through the EU accession process, requiring unanimous approval from member states and the consent of the European Parliament. Nor would Britain be guaranteed the opt-outs and special arrangements it enjoyed before Brexit; the terms of any renewed membership would have to be negotiated.

Immediately after the 2016 referendum, EU leaders said they regretted Britain’s decision but respected the result. During the subsequent withdrawal negotiations, Brussels took a firm line, insisting that Britain could not retain the benefits of EU membership from outside the bloc and rejecting “cherry picking” from the single market.

A decade later, however, Brussels is not ruling out London’s return. In July, EU Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said applying for membership was “entirely a prerogative” of the UK. Former EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said in June that the EU’s “door is open,” while stressing that Britain could not simply choose which EU rules to follow.

Indian designers are moving beyond manufacturing and craft work for global brands and are increasingly presenting their own collections on the international stage, fashion designer Kanika Goyal told RT at the BRICS+ Fashion Summit in Moscow.

India has long been an important source of craftsmanship and production for the global fashion industry, with much of that work taking place behind the scenes. But a new generation of homegrown labels is increasingly creating the finished product and taking its own design identity overseas.

“We’ve always been on the back end of things and walking behind the scenes,” Goyal told RT, but said Indian designers are now emerging “in a much louder way,” drawing greater attention to where the craft and techniques behind their work originate. Emerging talent is increasingly “creating the final product” and “putting it on global stage,” she added, saying that “recognition really matters.”

The shift comes as India’s textile exports rose 16.1% year-on-year in August, with ready-made garment exports up 6.1%, according to the Ministry of Textiles.

The change goes beyond India. Designers from BRICS and other emerging markets are already building strong domestic businesses while reaching audiences outside their home countries. For Goyal, this is less a future Global South-led fashion revolution than a shift that is already underway.

Russia is among the markets Indian labels could explore more directly. Goyal’s brand previously supplied Russian stores through a Paris-based sales agency before 2022. Shipping, customs, and finding the right partners now influence how designers approach the market, but she sees greater business between the two countries as a possibility.

Goyal’s Arc Echo collection was showcased at Moscow Fashion Week on Sunday. The current edition, which runs through October 1, features more than 350 designers from over ten countries. In 2025, the Fashion Design Council of India presented CoEK-Khadi India and Samant Chauhan at the event, while Russian label Hatsibana later appeared at Lakme Fashion Week in New Delhi under an FDCI–Moscow Fashion Week exchange.

Stronger links between emerging markets could eventually allow designers and buyers to work with each other without routing business through established fashion centers such as Paris, Goyal told RT India. That will, however, require these countries to establish effective commercial structures that make shipping, buying and cross-border partnerships easier.

Social media is also weakening the traditional barriers to global visibility. Designers from smaller cities and countries can now put collections directly in front of international audiences and editors, giving them routes into the industry that previously depended much more heavily on established fashion capitals.

The Pentagon announced on Wednesday that the last American troops had left Iraq, more than two decades after the US invaded the country.

A handover ceremony at Erbil Air Base in the northern Kurdish region marked the end of the US military presence.

The administration of then-President George W. Bush justified the 2003 invasion by claiming that longtime Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Washington never substantiated the allegations, while Iraq descended into a quagmire of violence involving Sunni and Shia Muslims as well as Kurds.

US forces pulled out in 2011 amid a slew of war crimes allegations, including the killing of unarmed civilians.

According to some estimates, more than a million Iraqis lost their lives as a result of the conflict, with millions more displaced.

Left in disarray with a weak central government and security forces, Iraq became fertile ground for Islamist militant groups. The crisis came to a head with the emergence of Islamic State, which seized around a third of Iraqi territory and spread into several neighboring countries, proclaiming a ‘caliphate’. Its militants massacred those they deemed insufficiently Muslim, as well as Christians and members of other religious minorities.

Washington intervened again in 2014 with a deployment code-named Operation Inherent Resolve.

RT correspondent Steve Sweeny took a look back at an intervention that upended the delicate balance between Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic groups, plunging the country into years of chaos and violence.

Shiite militias hailed the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq on Wednesday as a “historic victory” over Washington, which maintained a military presence in the country for a combined 20 years.

Commenting on the departure of US service members from Erbil Air Base in northern Iraq, Abu Mojtaba al-Yasiri, a commander of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, claimed that the event represented a “crushing defeat for the American project.”

Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, a senior representative of another Shiite militia, Kataib Hezbollah, echoed his sentiment, saying that the “expulsion of the occupation forces, defeated, from the land of Iraq is the beginning of full sovereignty.”

Unlike in 2011, this time around US troops are leaving Iraq for good, retired US Air Force Command Chief Master Sergeant Dennis Fritz told RT, predicting that the American military footprint in the broader Middle East is bound to significantly diminish as well.

A number of Iraqi Shiite armed groups backed Iran after the US and Israel attacked the Islamic Republic in late February, firing missiles and drones at US military installations.

In its latest statement, Kataib Hezbollah warned the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi against complying with US sanctions targeting Iranian airlines that were introduced last week, as RT’s Salman Kujari reports.

A 15-meter-high bronze memorial towers over the Amur River embankment: a Soviet soldier swings his rifle butt, smashing a Japanese border marker bearing the Imperial Chrysanthemum emblem – a symbol held sacred in Japan.

On September 4 – the day following Victory Day over Militaristic Japan and the End of WWII (as observed in Russia) – the Victory in the East memorial was unveiled at the highest point of the Amur River embankment in Khabarovsk. The monument was created at the initiative of Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the participation of the Russian Military Historical Society and the government of Khabarovsk Krai. The stone border post is an exact replica of a border stone erected by Japan on Sakhalin after the Russo-Japanese War.

The following day, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi demanded the removal of the monument. The depiction of the smashed chrysanthemum, she wrote on X, was absolutely unacceptable and was an affront to the national sentiments of the Japanese people. Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi called the monument “unacceptable” and deeply regrettable, and said that Tokyo would continue to press for its removal.

Moscow responded that it would not dismantle or alter the monument. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova even stated that one might as well demand that the wind stop blowing or the sun stop shining. 

Beijing seized the opportunity to remind its neighbor of past crimes: Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning advised Japan to learn from history, make a definitive break with militarism, and earn the trust of its neighbors through concrete actions.

At first glance, the situation appears unprecedented. In the span of a single month, the Russian president made a historic visit to Iturup; both sides summoned ambassadors; Japan, the US, and Australia held military exercises just 20 kilometers from the Russian border; and now, there’s the issue with the monument and the demand to tear it down. Media outlets speak of a “sharp chill” in relations, a new wave of confrontation in the Russian Far East, and even a potential “second front” of the Cold War.

However, Russian experts who spoke to RT view the situation differently.

A series of coincidences

The situation was triggered not by Russia’s actions, but by the Japanese Ministry of Defense. 

On August 4, the Cabinet of Japan approved its annual Defense of Japan White Paper – a record-breaking 598 pages featuring an anime-style cover showing a group of smiling young people against the backdrop of a futuristic city. This year’s theme was “Security for the Future.” The content of the whitepaper was quite pragmatic, however. China was identified as Japan’s greatest strategic challenge; on this list, China was followed by Russia and North Korea; for the first time, the buildup of military power was directly linked to economic prosperity (hence the peaceful cover design).

There is a section on Russian military activity in the Far East: the document notes Tu-95 flights, 214 interceptions of Russian aircraft over the course of the year, the expansion of joint naval patrols with China (in August 2025, a submarine participated in these patrols for the first time), as well as a flight by Russian and Chinese bombers to the area near Shikoku Island in December. There is also a chapter on new methods of warfare, such as the use of mass-produced, low-cost drones and AI in decision-making. For the second consecutive year, the document characterizes Russian military actions in the Southern Kuril Islands as “illegal occupation.”

Nine days later, on August 13, Vladimir Putin visited Iturup. Throughout his years in office, the Russian president had never visited the southern islands of the Kuril chain, which are also claimed by Japan.

Japan’s reaction was immediate. Takaichi called the visit “absolutely unacceptable,” Motegi repeated Tokyo’s position about the islands being an “inherent part of Japanese territory,” and the Japanese Foreign Ministry summoned Russian Ambassador to Japan Nikolay Nozdrev. Moscow responded firmly, dismissing the statements of Japanese officials as politically irrelevant, offensive, and legally null and void; it reiterated that Iturup, like the rest of the Kurils, is an integral part of Russia, and that Japanese officials have no right to tell Moscow which regions of the country the Russian president may visit.

On August 15, the anniversary of Japan’s surrender in WWII, Takaichi sent a ‘tamagushi’ (ritual offering) to the Yasukuni Shrine. However, she refrained from going there personally, and the ruling party clarified that the donation was made from personal funds and in Takaichi’s capacity as LDP leader, rather than as head of government. The gesture was calculated to satisfy the domestic audience, without triggering a diplomatic row with Beijing and Seoul.

On August 18, Japanese Ambassador to Russia Akira Muto was summoned to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin lodged a strong protest regarding statements made by the Japanese prime minister and foreign minister, asserting that Russia’s sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Southern Kuril Islands are inviolable, and that any attempts to call this reality into question are unacceptable and illegitimate.

On August 31, another incident occurred, this time involving military exercises. From September 8-24, Japan, the US, and Australia conducted Exercises Orient Shield with some operations taking place on Hokkaido Island, near the Russian border. The Japanese side was informed that provocative military activity near Russia’s Far Eastern borders is absolutely unacceptable; Zakharova specifically noted plans to deploy US land-based Typhon missile systems – capable of firing medium-and shorter-range missiles – during the exercises and warned of compensatory countermeasures.

On September 4, the monument was unveiled in Khabarovsk. That same day, the UN General Assembly voted to adopt the Equal Earth Projection. Japan voted in favor. But a few days later, it demanded a correction: on the online version of the new map, the four Southern Kuril Islands were shaded the same color as the rest of Russia, which Japan found unacceptable.

So there we have it – six incidents in 30 days. Each incident compounds the previous one, and together they form a picture of rapidly deteriorating relations.

Below, Russian experts analyze the situation. 

‘Relations have not cooled suddenly’

Vasily Shchepkin – a Japanologist with a PhD in History, senior researcher of the Far East Department at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and an associate professor at the Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg – suggests reframing the question. 

“In my view, relations between Russia and Japan have not cooled suddenly; they have been in this state for over four years, since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. Japan joined Western sanctions, and everything that has happened over the past four years is largely a consequence of that,” he said. 

Therefore, the rift happened not in September 2026, but in March 2022 – when Tokyo backed the collective West’s sanctions regime, and Moscow responded by withdrawing from peace treaty negotiations, cancelling visa-free travel for Japanese citizens to the Kuril Islands, and halting dialogue on joint economic activity there. Everything that followed was the consequence of that single decision.

So, what happened in August? According to Shchepkin, the current chain of events was a direct result of Putin’s visit to Iturup. Tokyo’s reaction was inevitable. However, he draws attention to a neglected detail. “Aside from statements, no concrete measures have followed so far.”

No actions were undertaken by Japan in September. No new sanctions packages were adopted; diplomats were not expelled, and the remaining projects were not cancelled. As for démarches, the summoning of diplomats, and declarations of unacceptable behavior, all this is standard diplomatic procedure. 

“Neither Tokyo nor Moscow seeks to aggravate relations further,” Shchepkin says. “In my view, [relations] are unlikely to deteriorate further, because, speaking of bilateral interaction, neither side wants to halt it or escalate tensions.”

Therefore, we may conclude that Russia-Japan relations, in their current form, are a dependent variable. 

“The current state of relations is rather a consequence of other events, which are not directly tied to the Russian-Japanese agenda,” the expert says. 

An independent bilateral agenda no longer exists; therefore, we may only speak of the global situation and how it relates to Russia’s Far East. 

“We are currently in a sort of deadlock which we return to whenever the global situation gets worse – and particularly when relations between Russia and the US deteriorate,” the expert says. “The US has long been the ‘third force’ on which Russia-Japan relations largely depended.”

Who started it?

While it’s true that relations are frozen, there is no consensus among the parties on who is to blame for this. Russian experts, however, have a clear opinion. 

Olga Bonch-Osmolovskaya, a Japanologist with a PhD in History, describes the reasons behind Tokyo’s decision. According to her, after 2022, Japan’s policy ceased to be truly independent. But that is only part of the story.

“It is one thing to politically condemn a distant war and state one’s position for the sake of appearances, given the existence of a sort of ‘suzerain’; it is quite another to actively integrate oneself into the corresponding policy,” she says. Japan chose the latter option. And it did so with particular zeal. 

“Driven by what one might call the ‘straight-A student complex’ of the Japanese and their tendency to be highly conscientious, sometimes even fanatical in executing tasks, Japan closely aligned itself with this course, joining the full package of sanctions against Moscow and withdrawing from various forms of cooperation,” Bonch-Osmolovskaya says.

The former policy – one that allowed Tokyo to balance between allied obligations and its own interests in the north – was curtailed. Along with it, all the achievements of the previous decade came to naught.

“Russia did not initiate the deterioration of relations with Japan,” Bonch-Osmolovskaya says. “It responded and continues to respond to Japanese sanctions and to the increased US military presence.”

There is a fine line between words and capabilities, however. Take Exercises Orient Shield, for example. “During the exercises, all sorts of maneuvers are practiced – the landing of troops, the transfer of ammunition, the deployment of HIMARS systems, air defense systems, etc.” 

This explains Russia’s strong reaction. “Of course, no one is saying that this is literally preparation for an attack on the Kuril Islands. But Russia is obliged to evaluate not only statements, but military capabilities,” Bonch-Osmolovskaya says.

Intentions change along with governments, but military infrastructure remains. And military officials all over the world take this into account.

The result is a vicious circle: Japan builds up its military potential jointly with the US; in response, Russia strengthens its position in the Far East; then, Tokyo presents this strengthening as an additional justification for further militarization. And the circle repeats itself. 

This is confirmed by Japan’s military spending. Japan crossed the 2% defense spending threshold ahead of schedule, a year earlier than the mark outlined in the 2022 strategy. For the current fiscal year, defense spending amounted to a record 8.8 trillion yen, and the request for the next year is already a record 8.9 trillion yen (about $56 billion). In June, the parliament renamed the Air Self-Defense Force into the Air and Space Self-Defense Force; this was the first renaming of one of the three branches of the Self-Defense Forces since their creation in 1954. In August, Takaichi announced further changes: the creation of a Space Operations Group, a Space Domain Awareness (SDA) satellite, and the expansion of the Okinawa Ground Self-Defense Force’s 15th Brigade into a division.

These actions are mainly directed against Beijing. But considering the geography, they are also directed against Moscow. 

Energy instead of diplomacy

Despite all this, there is something that balances the dramatic picture. While diplomats are exchanging demarches, gas carriers are departing from Sakhalin and transporting LNG to Japan. 

The Sakhalin-2 project survived sanctions, frozen political dialogue, and demands to dismantle the monument. In June, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control once again extended the special license until December 18, 2026. Such an exception has been issued annually since 2022, and each time it was preceded by negotiations between Tokyo and Washington. Russian LNG, according to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, provided about 9% of Japanese liquefied gas imports in 2025; According to Bonch-Osmolovskaya, the inverse relationship is even stronger – Japan accounted for about 58% of the project’s exports.

Vladimir Nelidov – PhD in History, associate professor of the Department of Oriental Studies at MGIMO, Senior Researcher at the Center for Japanese Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and RIAC expert – considers this to be the main reason why the threats didn’t go beyond words.

“Severing diplomatic relations would be disproportionate,” he says. “The possibilities for introducing additional economic sanctions are also limited: Japan does not have much leverage. For example, it remains involved in Sakhalin oil and gas projects and, I believe, is not ready to sacrifice them.”

Notably, the US administration insisted on Japan’s withdrawal from the Sakhalin projects. However, Tokyo remained. “As far as we can judge, Takaichi either convinced the US or insisted [on doing things her way] and so, despite the position of its senior ally, Japan remained in the projects.”

The second possible lever is humanitarian. Tokyo tries to preserve it, too. “The Japanese side has invested a lot of effort in humanitarian cooperation with Russia. Before the current escalation, the Japanese even proudly said that, despite the lack of political dialogue, cultural festivals and other events continue between the countries.” And Nelidov adds, “in the long term, Japan has perhaps more need for such contacts than Russia.”

Shchepkin supports this idea, adding that even in the past four years, and thanks to the efforts of the pro-Russia lobby within the Japanese Foreign Ministry, cooperation has been preserved in areas like culture, education, and tourism. The current flow of Russian tourists to Japan, the expert adds, is largely a legacy of the Shinzo Abe administration, when the parties agreed to put the territorial issue aside and focus on the economy, culture, and visas.

The general picture is quite clear. Bonch-Osmolovskaya calls it “cold peace” and warns that a complete rupture of relations would not benefit either country: while Japan could technically replace Sakhalin gas, doing so would require time, money, and even greater dependence on US suppliers, whereas Russia would lose revenue from the project. “A definitive break, should it occur, would come at too high a price for both sides,” she says.

Therefore, the limit to how far relations can deteriorate is not determined by diplomacy. It is dictated by the energy balance, and this applies to both parties.

Why Takaichi could not remain silent

A pressing question remains: why did the Japanese Prime Minister issue all these loud statements if no concrete measures were to follow?

Nelidov suggests viewing the situation through the eyes of the Japanese leadership to better understand their logic. Sanae Takaichi rose to power as a nationalist politician and, among other things, a defender of national honor. Her policy is grounded in this. 

“Had she failed to react to the Russian president’s visit to the territory claimed by Japan, to the installation of the monument – which [Russia] views as fine, necessary, and valuable, but which the Japanese see as a desecration of a state symbol – or to the military exercises, she would have been torn apart, figuratively speaking, by her own party,” the expert says.

For example, when the US administration imposed sanctions against the International Criminal Court – including its presiding judge, Japanese national Tomoko Akane – Takaichi faced criticism for not standing up for her compatriot firmly enough. “If public opinion and fellow party members demand decisive action from her even in dealings with the US, then what would they say about Russia?”

A scenario in which Tokyo would have remained silent to avoid damaging relations with Moscow is virtually impossible. 

Valery Kistanov, head of the Center for Japanese Studies at the Institute of China and Contemporary Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences, drew attention to the details of the protest against the monument in Khabarovsk. Takaichi posted her comment on social media but did not issue an official statement, and major Japanese media outlets (except for right-wing conservative publications) barely covered the story. It didn’t cause a nationwide outcry.

In other words, the statement was addressed not to Moscow, but to fellow party members and the segment of the Japanese electorate for whom the events of 1945 remain an enduring historical wound. The offering made at Yasukuni on August 15 followed the same logic: made from personal funds and without Takaichi herself present, it was intended as a signal to the domestic audience, but was carefully calibrated to avoid provoking a new crisis in relations with Beijing.

The fact that the series of incidents was not followed by any practical actions holds the key to understanding the events of September. This means that a large part of what happened did not concern bilateral relations but was intended for domestic audiences. 

However, this does not render the situation entirely harmless. Symbolic commitments tend to become entrenched: a prime minister who has demanded the dismantling of a monument cannot refute their own statement, and a successor would have to start from the same position.

Who benefits?

Experts agree on who benefits from the conflict, though they differ on the implications. “It is clear that the US is the primary beneficiary,” says Bonch-Osmolovskaya. “The worse relations between Moscow and Tokyo become, the stronger Japan’s existing dependence on the US grows in all aspects: weaponry, intelligence, supplies, and security guarantees.” Washington gains a disciplined ally, additional bases for the deployment of forces, and another tool for exerting pressure on the Russian Far East.

However, she adds, “It is important not to reduce the situation to a scenario where the US is some sort of ‘dark empire’ and Japan is merely its puppet.”

In Japan, there are certain beneficiaries of this confrontation as well. Among the proponents of revising post-war restrictions is the defense establishment, which Bonch-Osmolovskaya characterizes as revanchist and nationalistic, and arms manufacturers, for whom expanded exports open up markets that had been closed for nearly 80 years. The image of an external threat serves as a mechanism for legitimization: the longer the list of threats, the easier it is for the parliament to increase military spending and lift export restrictions. 

Bonch-Osmolovskaya gives a rather harsh assessment and makes a historical analogy. She believes that the current propaganda is reminiscent of the decades preceding WWII, when Japan designated China as its primary adversary and demonized it; today, a similar process is unfolding regarding Russia. At the root of this, she sees the unresolved trauma of 1945: while the cult of the emperor was formally dismantled and the atrocities of the military machine were acknowledged, the defeat was never truly accepted, and strategic sovereignty was lost.

Nelidov takes a more measured approach, offering a different view that does not suggest malicious intent. The problem, he believes, is the so-called ‘security dilemma’ – a long-standing concept in international relations theory. A state strengthens its defenses; its neighbors, unaware of its true intentions, interpret this as preparation for aggression and arm themselves in response; the first state observes these preparations and continues its military buildup. “The paradox of the security dilemma is that in seeking to protect itself, the state ultimately finds itself in an even more dangerous situation,” he explains.

Another factor also comes into play. “Most Japanese diplomats, politicians, and even military officials have no desire to develop an independent view of the global situation,” Nelidov says, describing Japanese political circles as highly compliant pupils of the West; the few who acknowledge that the situation in Ukraine might be more complex than the prevailing narrative risk becoming outcasts. These sentiments did not emerge in 2022; they were shaped throughout the post-war period by the media and the education system, initially as anti-Soviet views. In Japanese opinion polls, Russia consistently ranks low in terms of public favorability, alongside China and North Korea.

Freezing point

If the current situation resembles ‘freezing point’, it is logical to ask what might drive the relations between Japan and Russia below freezing. 

Bonch-Osmolovskaya mentions a specific threshold. “The next stage of deterioration could be the deployment of US long-range systems in Japan,” she says. Russia’s reaction would be predictable: a further military buildup on the Kuril Islands and in Sakhalin. A further contraction of economic ties is also likely; she believes that the fishing industry would suffer first, followed by what remains of trade.

Bonch-Osmolovskaya does not predict a direct military conflict. According to her, if it were to occur at all, it would happen only as part of a larger clash between Russia and the US or a major crisis surrounding Taiwan that dragged in all the neighboring states. In other words, a Russo-Japanese war is impossible as a standalone event – it could only be an episode within someone else’s war.

Nelidov views the situation somewhat differently. He points out that Japan’s defense policy identifies China and North Korea as the primary threats, with Russia ranking third on the list. But even when it comes to China and North Korea, it’s not about direct confrontation but rather an arms race. While this is certainly a negative phenomenon, it is fundamentally different from a direct conflict. 

The comparison the expert draws with Europe is interesting. He considers the rhetoric of Berlin, London, Helsinki, and Stockholm far more threatening than that of Tokyo, which demonstrates “virtually no real readiness for aggressive action against Russia.” He is convinced there are certain limits the Japanese side will not cross.

He attributes East Asia’s greater reluctance to engage in direct conflict to accumulated experience: territorial disputes and mutual historical grievances are common in the region, and the elites have learned to manage such crises. For example, following Takaichi’s November statement regarding potential intervention in Taiwan, Tokyo’s relations with Beijing plummeted to their lowest point in a decade, and China imposed economic restrictions; yet within a few months, the situation had stabilized.

“In East Asia, I don’t see the kind of crazy Russophobia and readiness to direct all resources into the conflict that we’re witnessing in Europe,” says Nelidov. “Japan doesn’t intend to go to war with Russia; and neither does Russia want war with Japan. Both sides realize it is not in their interests. There are no strategically vital or fundamental contradictions between them.”

Is there a way to achieve a thaw in relations? All three experts agree that there is no simple solution. Normalizing bilateral ties is impossible until relations between Russia and the West are normalized; the Japanese leadership lacks both the will and the capacity to adopt an independent stance. However, Shchepkin believes that once the conflict in Ukraine ends, Tokyo will be among the first to act: as soon as the sanctions regime is lifted or minimized, Japan will be ready to soften its position and resume dialogue.

However, the opinions of experts diverge when it comes to assessing the current pause in relations. For Nelidov, it is merely another fluctuation in a long history of regional squabbles. For Bonch-Osmolovskaya, it represents a deeper rift: Russia is asserting itself as an independent civilization, while Japan, in response, is becoming increasingly integrated into the US system of control over Eurasia. She advocates neither for reconciliation at any cost nor for territorial concessions, but rather for maintaining energy, economic, and cultural ties as a bridge – “not so much with the Japan of today, but with the Japan that might one day become more independent.”

As Bonch-Osmolovskaya concludes, “Japan cannot simultaneously be an independent civilization and America’s forward military outpost. It will have to make a choice.”

Thousands of Haredi Jews marched through the streets of Jerusalem overnight, protesting the Israeli military conscription and honoring incarcerated draft dodgers from the ultra-Orthodox community.

The march began in Jerusalem’s Geula neighborhood, with many streets in the area cordoned off. The police, however, avoided deploying officers into the crowds in an apparent attempt to avoid provoking violence. The demonstration was organized by multiple hardline Haredi anti-draft groups, including the Jerusalem Faction and other anti-conscription activists, who expressed hope the event would be peaceful. No major incidents were reported.

Some 50 formerly jailed draft evaders reportedly showed up at the event, with the crowds celebrating them as true martyrs who had suffered for what the event organizers described as their adherence to Judaism. The ultra-Orthodox community overwhelmingly opposes compulsory military conscription into the IDF, viewing full-time Torah study as their primary duty.

Demonstrators carried assorted placards and banners during the march, including signs equating Haredi military prisoners to “hostages.” Some placards even condemned the IDF as an “enemy army” and reiterated the Haredi refusal to sacrifice their children “on the altar of Zionism,” footage from the scene shows.

♦️ תהלוכת העריקים בירושלים. צילום: יאיר לוי

📌 יו"ר ישר איזנקוט בתגובה לתהלוכת העריקים בירושלים: "הבחירות הקרובות הן בין ממשלת השתמטות לממשלת גיוס ציונית. מדינת ישראל לא יכולה להרשות לעצמה עוד קדנציה של ממשלת השתמטות" pic.twitter.com/iDZ7n1Nb6V

— Asslan Khalil (@KhalilAsslan) September 29, 2026

Some protesters were seen riding an open-roof double-decker bus, blasting traditional songs and dancing in the streets.

הפרגוד: תהלוכת העריקים על אוטובוס 2 קומות. בתקווה שבחג הבא לא יצטרכו רכבת שלמה pic.twitter.com/apEQkwAUml

— הפרגוד (@moshepargod) September 29, 2026

The demonstration comes two days after hundreds of Haredi Jews rallied in Bnei Brak to honor 160 ultra-Orthodox draft dodgers released from a military prison. While the event was described by organizers as a homecoming party, it turned political and was used to launch the Color Black, a newly registered Haredi political party. Its program largely revolves around securing military-service exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox community.

While military service is mandatory for most Israeli citizens, both men and women, members of the Haredi community have enjoyed an exemption for decades. The arrangement ended in 2014, resulting in repeated clashes between the ultra-Orthodox Jews and the Israeli authorities.

Tensions escalated amid the Gaza war, with the Supreme Court ruling in 2024 that thousands from the community were subject to conscription. The mass draft of ultra-Orthodox, however, has been repeatedly delayed, with the authorities reportedly winding down the conscription effort recently ahead of parliamentary elections.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has addressed the newly elected State Duma for the first time, outlining priorities from economic self-reliance and social spending to defense and long-term national security.

Speaking at the opening session of the ninth convocation of the lower house of parliament on Wednesday, Putin urged lawmakers to avoid economic missteps and “destructive populism,” stressing that Russia has the resources it needs to achieve its goals without outside assistance.

Here are the key takeaways from the president’s address.

‘We don’t need handouts’

Russia will not go around the world “begging for handouts with an outstretched hand,” Putin said while discussing the country’s finances and the new federal budget.

“Firstly, because it is humiliating. Secondly, nobody will give us anything, we know that very well. And thirdly – and most importantly – we don’t need it,” he said.

Putin described Russia’s financial system and economy as confident, but warned that mistakes are “absolutely unacceptable.”

He called for a balanced and realistic budget, while demanding that the government fully fund national projects and federal programs and meet all of its social commitments.

Putin also called for measures to boost investment and urged lawmakers to reduce administrative barriers for businesses.

Security and the Ukraine conflict

Defense and support for Russian troops and their families should remain among parliament’s top priorities, Putin said.

Lawmakers must focus on issues of “state importance,” strengthen the country’s defense capabilities and “do everything for our victory,” according to the president.

Putin also welcomed veterans of the Ukraine conflict elected to the new parliament, saying they had already demonstrated their commitment to the country “on the battlefield.”

He said national unity would allow Russia to “achieve its goals” and provide “reliable guarantees of security and sovereignty” for generations to come.

Developing the new regions

The first sitting coincided with Russia’s Day of Reunification, marking four years since Moscow incorporated the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions following referendums in September 2022.

Putin described the vote to join Russia as “clear” and “lawful,” and said the entire country is now involved in rebuilding and developing the territories.

The four regions are represented in the State Duma for the first time following this month’s election.

Putin said residents who went to the polls despite shelling and threats had demonstrated that the Russian people “cannot be broken or intimidated.”

Election shows ‘national unity’

The September 18-20 vote was accompanied by a massive Ukrainian drone raid targeting Moscow and other Russian regions.

Russian officials said more than 1,600 UAVs were repelled, including 450 on approaches to the capital, describing the unprecedented attack as an attempt to disrupt the elections. At least two civilians were reported killed in Moscow Region.

Putin said the turnout and election results had reaffirmed the strength of Russia’s multiparty political system and national unity in the face of what he called “historic challenges.”

The ruling United Russia party secured 349 of the State Duma’s 450 seats. Putin told the newly elected deputies that they bore a “particular responsibility” to voters and urged them to remain closely engaged with the people they represent.

Ukraine’s NATO-donated F-16 fleet is out of commission more often than it engages Russian drones, The Wall Street Journal has claimed.

The American-produced fighter jets were touted as the latest “gamechanger” weapon in Kiev’s conflict with Russia, a tool that will help “achieve goals outside of Ukraine,” as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said when the first batch was set to arrive in the summer of 2024.

However, a key EU member in the European-led scheme cannot keep up with necessary maintenance of the fleet, according to the newspaper.

What is the F-16 initiative?

The plan was launched in 2023, as Ukraine’s fleet of Soviet-built military aircraft was dwindling. Pro-Kiev propaganda implied that the US-made multirole jets would help Ukrainian forces challenge Russia’s air dominance over the front line. But it was hardly a secret that they would be kept far away from Russian SAMs and fighter jets and only engage long-range drones and cruise missiles.

Donor nations announced they were prepared to spend years training Ukrainian pilots, refurbishing the aircraft they were willing to spare, and happily signing deals for modern replacements to bolster their own militaries – the F-16 initiative was effectively a NATO-backed pyramid scheme allowing everyone to spend big and upgrade their air forces. 

Ukraine has since received about 40 jets, roughly half of what the donors pledged, and lost several of them during combat missions, reportedly after corners were cut for expediency during training courses. It is now facing winter with an acute shortage of air defense systems.

What’s the problem?

Belgium’s Sabena Aerospace Engineering, awarded a $235.5 million contract for maintenance of Ukraine’s F-16 fleet, is not keeping up with the demand, according to the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

An inspection that normally takes two to six weeks lasts “as long as 40 weeks in Belgium,” retired US Navy Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery said. Another Western source said more than half of Ukrainian jets are now in maintenance limbo, with the rest set to become grounded by the end of the year.

Was the issue unexpected?

Media reports saying that the Ukrainian F-16 fleet is being overworked surfaced as early as July, as Kiev’s shortage of ground-launched interceptor missiles became more acute. There were also indicators pointing to a bottleneck in Belgium.

In April, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation reported that not one of the six F-16s that Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store pledged to Ukraine in 2023 had been delivered. Four of them were not airworthy to begin with, but the two others were previously used to train Ukrainian pilots in Denmark.

The six jets were stuck at a Sabena workshop in Belgium due to “significant capacity problems,” the report said.

Is Ukraine getting more jets?

There were delays in deliveries as well.

Belgium promised in 2024 to transfer 30 aircraft set to be phased out by its air force, which was expecting F-35 replacements. Then-Defense Minister Ludivine Dedonder said Ukraine would start receiving the old jets “as soon as the F-35s arrive on Belgian soil,” but no transfers have been reported since.

Most of the aircraft that Kiev did get reportedly came from the Netherlands and Denmark, the co-leaders of the F-16 initiative.

Why does Ukraine have air defense problems?

A shortage of Western weapons partially caused Ukraine’s current situation.

When this summer Vladimir Zelensky announced a 40-day “pressure campaign” of long-rage strikes on refineries, civilian ships, and commercial warehouses, his team reportedly hoped that images of smoke-plumes stretching over big Russian cities would support his bid to receive more Patriot missile interceptors from the limited US stockpile.

If true, the plan backfired. NATO nations are scrambling to provide what Kiev wants, while the economic damage caused by Russian retaliation is mounting. And Ukraine already has a $27 billion military budget hole that European donors are struggling to fill.

Ukrainian forces previously learned that Western arms gifts come with caveats. Donated NATO artillery systems lacked interoperability and were described as a “zoo” by troops. Much-hyped NATO battle tanks turned out to be mostly useless in drone-driven warfare and had to be kept away from the front line.

Can Ukraine come up with alternatives?

Zelensky puts on a brave face talking about the dire situation. Last week he claimed Ukraine had successfully tested four new interceptor drones designed to shoot down faster-moving jet UAVs – the kind of targets the WSJ claimed F-16s are well-suited to take down.

But an earlier Reuters report said trials in July “did not go to plan” as the prototypes lost control and “crashed into nearby fields and forests.”

Ukrainian opposition lawmaker Sergey Rakhmanin, who sits on the national defense committee, has said Kiev missed Russia’s rapid development of jet kamikaze drones. He said Ukrainian interceptors cost up to $100,000 apiece and that scaling up production would require too much time, even if funding becomes available.

An official from the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s ruling party has died after being attacked following a radio appearance in the Ebola-hit eastern city of Butembo, local media reported on Monday.

Marie-Celestin Karondwa, a spokesperson for the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS) in Butembo, was assaulted on Sunday and later died from his injuries, the Congolese Press Agency (ACP) reported, citing a party statement. His property was also looted and his home set on fire.

As quoted by Reuters, the party said he was “an innocent victim for having ‌defended ⁠the party’s position on the existence of the Ebola virus disease... and the threat it poses to the population.”

The motive remains unclear, although the party has linked the attack to his public support for measures against Ebola. The UDPS called for an investigation and for those responsible to be brought to justice.

The killing comes amid resistance to the Ebola response in eastern DR Congo. The World Health Organization (WHO) has said insecurity and attacks on health facilities are complicating efforts to contain the outbreak by restricting access for response teams, disrupting surveillance and discouraging people from seeking care.

The WHO recorded 12 attacks on health care between the declaration of a public health emergency of international concern on May 17 and mid-August, with additional incidents under verification. Similar resistance has hampered efforts to contain previous Ebola outbreaks in the region.

The Ebola response is also being complicated by insecurity and mass displacement. The WHO has said conflict is restricting access for response teams and hampering disease surveillance, contact tracing, and access to care. 

The outbreak has meanwhile continued to grow. As of September 27, DR Congo had recorded 8,116 confirmed cases and 3,924 deaths, according to the country’s National Institute of Public Health (INSP). The case fatality rate stood at 48.3%.

The disease is caused by the Bundibugyo species of Ebola virus. There is currently no approved vaccine or specific treatment for the strain, although candidate vaccines and treatments are being studied, according to the WHO.

Russia has provided assistance to countries affected by the outbreak. Rospotrebnadzor has sent specialists to Uganda and supplied Russian-developed PCR diagnostic tests to Uganda, DR Congo, and the Republic of Congo.

In July, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow was prepared to establish mass production of a vaccine adapted to the Bundibugyo strain once it obtained the necessary biological material.

Mali has taken its case against Ukraine to the UN again, two years after severing diplomatic ties with Kiev over a rebel ambush that killed dozens of Malian soldiers and allied Russian forces. 

Malian Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop told the UN General Assembly on Monday that Ukraine was aiding armed groups in the Sahel and urged the international community to respond.

Why has Mali raised the accusation again?

Diop’s remarks follow a series of coordinated militant raids in Mali and new reports of Ukrainian assistance with drone operations. Pointing to attacks on April 25 and July 4, he said they exposed a “dangerous connection” between jihadists and separatist rebels, and accused Kiev of aiding forces that threaten his country’s territorial integrity.

“Ukraine is just the visible part of the iceberg,” he said, claiming the violence was part of a wider effort to destabilize the Sahel states and obstruct their break with former colonial influence.

The April offensive by the Al-Qaeda-linked Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) and the Tuareg-led Azawad Liberation Front (FLA) struck several cities and killed Malian Defense Minister Sadio Camara. Mali’s army said it repelled assaults on military sites and key infrastructure with support from Russia’s Africa Corps, killing more than 200 militants. 

Malian Prime Minister Abdoulaye Maiga described the offensive as an attempt to seize power. The Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged the assault, saying it amounted to an attempted coup and claimed that the attackers had received training involving Ukrainian and European mercenary instructors. 

How did the dispute with Ukraine begin?

In July 2024, Tuareg rebels ambushed Malian troops and Wagner Group contractors near Tinzaouaten, close to the Algerian border. Ukrainian military intelligence spokesman Andrey Yusov later said the rebels had received “necessary information” that enabled the operation, adding that “there will be a continuation.”

Yuriy Pyvovarov, then Ukraine’s ambassador to Senegal, shared Yusov’s interview on Facebook, writing, “The work will continue. There will certainly be other results.” Senegal summoned him over the post, while Mali cited the remarks as evidence of Kiev’s involvement, and severed diplomatic ties.

What has been reported about Ukrainian involvement since then?

Le Monde reported in 2024 that Ukrainian intelligence had taught Tuareg rebels to build and operate explosive drones, citing sources close to the group. This month, CNN interviewed Ukrainian personnel who said about 15 specialists were assisting the FLA with unmanned aircraft. One described remotely directing rebel drone missions.

Fousseynou Ouattara, vice president of the defense commission of Mali’s transitional council, told TASS in July that authorities had identified fighters who had received drone training in Ukraine. Malian outlet Bamada also reported that soldiers recovered a drone bearing Ukrainian writing and documents allegedly linked to Ukrainian intelligence during operations against JNIM.

What has Ukraine said?

Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry has rejected the Sahel states’ terrorism allegations, describing them as “groundless and untrue” and calling Mali’s decision to sever ties “hasty.” In August 2024, it said Bamako had provided no evidence of Ukrainian involvement in the Tinzaouaten attack. Ukraine’s military intelligence agency also referred CNN to earlier official remarks when approached for comment on its September report of Ukrainian drone specialists assisting rebels in Mali. 

Is Mali alone in making the accusation?

Niger and Burkina Faso have also accused Ukraine of supporting armed groups. The three Alliance of Sahel States (AES) members filed a complaint with the UN Security Council in August 2024.

During a televised interview on Sunday reviewing his four years in office, Burkina Faso’s interim President Ibrahim Traore said he had placed Ukraine on his country’s “map of enemies.” Speaking about what he described as attempts to destabilize Mali and Niger, he warned these were “only the beginning.” He cited Pyvovarov’s comment, saying the diplomat had “clearly stated that they were involved” in supporting armed groups in the Sahel.

What does Moscow say?

Russia backs the Sahel states’ accusations. Last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Kiev of “state terrorism” against countries in the region, citing reports of serving Ukrainian troops joining attacks alongside armed groups. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova previously said Kiev was opening a “second front” against Russia in Africa by supporting militants in countries friendly to Moscow.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Borisenko told TASS on July 17 that Ukrainian instructors trained in drone warfare were embedded with Islamist militants in Mali. He also alleged Ukrainian involvement in attacks on Russian interests in Libya and support for paramilitary forces in Sudan, extending Moscow’s accusations beyond the Sahel. 

Why have the Sahel states turned to Russia?

Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso ended defense ties with France, accusing it of failing to contain the insurgency and interfering in their affairs. They have strengthened counterterrorism cooperation with Russia.

Nearly 49,000 people have been killed in violence linked to militant Islamist groups in the Sahel since 2022, the Africa Center for Strategic Studies said in August.

Mali and Russia signed a military cooperation agreement in June 2019. Bamako sought Russian private military assistance in 2021. Wagner was replaced by Russia’s Defense Ministry-run Africa Corps in June 2025. The corps operates at African governments’ official request, Lavrov said last month.

At the UN on Monday, Diop said the AES remained open to partnerships respecting its members’ sovereignty. “We do not accept dictates; rather, we seek sincere and healthy cooperation,” he said.

The Kremlin has categorically denied that Moscow and Washington discussed a plan whereby sanctions targeting Russia could be eased in return for the release of US nationals imprisoned in Russia. 

Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday responded to a question about an article in the Atlantic citing anonymous sources that claimed the administration of US President Donald Trump was considering relaxing some economic restrictions if Moscow would release individuals Washington considers unjustly imprisoned.

“The issue was not discussed in those terms and could not have been, because we categorically reject the notion that there are any political prisoners in Russia and consider framing the issue in this way entirely inappropriate,” Peskov told journalists.

Russian and US special services continue regular contacts concerning various prisoner exchanges, he added.

According to The Atlantic, the proposal was advanced by White House envoy John Coale and approved by Trump for exploration several months ago. The initiative, the outlet's sources speculate, could have reportedly allowed Washington to broaden its engagement with Moscow beyond negotiations over Ukraine and pursue deals involving Russian oil, diesel, rare earth minerals and other commodities.

Trump’s envoys have been exploring ways to revive economic ties with Russia but have so far viewed at least a partial ceasefire in Ukraine as a prerequisite, the outlet wrote on Tuesday.

Washington and Moscow have separately discussed potential economic cooperation. Following talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Moscow earlier this month, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said the sides had discussed possible “major, mutually beneficial Russian-American projects.”

The Atlantic also claimed that Washington is seeking to arrange lower-level talks between the US, Russia and Ukraine as early as next month, could focus on a limited ceasefire covering energy infrastructure, potentially in the UAE. 

Moscow has repeatedly said it opposes a temporary truce that would allow Ukraine to regroup and rearm, insisting that hostilities can end only through a comprehensive settlement that addresses the root causes of the conflict. Peskov was not asked to respond to the claim.

Speaking at the UN Security Council last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would not agree to pause military operation because such a step could be used by Ukraine’s European backers to supply Kiev with more weapons.

The prospect of renewing US-Russian business ties before the Ukraine conflict is resolved has been sharply criticized by Vladimir Zelensky, who told The Atlantic he would try to “block” any sanctions relief for Moscow before hostilities end.

More than 4,500 Indian seafarers are aboard commercial vessels operating in the Persian Gulf amid repeated attacks on regional shipping, New Delhi has said. The Indian government is monitoring their safety after one sailor from the country was killed and another went missing this month.

Six India-flagged commercial ships and six foreign-flagged vessels carrying cargo to India are currently in the Gulf west of the Strait of Hormuz, with around 163 Indian seafarers aboard them. The more than 4,500 Indians are serving on other commercial vessels operating in the area, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Tuesday.

An Indian sailor was killed when the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged bulk carrier MV Cape Dao was attacked in the Gulf of Oman on September 23. Ten days earlier, an Indian crew member went missing after the Panama-flagged tanker El Gaia was struck while passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

At least 85 shipping incidents had been recorded in and around the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Middle East by September 24, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) confirmed, highlighting the growing risk to commercial vessels operating in the region.

India has tightened precautions in response. Shipowners and managers have been advised since July to avoid deploying Indian seafarers on voyages through the Strait of Hormuz until further orders. A 24-hour control room and real-time monitoring system are also tracking vessels and crews in coordination with the Indian Navy and other agencies.

The safety push has also moved to the diplomatic level. India and Liberia launched a new Group of Friends on Safety and Security of Shipping and Seafarers at the United Nations last week, bringing together around two dozen countries with major roles in shipping, vessel registration and supplying crews.

India is now the world’s second-largest supplier of seafarers, with 311,936 maritime professionals accounting for 12.16% of the global workforce, according to the 2026 BIMCO-ICS Seafarer Workforce Report cited by the Shipping Ministry.

The targeting of commercial ships and crews in international waterways is “simply unacceptable,” Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar told the UN General Assembly on Saturday, calling for restraint, de-escalation, and uninterrupted flows of energy and commerce.

Traffic through Hormuz remains well below pre-conflict levels. Ten commodity vessels crossed the strait on September 23, compared with a ten-day average of about 17. Before the US-Israeli war on Iran began in February, around 125 large commercial vessels typically used the route each day.

Somali pirates killed five crew members of an oil tanker they held captive for more than five months before security forces retook the vessel, authorities in Somalia’s semi-autonomous Puntland region have said.

The Palau-flagged MT Honour 25 was seized on April 21 with 17 crew members on board. Puntland authorities said 16 suspected pirates were detained during the operation to regain control of the vessel, while others escaped.

“Puntland Maritime Police Force (PMPF) has concluded an operation to secure the MT Honour 25. The vessel is now safe and under Puntland Government control,” the force said on X on Tuesday.

According to the PMPF, three of the five victims were Pakistani nationals, one was from Myanmar and another from India. Four other sailors – three Pakistanis and one Indian – were wounded. The tanker was carrying around 18,500 barrels of fuel when it was seized.

From 2008 to 2018, Somali pirates disrupted critical world waterways, causing widespread chaos. The new incident comes amid a resurgence in piracy off the coast of Somalia following years of relatively low activity. At least 15 attacks have been recorded in the region this year, according to an analysis of International Maritime Organization data, with Somali pirates successfully hijacking at least six commercial vessels since April.

Puntland forces regained control of the Eritrean-flagged oil tanker Sibu 1 earlier this month after it had been held by pirates for more than a month.

In August, Somali forces working with the Turkish Navy also retook the Cameroon-flagged cargo ship MV Lutuf after it was hijacked off Puntland. Somalia’s Defense Ministry said 14 suspected pirates were killed and four of their boats destroyed during the ten-day operation.

In an analysis published last week, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) linked the resurgence in piracy to turmoil in the Middle East, saying naval assets have been diverted from the Somali coast toward the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. It also cited higher global oil prices as a factor that may have made hijackings more attractive. The spike has come during a year of major disruption to energy shipments from the Persian Gulf.

Countries in the region have stepped up maritime security cooperation amid the renewed activity. Russia and the Seychelles, an Indian Ocean island nation roughly 1,300 km southeast of Somalia, are planning joint anti-piracy exercises in November during a Russian Navy port call, Seychelles’ defense chief said on Saturday.

Over the past few months, there’s been a noticeable surge in reports regarding Germany’s interest in missiles – ranging from ballistic and cruise missiles to land- and sea-based systems. Various partners are involved in the initiative, including the US, Ukraine, Türkiye, and Israel. It looks like Germany intends to spend its entire budget on missiles, aiming to become the leading missile power in Western Europe.

Berlin’s financial commitment to advancing military programs has reached unprecedented levels. The country is significantly ramping up defense spending. Between 2024 and 2025, approximately 200 new defense industry companies emerged in Germany, and another 100 have appeared since November 2025. A notable example is Rheinmetall, which has dramatically increased its artillery ammunition production from about 70,000 units to 1.5 million shells per year. Over the next six years, the company plans to invest around €30 billion ($34 billion) into arms and munitions manufacturing. Moreover, Germany is actively seeking to procure ready-made missile systems and is interested in establishing joint production facilities.

Aligned with these initiatives, Germany is establishing new ground forces capable of striking military targets deep within potential enemy territory, essentially creating missile troops within the Bundeswehr. On the one hand, this expansion enhances NATO’s strike capabilities and allows for flexible responses to any external threats over distances of thousands of kilometers. On the other hand, such offensive capabilities could easily inspire ideas of military dominance and hegemony. Historically, we’ve already seen this in Germany.

At the forefront of this new German strategy will be American Typhon MRC (Mid-Range Capability) missile systems, equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of up to 1,600 km. The Bundeswehr plans to allocate nearly €3.4 billion for the procurement of these missiles. They will provide the German military with a strategic edge, enabling strikes against command centers, airbases, missile units, logistical hubs, and other critical targets far beyond the potential front lines. 

Germany’s main argument in favor of this military buildup is, of course, the need to deter the “threat from the East” – a classic case of history repeating itself. The fact that Russia has no intention of attacking NATO doesn’t seem to matter; it serves as a convenient excuse and a rallying cry to ramp up militarism. Technically, from German territory, Tomahawk missiles can only reach parts of European Russia, but Berlin’s ambitions extend well beyond this missile system.

Germany’s interest in missiles has grown to such an extent that the Bundeswehr is exploring even some rather unconventional projects, such as Ukraine’s Flamingo and Bars cruise missiles, as well as the Anthem missile project. In fact, the Ukrainian Flamingo missile was considered a potential alternative to the US Tomahawk. With a range of 3,000 km, the Flamingo surpasses the Tomahawk in terms of range. Additionally, it boasts an impressive warhead weighing 1,150 kg – a record in its class. The only real question is whether the 10-meter-long missile can successfully hit targets. So far, experience has shown that most of the Flamingos launched by Ukrainian forces are intercepted by air defense systems.

Germany is also ready to produce Bars missiles on its soil, but primarily for export purposes. It remains unclear whether this initiative leans more toward a business venture or a strategic investment in domestic armaments. Bars missiles might not be of much interest to German military officials since they essentially function as a cheap and simple alternative to more costly missiles. 

Another notable project is the Anthem long-range cruise missile developed by the US-Israeli startup Covenant. Recently, Reuters reported that Germany is interested in a missile with a range exceeding 1,500 km and a warhead weighing over 200 kg. What’s more, Covenant is willing to establish production of Anthem missiles in Germany. This likely piqued the interest of Bundeswehr officials, especially considering the impressive promised production output of 1,000 units per year. So many missiles can be produced by relying on a simplified design and fairly modest performance specifications. Naturally, there’s no talk of stealth technology here; it’s essentially an alternative to inexpensive long-range kamikaze drones. If this contract goes through, Germany would acquire its own surface-to-surface missile system. 

But that’s not all. The Bundeswehr is considering other missile projects as well. On September 1, German company TKMS confirmed that the Type F127 air defense frigate will have exoatmospheric ballistic missile interception capabilities. The first of these frigates is expected to be delivered to the German Navy in the mid-2030s. It will be equipped with SM-2 Block IIIC and SM-6 Block I interceptors. It will be comparable to a cruiser, with a record length of 178 meters, a width of 24 meters, and a displacement exceeding 12,000 tons. Its armament will include 96 Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells for missile-interception weapons, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles. The construction of at least five such ships is planned. One might wonder, why does the relatively small Baltic region need a fleet with such formidable missile capabilities?

At the beginning of September, the German Navy conducted its first test launches of Israeli LORA (Long Range Attack) ballistic missiles from an F125-class frigate. These launches were primarily demonstrative, with missile containers temporarily mounted on the stern of the Sachsen-Anhalt frigate. Two missiles were fired during the tests. The sight of Israeli ballistic missiles similar to American ATACMS aboard a German frigate is quite unusual. This notable experiment illustrates that the Bundeswehr is open to exploring alternatives to US weapons systems. Furthermore, Israeli missiles are modern and highly accurate, boasting ranges from 90 to 430 km and a circular error probable (CEP) of under 10 meters. It’s also quite possible that such missiles could soon be integrated into the Bundeswehr’s land forces.

Simultaneously, Germany is preparing to begin production of ATACMS ballistic missiles in collaboration with US company Lockheed Martin. Rheinmetall expects to receive its first order by late 2026 or early 2027, with a memorandum already signed to establish production at its facility in Unterluess, Germany. This will mark the first production of ATACMS missiles outside the US. Production is anticipated to start between 2028 and 2029. European demand is estimated at 600-800 units.

Additionally, Berlin is showing interest in Türkiye’s missile programs. Reports indicate that Germany is interested in Turkish hypersonic projects and specifically the Yildirimhan long-range ballistic missile with a range of up to 6,000 km. For Türkiye, having Germany as a customer is a compelling prospect, and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkish companies would be eager to secure such an order.

But why is Germany showing such interest in missiles? And behind the facade of nuclear cooperation with the UK, does a part of the Berlin establishment harbor nuclear ambitions? Ideas to replace the American nuclear umbrella amid a perceived “threat from the East” are still popular; and defense companies and war hawks certainly welcome these initiatives. But what will happen if the funding runs dry? Or worse – if this ‘Chekhov’s gun’ goes off in the ‘next act’?

Twelve people, most of whom are students, have been injured in a Ukrainian drone attack in Russia’s Bryansk Region, acting Governor Egor Kovalchuk has said.

The UAV incursion targeted the city of Trubchevsk, sitting on the Desna River in the southern part of the region, not far from the border with Ukraine, Kovalchuk wrote in a post on social media on Wednesday.

“Horrific attack on civilians in Trubchevsk; there are children among the wounded,” he said.

At least seven of those injured were students, with one of the victims being in serious condition, according to the acting governor.

On Monday, Ukrainian drone strikes damaged a railway bridge and tracks at three locations in Bryansk Region, causing several trains to derail.

Part of a bridge collapsed on the Dyatkovo-Lyudinovo rail section, sending ten cars off the tracks, according to Kovalchuk. A separate strike in Unecha District derailed another 18 empty freight cars, A third attack damaged tracks in Navlya District, but did not disrupt train traffic or cause injuries.

Moscow has accused Kiev of deliberately targeting civilians with long-range drones in an attempt to compensate for setbacks on the battlefield, where Russian forces have continued to advance.

One of the deadliest such strikes came in May when several waves of Ukrainian UAVs hit a student dormitory in the Donbass city of Starobelsk, killing 21 people, mostly young women.

Russia has responded to Kiev’s terrorist attacks by intensifying its long-range missile and drone campaign against Ukraine’s military-industrial facilities and logistics infrastructure. The Defense Ministry in Moscow maintains that it does not target civilians and that its strikes are directed solely at military targets and infrastructure supporting Kiev’s forces.

Russia’s earnings from seaborne crude exports have surged to their highest weekly level since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Bloomberg has reported. Rising oil prices and stronger shipment volumes have boosted Moscow’s revenues despite Western sanctions.

The gross value of Russian crude exports reached $2.75 billion in the week through September 27, the outlet reported on Tuesday. On a four-week basis, shipments averaged 3.71 million barrels per day, their highest since early August, while their value climbed to $2.39 billion a week.

According to the outlet, the increase has been driven by both higher crude prices and growing export volumes. Global oil prices have risen sharply during the US-Israeli war on Iran amid the disruption of shipping via the Strait of Hormuz, boosting earnings for major producers outside the Persian Gulf, including Russia.

The surge comes despite Western efforts to curb Moscow’s energy earnings. The G7, EU and Australia introduced a $60-per-barrel price cap on Russian crude in December 2022 alongside an EU embargo on seaborne imports, followed by restrictions on Russian petroleum products in February 2023.

The measures were designed to reduce Russia’s revenues while keeping its crude flowing to global markets and avoiding a supply shock. Moscow responded by redirecting much of its oil trade away from Europe toward China, India and other markets, which now account for the bulk of Russian seaborne crude purchases. According to Bloomberg, shipments to Asian customers, including cargoes whose final destination was not yet known, rose to 3.61 million barrels per day in the four weeks through September 27.

Russia’s latest crude windfall has, however, been partly offset by falling exports of refined fuels. Moscow has restricted diesel shipments to protect domestic supplies after an unprecedented wave of Ukrainian drone strikes damaged refineries across the country, while lower processing rates have left more crude available for export.

Russia has consequently raised its crude-export forecast for 2026 by about 150,000 barrels per day while cutting its forecast for refined-product shipments by roughly 500,000 barrels per day, according to Bloomberg.

Western governments are meanwhile continuing to pressure European states that still rely on Russian energy. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul urged Slovakia on Tuesday to phase out Russian oil and gas and increase pressure on Moscow, days after meeting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in New York.

Slovakia has resisted a rapid cutoff, with Russian supplies accounting for more than 80% of its oil and over half of its gas imports in 2025, according to the European Commission. Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar said the country had built its energy infrastructure around Russian supplies and warned that abandoning them immediately would create “enormous problems,” arguing that alternative routes currently lack sufficient capacity.

Moroccan King Mohammed VI has appointed Fatima Ezzahra El Mansouri as the North African nation’s first female prime minister following her party’s victory in last week’s parliamentary elections, the royal palace has announced.

The monarch tasked the 50-year-old lawyer, who served as housing minister and mayor of Marrakech, with forming a new government, according to a statement released on Tuesday.

Mansouri’s liberal-centrist Authenticity and Modernity Party (PAM) won 97 of the lower house’s 395 seats in the September 23 vote and must form a coalition to secure a governing majority. She becomes the second woman to serve as prime minister in an Arab country, after Tunisia’s Najla Bouden, who held the post from 2021 to 2023.

PAM overtook outgoing Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch’s National Rally of Independents, which won 66 seats, followed by Istiqlal with 65, according to results published by the Interior Ministry on September 25. Turnout fell to about 38%, compared with around 50% in 2021, official figures showed.

PAM was part of Akhannouch’s outgoing coalition government alongside his National Rally of Independents and Istiqlal. During the campaign, PAM ruled out renewing the alliance with Akhannouch’s party, but Mansouri later said she had no “red lines” for coalition talks.

The appointment comes amid an investigation into suspected electoral fraud in the northern port city of Tangier. Prosecutors said a polling-station deputy allegedly removed ballots with the station head’s help before returning them to two polling stations in coordination with other suspects. Investigators found that ink on the seized ballots differed from that used at the polling stations.

Tangier Mayor Mounir Limouri, a PAM official, was placed in police custody on Monday as part of the investigation, multiple outlets reported, citing judicial sources. Five other suspects were held in pretrial detention. Limouri denied any connection to the alleged tampering.

PAM said it would take disciplinary action against members if investigators established their involvement.

Founded in 2008 by Fouad Ali El Himma, a close adviser and childhood friend of the king, PAM emerged as a secular-leaning rival to the Islamist Justice and Development Party.

The constitution requires the king to appoint the premier from the party that wins the most parliamentary seats but the monarch retains sweeping powers over defense and foreign policy.

The new government will oversee Morocco’s preparations to co-host the 2030 FIFA World Cup with Spain and Portugal. Spending on the tournament partly fueled deadly youth-led protests last year, with demonstrators demanding jobs and better healthcare and education. During the election campaign, parties offered jobs and affordable housing to attract young voters after July’s mass border crossing into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, Reuters reported.

Mansouri has pledged a program offering “concrete and realistic solutions to citizens’ concerns,” acknowledging high expectations, particularly among young people.

More than 170 passengers have arrived safely in Israel after a FlyDubai airliner went into a death-dive over Saudi Arabia following an alleged attempted hijacking on board. 

The Boeing 737 was reportedly carrying 174 passengers, including 27 children. About two hours into the flight, the aircraft transmitted emergency signals, including a code indicating possible hijacking, according to flight-tracking service Flightradar24. The plane went into a steep dive, losing some 4,500 meters in altitude in a minute, according to tracking data.

Israel scrambled fighter jets, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held urgent security consultations.

After an apparent struggle in which passengers regained control of the aircraft, the 737 landed at Tabuk airport in northwestern Saudi Arabia, before all passengers boarded a replacement aircraft bound for Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was waiting to meet them.

According to interviews with the passengers, the plane's first officer stabbed the pilot and attempted to crash the aircraft. They said that a group of three Israeli passengers subdued the first officer, pulled the plane out of its dive, and handed control back to the wounded pilot.

This live feed has now ended.

Increased NATO military exercises near Russia’s Kaliningrad Region and aggressive rhetoric from members of the US-led bloc are raising the risk of a direct armed conflict, Moscow has warned.

Russia has sent NATO a warning stressing its determination to protect the Russian exclave in the Baltic region “with its entire available arsenal,” according to a statement published on Monday by the Russian Embassy in Belgium, which hosts the bloc’s headquarters.

The message alluded to remarks made earlier this month by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who said there are “hardly any troops” in Kaliningrad Region and urged NATO to increase its military posture near Russia’s borders so that Moscow would be “uncertain of what we will do.”

NATO spokesperson Allison Hart confirmed receiving the Russian message and accused Moscow of irresponsible rhetoric.

”We strongly denounce the threat of force, including any irresponsible nuclear rhetoric,” she said.

Western officials have frequently described Russian statements invoking its nuclear deterrent as “blackmail,” while presenting NATO’s own nuclear-sharing arrangements as a pillar of collective defense.

France has offered to discuss the possible deployment of its nuclear weapons in other European NATO countries, arguing that this could reduce the bloc’s dependence on the US. Under NATO’s existing nuclear-sharing arrangements, American nuclear bombs are stored in several European countries, while personnel from non-nuclear member states train for missions involving their potential use.

Russia has repeatedly rejected Western claims that it intends to attack NATO before the end of the decade, describing such warnings as warmongering aimed at persuading voters to support sharply higher military spending.

Moscow, in turn, views NATO’s military preparations as potentially paving the way for an attack on Russia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly warned that any such conflict would be extremely brief, implying that Moscow could resort to nuclear weapons.

The Russian Embassy in Ireland used more direct language, saying on Tuesday that Moscow is prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to an attempted NATO blockade of Kaliningrad Region and may consider pre-emptive military action in such a crisis.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday it was “natural for our diplomats to try and remind hotheads in Europe about our doctrinal documents,” in response to the rhetoric coming from Poland and other nations.

Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) has called for a formal review that could pave the way for a ban on Alternative for Germany (AfD), as the right-wing party leads national polls following major regional election victories.

The push follows the AfD’s sweeping victories in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania earlier this month, where it secured 43.8% and 38.2%, respectively. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered heavy losses, including failing to clear the 5% threshold in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

On Tuesday, SPD parliamentary leaders from the Bundestag, Germany’s state legislatures and the European Parliament wrapped up a two-day summit in Bremen by again labeling the AfD a “right-wing extremist party.” They accused it of threatening democracy “from within” and “normalizing racism.”

The AfD has rejected accusations of extremism. Responding to a parallel push for a potential ban in Hamburg this week, AfD parliamentary leader Dirk Nockemann called it an “attack on democracy and the will of the voters” and dismissed the proposed working group as “desperate.”

The Eurosceptic party advocates tougher immigration controls and opposes Berlin’s support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

At the federal level, the AfD remains classified by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency as a suspected right-wing extremist organization.
In February, a Cologne court blocked an attempt by the agency to upgrade the AfD to confirmed right-wing extremist status, pending the outcome of the main proceedings. Several AfD state branches carry the stronger classification.

The SPD wants federal and state governments to set up a joint working group by year-end to examine whether legal grounds exist to seek a ban. Launching the review “is a legal necessity” and a “democratic duty,” it said.

Merz himself has expressed skepticism about pursuing a ban. Earlier this month, the chancellor said the legal hurdle was “very high” and argued that outlawing the AfD would not solve the problems its voters believe they face.

Under German law, only the Federal Constitutional Court can outlaw a party. A ban requires more than anti-constitutional views: a party must actively seek to undermine the democratic order and have the potential to achieve its aims.

The push comes as the AfD has opened up a record polling lead over Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc. An INSA survey put the AfD at 29.5%, compared with 19% for the CDU/CSU and just 14.5% for the SPD. The two governing parties together stood at 33.5%, only four points ahead of the AfD alone.

AfD co-leader Alice Weidel reacted to the poll by accusing the CDU of “clinging to the undemocratic firewall,” saying the policy was ultimately “destroying Germany.” The ‘firewall’ refers to the refusal by other major German parties to cooperate with the AfD.

American officials believe US President Donald Trump could order a resumption of major combat operations against Iran after the midterm elections in November, as renewed indirect negotiations produced no results, Axios reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Qatari mediators, who met separately with US and Iranian negotiators in New York on Monday, are reportedly growing increasingly frustrated that neither side is willing to make concessions.

“It is stuck. The Iranians are asking for things the US can’t accept and the US thinks it is winning so there is no need for compromise,” Axios cited a source as saying.

Trump rejected Iran’s latest proposal last week to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which handles around a quarter of global seaborne oil and LNG deliveries. He has since denied reports that he was ready to provide sanctions relief and release frozen Iranian assets in exchange for concessions on Iran’s nuclear program. “I offered them NOTHING,” he wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

Democrats are ahead of Republicans by more than ten points nationally in the race for control of the US House of Representatives, according to recent polls by Quinnipiac University and NPR/PBS/Marist.

The war launched by the US and Israel against Iran on February 28 has been unpopular among American voters overall. It sharply divided Trump’s base, with some critics arguing that the president violated his promise of “no new wars” and his stated opposition to “forever wars.”

The relentless bombing campaign failed to subdue Iran and, according to the Pentagon’s inspector general, significantly depleted US ammunition stockpiles. Disruptions to traffic through the Strait of Hormuz continue to drive energy prices, which Trump recently attempted to blame on the Ukraine conflict.

“Donald Trump cannot calm energy markets or conceal the costs of his blockade and hostile policies through show-off and social media posts,” an Iranian security official told RT last week.

According to a recent Fox News poll, 71% of registered voters in the US believed that the Trump administration lacked “a clear strategy for ending the war with Iran,” while 60% said the US had made the wrong decision to launch military action.

The poll also found that 47% of respondents believed military action against Iran would make the US less safe, while 32% said it would make the country safer.

The heads of six top US-based AI companies signed a pledge at the White House on Tuesday to introduce stronger controls to ensure that their technology does not go rogue.

The document, titled the White House Accord on Super Intelligence – Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities, was signed by US President Donald Trump, as well as Google’s Sundar Pichai, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, OpenAI’s Greg Brockman, xAI’s Elon Musk and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang.

The signatories agreed that every company developing advanced artificial intelligence models should have “robust internal processes and controls to ensure that their technology behaves as intended and that any issues are promptly identified and resolved.”

The companies pledged to ensure that their models “do not hack or access technical systems in unintended ways” and said they would “empower an internal team to ensure all of the controls, monitoring, and detection are operating as intended, and that any issues are remediated.”

They also pledged to allow independent external audits of their safeguards and designate “an independent committee of the board of directors” to evaluate compliance.

TRUMP releases ‘ACCORD on SUPER INTELLIGENCE’ signed by AI BILLIONAIRES

- Companies ‘RESPONSIBLE’ for ‘DEVELOPING its own tech safely’

- LAYERS of ‘CONTROLS’

- Internal CYBERSECURITY, BIOSECURITY and CHEMICAL THREAT controls
Auditors

- Independent board

- INDUSTRY… https://t.co/LTwCA0eequ pic.twitter.com/H6FP5HsdT9

— RTVisual (@RT_Visual_on_X) September 29, 2026

The deal is aimed at addressing concerns among developers and the general public about AI models’ ability to self-improve much faster than expected and a growing number of cases in which they have hacked into external systems without authorization.

“The basic idea is that we want to give the American people and our customers confidence that the technology works in a way that we intend,” Zuckerberg told reporters on the White House lawn.

“The idea isn’t that this is the only thing that we will ever do. This is a start and an accord that the whole industry can come to,” he added.

WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg outlines the AI framework tech leaders agreed to after meeting with President Trump at the White House.

The Meta CEO says the principles center on robust internal controls, internal risk reviews, outside auditors and evaluators, and independent reviews of… pic.twitter.com/mQmE5822FG

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 29, 2026

During the same meeting, Trump signed an executive order directing the federal government to use the terms “super intelligence” and “SI” instead of “artificial intelligence” and “AI.”

“The name Super Intelligence conveys the true capabilities of the technologies being developed today, unlocking new forms of human creativity and empowering Americans to achieve what was previously impossible – not simply imitating or automating human intelligence as is implied by the term ‘Artificial Intelligence,’” the White House said.

Debate over AI safeguards was reignited this month when Amodei called for a slowing of the development of AI models to find “a balanced rate” that would give researchers time to develop the necessary controls. Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman quickly backed his appeal.

Over the summer, OpenAI agents escaped their testing environment and hacked into the servers of Hugging Face, an online repository for AI models and datasets. Since then, AI agents have gained unauthorized access to or attempted to breach websites belonging to US federal agencies, the Australian government and the UN.

Trump has ruled out slowing AI development under his watch, dismissing fears of the technology going rogue as “a hoax.”

“We will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible Industry,” the president wrote on Truth Social earlier this month.

Huang has supported calls for stronger safeguards but voiced skepticism about slowing AI development. “We should go as fast as we can, irrespective of anyone else. But we would never ever, and never should, ship products before they’re ready and deliver products that are unsafe,” he told CBS.

The US and China agreed to set up a hotline for AI incidents following Chinese President Xi Jinping’s meeting with Trump at the White House last week. 

China has similarly called for stronger safeguards but stopped short of supporting a slowdown in AI development. Beijing said this month that regulation and governance should keep pace with rapidly advancing models to prevent AI from “getting out of control,” while criticizing what it described as “fearmongering” and technological competition between countries.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is an “outstanding statesman” suited to leading a great country such as Russia, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said during his visit to Germany on Tuesday.

A former Soviet republic, Kazakhstan is one of Russia’s closest partners in Central Asia.

Tokayev met German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin amid heightened tensions between Germany and Russia over the Ukraine conflict. Germany accused Russia earlier this month of attempting to strike Ukrainian cargo planes with drones at Leipzig/Halle Airport in the German state of Saxony. Moscow rejected the claims as unfounded.

During a joint press conference with Merz, Tokayev said he had “very good relations” with Putin.

“I consider him, one might say, an outstanding statesman. And today I said with a fairly high degree of conviction that President Putin, as a statesman and as a leader, is the most acceptable political figure – strange as that may sound to you – for Central Asia, including Kazakhstan, for Europe, and for the entire world,” Tokayev said in Russian.

“I know him very well. He possesses the qualities that are most essential for the leader of a great country with a complicated history and with its own understanding of the strategic goals it faces,” he added.

💥 Der Präsident Kasachstans, Tokajew, demütigte Merz auf der gemeinsamen Pressekonferenz:

"Wladimir Putin, als Führer der Russischen Föderation, ist die akzeptabelste Figur für Europa und die Welt!" pic.twitter.com/FTFhkZMCtl

— RUSSNiUS 🇷🇺 (@vladi2726) September 29, 2026

Tokayev said that although he favors “freezing” the Ukraine conflict, an immediate end to hostilities is “unrealistic under the current circumstances.”

Kiev has rejected Russia’s ceasefire terms, which include the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Russian territory in Donbass and an end to Western military aid to Ukraine. Moscow has argued that Ukraine was not negotiating in good faith and accused Kiev’s European backers of trying to sabotage US-mediated talks.

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Merz reiterated that Germany “will make every effort to continue assisting and supporting Ukraine, not only militarily but also politically, financially and economically.”

Russia has condemned what it described as dangerous rhetoric from the West, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying last week that the “metastases of an ideology of hatred” were present among EU and NATO members, including Germany.

Artificial intelligence could develop beyond human control unless governments and private companies work together to establish safeguards, the head of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Karen Hallberg, has told RT.

Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club outside of Moscow on Tuesday, Hallberg compared AI with nuclear technology, saying both can bring major benefits while also posing serious dangers.

“AI is also a dual-use technology because AI has brought a lot of benefit for humanity,” she said, citing the technology’s use in medicine and everyday life.

However, she warned that AI capable of recursively improving itself could develop in unpredictable ways. “We have to really listen to the experts of these big corporations when they say that this is already happening – spiraling out of control,” Hallberg said.

Governments must work directly with companies developing AI to establish common rules, she added, noting that unlike during the early nuclear era, much of the technology is being developed by private corporations.

“The human being has to have total control,” Hallberg said, calling for safeguards to be built into AI algorithms.

Warnings over the potential consequences of increasingly powerful AI have also come from the companies developing it. US firm Anthropic, which is expected to go public as early as mid-October, has warned prospective investors that advanced AI could pose “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity.” According to Reuters, around 80 pages of its 261-page IPO prospectus are devoted to risk factors.

Pugwash brings together scientists and public figures seeking to reduce threats from armed conflict and weapons of mass destruction. The organization was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 with its co-founder Joseph Rotblat.