A Cossack motor rally and a closed screening of the film The Elista Miracle were also held in the republic, attended, among others, by descendants of the witnesses Semyon and Maria Bondarenko.

The culmination of the celebrations came on September 10, when believers received the icon The Appearance of Christ the Savior to the Praying in the City of Elista at the Kazan Cathedral.

After the Divine Liturgy, more than 2,000 people took part in a religious procession to the Exaltation of the Cross Church, while earlier the holy image had visited churches in the district centers of the republic.

As part of the anniversary events, a strategic session was held on the role of pilgrimage in strengthening the unity of Russia.

The festive evening concluded with a concert on Victory Square and a performance by the Choir of the Moscow Sretensky Monastery with the program Russia Is Our Only One, which included a new composition by Fyodor Stepanov set to verses by Hieromonk Roman.

On September 11, 1946, a miracle of the Appearance of Christ the Savior to the faithful took place in the Exaltation of the Cross Church, witnessed by the priest and parishioners.

After that, parish member Semyon Bondarenko set out in search of an artist capable of capturing the miracle in an icon. As a result, the icon The Appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ to the Praying in the City of Elista was brought to Elista in the spring of 1947.

A Polish MEP has taken an axe to a memorial honoring Nazi-linked Ukrainian nationalist paramilitaries responsible for massacring Polish civilians during World War II.

In a video posted on X on Thursday, Grzegorz Braun can be seen repeatedly striking a stone obelisk in Bialystok, near Poland’s border with Ukraine, which commemorates members of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA).

The UPA was the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), a WWII-era ultranationalist movement led by Stepan Bandera which collaborated with Nazi Germany. UPA fighters massacred tens of thousands of ethnic Polish civilians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, now largely in western Ukraine.

”The UPA monument in the Dolhobyczow municipality in Hrubieszow County is to be dismantled,” he wrote. “The obelisk offending the memory of the victims of the Ukrainian genocide against Poles should be removed... immediately after documenting the crime of Banderism,” Braun added.

Pomnik UPA w gminie Dołhobyczów w powiecie hrubieszowskim do likwidacji❗️

Obelisk obrażający pamięć ofiar ukraińskiego Ludobójstwa na Polakach powinien zostać usunięty profesjonalnymi narzędziami natychmiast po udokumentowaniu przestępstwa banderyzmu!#StopBanderyzacjiPolski… pic.twitter.com/8Q4QZ2z5vJ

— Grzegorz Braun (@GrzegorzBraun_) September 10, 2026

According to Braun, local Poles feared Ukrainian retaliation if they removed the memorial. He said one proposal to dismantle it was met with the response: “We’re afraid they’ll set us on fire.”

The memorial stands over a burial site containing 41 UPA members killed in a clash with Soviet forces in February 1946. According to Polish records, a Ukrainian memorial was erected there without authorization in the 1990s. The stone monument honoring the UPA fighters was added later and has also faced questions over its legal status.

The site has repeatedly been vandalized. Unidentified people damaged inscriptions on the obelisk earlier this month, while the Ukrainian Embassy expressed “deep outrage” after another attack in July.

The OUN and UPA massacres remain a major source of tension between Poland and Ukraine. Warsaw recognizes the killings of predominantly Polish civilians in Volhynia, Eastern Galicia, and neighboring regions in 1943-1945 as genocide and estimates that up to 100,000 Poles were killed.

The dispute has intensified amid Kiev’s continued honoring of WWII-era Ukrainian nationalists. Vladimir Zelensky took part in the May reburial of OUN leader Andrey Melnik as part of efforts to establish a “Pantheon of outstanding Ukrainians” and later granted a Ukrainian military unit the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA.”

Polish President Karol Nawrocki responded by stripping Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor. Warsaw has also warned it will not support Ukraine’s EU membership bid unless Kiev changes its approach.

Polish MEP Ewa Zajaczkowska-Hernik has meanwhile called for an end to free weapons deliveries to Ukraine, arguing that Warsaw has provided some $4.6 billion in military aid only to be repaid with a “Banderite pantheon of heroes.” 

”Let’s stop being suckers for Ukraine!” she wrote on X.

Russian President Vladimir Putin weighed in last month, arguing that the neo-Nazi nature of the Ukrainian government has become so visible that even Poland’s strongly anti-Russian authorities can no longer ignore it. Warsaw, he said, faces an “obvious demand” from its population to confront the issue.

Public attitudes toward Ukrainians in Poland have also deteriorated. A July CBOS poll found 52% of Poles opposed accepting Ukrainian migrants, against 42% in favor – the first time opponents had outnumbered supporters since tracking began after the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Support has fallen from 94% in 2022 to 42% this year.

An August IBRiS survey separately found that 67% of Poles support deporting unemployed Ukrainian men of military age.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Americans watched in horror as hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people were killed. Less than a month later, the US went to war in Afghanistan. Two years after that, it invaded Iraq.

What began as an attack by Al-Qaeda would come to reshape US foreign policy, the Middle East, and the way Islam was discussed around the world.

A quarter of a century later, September 11 still casts a long shadow over American public life. Al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the attacks has long been established, but the edges of the story remain blurred. Documents remained classified for years and only emerged piece by piece; lawsuits dragged on; questions lingered over who might have known more, who might have helped, and how far the web surrounding the hijackers actually extended. In the gaps between what was proven, what remained secret, and what was merely suspected, conspiracy theories flourished – but so did genuine political and legal questions that America has never quite managed to put to rest.

Nowhere has that shadow fallen more heavily than on Saudi Arabia; 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and for decades, victims’ families, lawyers, and advocacy groups have pressed for greater disclosure about possible links between people associated with Saudi institutions and some of the attackers. The result is a peculiar political afterlife of 9/11. Even as Washington and Riyadh have remained strategic partners, questions surrounding the attacks have repeatedly resurfaced whenever the relationship with the kingdom comes under scrutiny.

Under former President Joe Biden, the issue returned to public attention when his administration ordered a new review and declassification of government records related to 9/11, following sustained pressure from victims’ families. The Saudi question also became entangled with a broader political reassessment of Washington’s relationship with Riyadh following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

In that sense, September 11 left behind more than a settled account of a terrorist attack. It left a long political shadow – one that continued to affect how Americans view particular Arab states, their governments, and eventually, the Muslim world.

The architecture of suspicion

The more immediate consequence of September 11, however, was broader than the hunt for those responsible. The attacks changed the conceptual framework through which the US understood Islam itself.

After 9/11, the country needed explanations: Why did it happen, what produced Islamist violence, and how could another attack be prevented? The American system responded in a characteristically American way: It went looking for expertise. Government agencies poured money into universities, professional associations, and think tanks, demanding explanations – and quickly.

But there was an almost paradoxical mismatch between the question and some of the intellectual tools available to answer it. Many of the scholars being asked to make sense of Islam, political Islam, and jihadist violence built their expertise studying religion in a different context: Christianity in the US, including Christian fundamentalism and its relationship with political extremism.

To Grigory Lukyanov, a research fellow at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and deputy dean at Russia’s State Academic University for the Humanities, the episode illustrates something larger about the American response to 9/11: Confronted with an unfamiliar threat and under enormous pressure to produce answers quickly, institutions reached for intellectual tools they already possessed.ё

“You needed ideas, you needed solutions, you needed an understanding of how to solve the problem,” Lukyanov said. “Money was given to scholars of religion, quick results were demanded, and existing analytical frameworks were transferred onto Islam.” 

Islam increasingly became something to be categorized in security terms. 

A movement classified as ‘moderate’ might be treated as a potential partner; one categorized as ‘radical’ could become a target of surveillance, sanctions, or counterterrorism operations, but the consequences quickly moved beyond policy and into everyday life. In September 2001, 28% of Americans said they had become more suspicious of people of Middle Eastern descent; in March 2002, 25% of Americans said Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence (now, 25 years later, it’s 51%).

For Lukyanov, the resulting distortions were almost built into the speed and structure of the response. “It is difficult to search for alternatives in counterfactual history,” he said. “The attack had happened. What could the United States do – simply not conduct a War on Terror? Retreat into something like the Monroe Doctrine, recoil from what had happened and accept defeat? That was almost impossible to imagine.”

The US of 2001 was at the height of its post-Cold War power, the Russian expert said. The Soviet Union disappeared a decade earlier; China had not yet emerged as a peer economic competitor; Washington possessed unmatched military, financial, and political reach. September 11 was therefore interpreted not only as a terrorist atrocity, but as a challenge to American global leadership.

“Not responding was impossible,” Lukyanov said. “The question is that the response was built on the experience, analytical frameworks, decision-making patterns and limitations that American political elites had at that moment.”

America’s road to endless war

If the securitization of Islam was one consequence of September 11, the most visible was measured in soldiers, bases, and wars. Yet here as well, 9/11 was less a beginning than an acceleration.

The US was hardly a newcomer to the Middle East in 2001. Its involvement expanded dramatically after the Cold War and the 1990-91 Gulf War. The US had troops and military facilities across the region, protected the Gulf monarchies, enforced no-fly zones over Iraq, supported Israel, and remained indispensable to Arab-Israeli diplomacy. By the end of the 1990s, American primacy in the region was difficult to contest.

“The United States began sinking into the Middle Eastern swamp long before September 11,” Lukyanov said. “There were essentially no other external players, and almost no major conflict or problem in the region could be resolved without the participation of Washington.”

September 11 was therefore not the moment America entered the Middle East. It was, in Lukyanov’s words, a crescendo – the moment an already extensive political and military commitment became something larger and far more difficult to control.

Less than a month after the attacks, the US invaded Afghanistan to destroy Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government that had sheltered it. The initial campaign was remarkably swift. By December, the Taliban regime had collapsed. What followed was not. The US would remain in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years, its longest war, losing more than 2,400 service members as it tried to build a new political order. It ended in August 2021, with the Taliban sweeping back into Kabul.

Five years later, Taliban fighters patrol the capital in American-supplied Humvees, carrying American weapons and wearing American tactical gear. Around $7 billion worth of US-funded military equipment remained in Afghanistan after the collapse of the forces the US spent two decades building.

Destroying one enemy, creating another

Then came Iraq.

Unlike Afghanistan, the 2003 invasion was not presented as war against the organization that carried out the September 11 attacks. The administration of George W. Bush argued that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (which were never found) and presented Iraq as part of a broader post-9/11 security threat. But by then, the invasion had already removed the Iraqi state’s leadership, dissolved much of its coercive apparatus, and opened a political vacuum at the center of the Arab world.

One consequence of the US invasion of Iraq can still be felt today, Lukyanov argues, pointing to the ongoing exchange of strikes between Iran and US forces across the region.

“It was the American invasion of Iraq, prompted by the 9/11 policies, that created the conditions for a geopolitical conflict in that country, escalating the geopolitical standoff between the United States and Iran,” Lukyanov adds. “It was precisely because of this that the United States significantly increased its support for Israel and its policies.”

Hussein’s fall destroyed a regime that brutally dominated Iraq for decades, but it also removed one of the principal Arab counterweights to Iran. Iraq’s long-suppressed Shia majority acquired unprecedented political power, while many Sunnis who occupied privileged positions under the old order suddenly found themselves marginalized.

The dismantling of the Iraqi Army and Baathist state structures left hundreds of thousands of armed and militarily trained men without a place in that order. Insurgency spread and sectarian violence followed. A new generation of jihadists that came into that landscape, now known as ISIS, built itself amid the occupation and the Sunni insurgency. By 2014, ISIS seized Mosul and proclaimed a caliphate across large parts of Iraq and Syria.

The friends America abandoned

The War on Terror did not only transform America’s enemies, it also transformed its friendships.

Across the Arab world, authoritarian governments quickly discovered the political value of becoming indispensable to America’s new struggle. Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, and several Gulf monarchies expanded counterterrorism cooperation with the US, while governments increasingly presented domestic repression as part of the same fight against extremism. The distinction between jihadists and non-violent Islamist opponents could become dangerously elastic. Organizations that threatened the regime politically could be folded into a much broader security problem.

For aging authoritarian systems, the new order offered an opportunity. Lukyanov argues that some regimes came to believe that cooperation against a common enemy would buy them a kind of political absolution. “The War on Terror gave them the illusion that, by acting against a common enemy together with the United States, they would receive forgiveness for everything that had happened in the past.”

Few countries tested that proposition as dramatically as Libya.

Muammar Gaddafi spent decades as an adversary of Washington. But he was also an enemy of the jihadists seeking to overthrow him. After 9/11, this suddenly gave Tripoli and Washington something to talk about. Libya shared intelligence on Al-Qaeda and other Islamist militants with Western services; in 2003, Gaddafi renounced terrorism and agreed to dismantle his weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. Sanctions were progressively lifted, diplomatic relations restored, and in 2006, the US removed Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

For a time, the bargain appeared to work. A ruler once treated as an international pariah reinvented himself as a counterterrorism partner. Washington, meanwhile, gained intelligence cooperation and the dismantling of Libya’s unconventional weapons programs without another war.

But there was a catch. Cooperation abroad did not require meaningful liberalization at home. Libya remained brutally authoritarian even as relations with Washington improved; elsewhere, the counterterrorism imperative similarly gave security states additional room to operate. In Egypt, emergency laws allowed thousands to be detained without fair trials, while Washington tolerated serious abuses by governments it relied upon for counterterrorism cooperation. 

Then, a decade after September 11, the bargain began to come apart when uprisings began in Tunisia in late 2010, and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali fled. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak resigned after nearly 30 years in power. And in Libya, the reversal was even more extraordinary: Gaddafi – the former enemy who dismantled his weapons programs, shared intelligence on jihadists, and rebuilt relations with the West – faced an uprising of his own. NATO intervened against his forces, and in October 2011, Gaddafi was killed.

The political vacuum produced another irony, Lukyanov said. For decades, some Arab governments portrayed Islamism as one of the principal dangers from which their rule protected both their own societies and the West. Once several of these governments fell, however, Islamist movements proved to be among the best-organized political forces left standing. Ennahda won Tunisia’s first post-revolutionary election; in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood emerged as the dominant electoral force and its candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won the presidency. “In the end, in both Egypt and Tunisia, for example, movements that had provided Al-Qaeda with a social and political support base came to power,” Lukyanov said.

In the places where revolutions did not produce functioning political systems, the circle became darker still. Libya descended into fragmentation and civil war; Yemen collapsed into a regional conflict; Syria became the battlefield in which local rebellion, state repression, regional competition, and transnational jihadism converged. Groups linked to Al-Qaeda, and eventually ISIS, found new territory in the wreckage.

When the War on Terror came home

Six days after the attacks, Bush visited a Washington mosque and declared that “Islam is peace,” seeking to draw a line between the perpetrators and millions of ordinary Muslims. On the ground, however, the backlash was already well underway.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes surged from just 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001 – a more than seventeen-fold increase. Another 49 assaults and 104 incidents targeting places of worship were reported in the first week after 9/11 alone. In Chicago alone, the number of reported anti-Muslim or anti-Arab hate crimes jumped from four in all of 2000 to 51 in just the three months from September to November 2001. 

The effect was measurable within Muslim communities themselves; 57% of Muslim Americans said they had experienced some form of bias or discrimination since the attacks, and 48% said their lives had changed for the worse. Yet the response was not uniformly hostile; 79% also said they had experienced an act of kindness or support from friends or colleagues of other faiths.

The consequences went beyond the immediate backlash. The security architecture built in the aftermath of 9/11 also expanded the reach and militarization of law enforcement. By 2020, nearly 65% of the roughly 18,000 US law enforcement agencies had received military equipment through the Pentagon’s 1033 program, such as weapons, ammunition, and tactical armored vehicles.

“If we return to the question of how Islam and the Islamic world have changed, Islam as a teaching has not changed,” Lukyanov stresses. “Nor have the borders of Muslim states changed. What has changed, however, is the position of Muslim communities in Western countries and in countries outside Muslim-majority regions.”

A quarter of a century later, the legacy of 9/11 extends far beyond the attacks themselves. Not only the US, but the world around it changed: Wars reshaped the Middle East politics (though did not change the region’s borders), new extremist movements emerged, regional rivalries deepened, and Muslim communities in the West faced greater suspicion and scrutiny. In that sense, perhaps the most consequential story of 9/11 for the Muslim world is not what happened on that day, but what followed in response.

The US exploited the wave of international sympathy and solidarity in the wake of the 9/11 attacks to expand its global influence, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. He also argued that Washington’s conduct during the invasion of Afghanistan served as a pattern for further conflicts in Iraq, Libya and other countries.

In an interview with RBC on Friday, which coincided with the 25th anniversary of the terror attacks, Lavrov reflected on their global aftermath. He recalled that Russia – like many other countries – had thrown its weight behind the US response, sharing intelligence and providing other support for operations against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Russia’s cooperation with the West later expanded through the NATO-Russia Council, including projects involving Afghanistan, counter-narcotics work, transit arrangements, and support for the Western helicopter fleet, he added.

However, Lavrov noted that Washington used both the international coalition assembled after the attacks and the political mandate it received for its selfish goals. “The United States exploited this international solidarity… not so much to combat terrorism as to pursue its own geopolitical objectives and to broaden its presence and sway,” he said.

He pointed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, noting that the subsequent dismantling of Ba’ath Party and the country’s military helped produce forces that became the backbone of the Islamic State. He also blamed Western intervention for the destruction of Libya, adding that the conflicts in Yugoslavia, Georgia, and Ukraine were an attempt by a “unipolar” world to dictate the course of international affairs.

The 9/11 attacks, the deadliest terrorist assault in US history, were carried out by Al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001, when 19 hijackers seized four passenger aircraft. Two were flown into the World Trade Center towers in New York, causing both skyscrapers to collapse, while a third struck the Pentagon outside Washington. The fourth aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers and crew fought back against the hijackers. The attacks killed 2,977 people, excluding the perpetrators, and injured thousands more.

Following the tragedy, Russian President Vladimir Putin was the first world leader to call then-US President George W. Bush, offering both condolences and assistance.

Malian doctors have successfully separated conjoined twin girls in what the government described as the first operation of its kind in the West African country.

The procedure was performed on Wednesday by a multidisciplinary team at Gabriel Toure University Hospital in the capital, Bamako, the Health Ministry announced the next day. The twins were born by cesarean section on August 29 following a full-term pregnancy in which congenital abnormalities had already been detected. They were joined through parts of their urinary and digestive systems and shared a bladder and colon, according to an official account reported by local outlet Maliweb.

Health Minister Assa Badiallo Toure visited the newborns and praised the medical team. “Such an operation is truly a feat,” she said, describing it as an important milestone for specialized medicine in Mali.

Hospital director Professor Thierno Madani Diop assembled a team of pediatric surgeons, anesthesiologists, intensive-care specialists, cardiologists, radiologists, pharmacists, and laboratory and operating-room personnel to carry out the procedure.

Conjoined twins develop when a single embryo does not divide completely during the early stages of pregnancy. The condition occurs in an estimated one in 50,000 to 200,000 births, and the viability of separation depends largely on which organs the twins share, according to the US National Library of Medicine.

The operation in Mali follows another rare medical success in Africa in March, when doctors at Mankweng Hospital, a rural public facility in South Africa, separated conjoined newborns. The babies were reported to be in stable condition in neonatal intensive care after the procedure, according to the South African government.

The 18th BRICS Summit, opening in New Delhi on Friday, will test not only the geopolitical resilience of the largest grouping in the non-Western world, but also the maturity of Indian diplomacy.

India has set itself an extraordinarily difficult task of trying to pour the oil of reconciliation onto the increasingly stormy waters of world politics.

The theme of its 2026 BRICS presidency, “Building for Sustainability, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainable Development,” might sound hopelessly optimistic as the Ukraine conflict and sanctions against Russia continue, the US and Iran remain locked in confrontation, Western pressure on China is growing, Africa and Latin America face what BRICS countries regard as neo-colonial practices, and while trade and technology wars are multiplying.

Against such a background, talk of innovation and sustainable development can seem detached from reality, yet this is precisely where India sees a role for itself; as divisions between rival centers of power deepen, New Delhi is attempting the diplomatic equivalent of walking a tightrope. It believes its longstanding principle of “strategic autonomy” will allow it not merely to keep its balance, but to make a wider contribution to international stability.

That approach is central to understanding India’s BRICS presidency, given that among the BRICS states, India occupies a unique position. It maintains strategic partnerships with the United States and Western European countries whose policies increasingly seek to contain Russia and China, while, at the same time, New Delhi has refused Western demands to distance itself from Moscow.

India consequently doesn’t regard BRICS as an anti-Western alliance. For sure it sees the grouping as non-Western, but not inherently antagonistic towards the West, and this leaves New Delhi caught between two fires.

Some within BRICS may accuse India of being insufficiently willing to confront the West, while Western governments repeatedly criticize India for maintaining close relations with Russia, often invoking its status as the world’s largest democracy.

Shortly before the summit, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar offered a characteristically pointed defense of this strategic autonomy at an international forum in Finland.

Asked by a British moderator whether cooperation with Russia was immoral, Jaishankar replied that no European country had ever been attacked with Indian weapons, while European weapons had been used against India.

The exchange neatly captured New Delhi’s position as India has no intention of allowing either side to dictate its foreign policy.

Being caught between two fires is rarely comfortable, but India’s strategy isn’t simply to avoid getting burnt; instead, it intends to draw warmth from both while retaining the freedom to choose its own course.

That is both the risk and the ambition behind India’s BRICS presidency.

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

Vladimir Zelensky’s chief of staff Kirill Budanov is being investigated by Western-backed anti-corruption detectives over possible crimes committed during his tenure as head of Ukraine’s military intelligence agency (HUR), a source familiar with the matter has told RT.

Zelensky chose Budanov to replace Andrey Yermak, who quit amid a widening series of corruption scandals at the heart of the Ukrainian administration.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) has launched a new probe into Budanov over possible wrongdoing during his tenure in the intelligence agency HUR, which he headed from 2020 to 2026.

Last month, Ukrainian media linked Budanov to a money laundering scandal involving his now-fired deputy in Zelensky’s office, Irina Mudraya. NABU accused her of orchestrating a scheme to use bags of cash to pay bail for former Energy Minister German Galushchenko, who is a suspect in a separate graft case involving Zelensky’s inner circle.

According to sources cited by Ukrainskaya Pravda, Budanov ordered Mudraya to help Galushchenko secure his release from pre-trial detention, likely at Zelensky’s direction.

In surveillance tapes published by NABU, Mudraya said she was acting on behalf of her superiors without naming anyone. The outlet suggested, based on the context of the conversation, that she was likely referring to Budanov when she quoted an official as saying that “corruption needs to be systematized and controlled” and not combated.

Asked by Hromadske about the allegation, Budanov said: “Let the court sort out whose names are mentioned and where.”

HUR came under media scrutiny earlier this month after its personnel engaged in firefights in Kiev with troops from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). The altercation stemmed from a custody dispute over a member of a neo-Nazi-led militia force, which the military intelligence incorporated under Budanov’s leadership.

Last week, Ruslan Kravchenko, a Zelensky appointee, tendered his resignation as prosecutor general after NABU accused his chief cybercrime investigator of extracting payments from scam-call centers on behalf of his superior.

Zelensky previously tried and failed to place the Western-backed agency under the control of the Prosecutor General’s Office.

Russia is open to cooperation and doing business with “the whole world,” President Vladimir Putin has said. This includes both Western economic powers – despite what he described as their “ugly forms of competition” – and the growing economies of the Global South and East.

“We are ready to cooperate with all our partners,” Putin told the BRICS Business Forum panel at the 18th BRICS summit in India, adding that they could be “old or new.”

Putin said that the shared goal is to unlock the development potential of Russia and its partners through “business diplomacy,” making it easier for companies and entrepreneurs to cooperate.

“We do not want to impose any restrictions on ourselves or turn inward – whether at the national, corporate, or even the broader level of our partnership,” he stated. “We are not building our cooperation against anyone. We stand for ourselves and our interests.”

Russia is seeking to expand practical business cooperation with its partners in industry, trade, and tourism, Putin said, noting that Moscow has established a national business cooperation committee bringing together more than 40 of the country’s largest companies.

He also highlighted plans to develop major logistics routes, such as the Trans-Arctic and North-South transport corridors, and proposed creating a new investment platform based on the BRICS New Development Bank to attract private capital and boost competitiveness.

“Together with our partners, we stand ready to contribute to global energy and food security,” Putin said.

Putin noted that the world is undergoing “deep structural shifts,” with traditional economic powers being displaced by new engines of growth – a natural process that he insisted “cannot be stopped.” He argued, however, that Western economies facing growing competition increasingly resort to unsavory methods.

“Sometimes competition takes ugly forms,” he said, citing the destruction of pipelines, attempts to block international transport routes, unilateral “illegal restrictions,” and secondary sanctions against countries “unwilling to follow others’ interests.”

Russia has faced more than 30,000 sanctions since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict – twice as many as all other countries combined, Putin said. Moscow nevertheless weathered the unprecedented pressure by relying on domestic business, science, and engineering while redirecting trade toward “reliable partners,” he stated. Russia’s economy has become more resilient, with growth outpacing the global average over the past three years, he added.

The president noted that against expectations the sanctions had instead hurt those imposing them, pointing to rising budget deficits, public debt, and industrial decline. Leading eurozone economies have seen industrial output fall by around 8% in recent years, he claimed.

Speaking of BRICS, Putin described the group as an increasingly powerful force in the global economy.

“Through our combined efforts, BRICS is building a resilient and viable platform for global growth,” he said. “This is not being imposed on us from the outside by the so-called ‘golden billion’, nor are we trying to impose anything on anyone else.”

Putin noted that BRICS countries generated more than 40% of global GDP over the past five years, compared with 29% for the G7, while contributing more than half of global economic growth against just 18% for the G7. He attributed the momentum to the grouping’s vast population, dynamic domestic markets, and rapidly expanding national companies with global ambitions.

The 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi runs through Sunday, bringing together leaders of the expanded grouping to discuss economic cooperation, energy and food security, global governance, and geopolitical challenges. Putin, who arrived in India on Friday, has already held talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the gathering. He is also expected to hold talks with other leaders attending the gathering.

Tens of thousands of Hasidic Jews are flocking to central Ukraine, praying, singing, and dancing as they prepare to mark the Jewish New Year.

The annual pilgrimage draws thousands of visitors from around the world.

But who are they, why do they travel to a relatively small Ukrainian city every year, and are they still coming despite the conflict?

Who are the Hasidic Jews?

Hasidism is a movement within Orthodox Judaism that emerged in Eastern Europe in the 18th century. Over time, it developed into a number of groups with their own traditions and religious leaders.

Most of those making the annual journey to Uman are followers of the Breslov branch. Their connection to the city goes back to the man who founded the movement more than 200 years ago – Rabbi Nachman.

Who was Rabbi Nachman?

Nachman was born in 1772 in what is now Ukraine and was a great-grandson of Israel Baal Shem Tov, who is regarded as the founder of the Hasidic movement.

He founded the Breslov branch and emphasized prayer, simplicity, and joy. He also placed particular importance on his followers gathering with him for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.

Large groups of Hasidim are crossing into Ukraine and heading to Uman for Rosh Hashanah. Several thousand are already there. By September 11, when the Jewish New Year begins, organizers expect up to 40,000 pilgrims from Israel, the US and around the world. War, missile risk,… pic.twitter.com/eklA9ZzENB

— Iuliia Mendel (@IuliiaMendel) September 8, 2026

Nachman died in Uman in 1810 and was buried there. His followers continued gathering in the city after his death, beginning a tradition that eventually developed into today’s mass annual pilgrimage.

How did Uman become a pilgrimage center?

Uman is a relatively small city in central Ukraine’s Cherkasy Region, around 200km south of Kiev. Its population stood at just over 80,000 before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, while the annual pilgrimage brings tens of thousands of additional visitors.

Nachman moved to Uman only months before his death. Historical accounts say he chose the city because thousands of Jews had been killed there during a massacre in 1768 and wanted to be buried near the victims.

Uman later became home to a large Jewish community. Jews accounted for 59% of its population by 1897. The community was devastated during World War II, when around 17,000 Jews were killed after Nazi forces occupied the city.

Visits to Nachman’s grave continued on a much smaller scale during the Soviet period before growing substantially after the collapse of the USSR.

What is Rosh Hashanah?

This year, Rosh Hashanah begins at sunset on September 11 and ends after nightfall on September 13. Unlike the secular New Year, it is primarily a religious holiday centered on prayer and reflection.

The holiday has particular importance for Breslov followers because Nachman considered their annual Rosh Hashanah gathering especially important. After his death, his followers continued meeting in Uman during the holiday, explaining why the city sees its largest influx of pilgrims at this time of year.

Why all the dancing?

The singing and dancing seen on Uman’s streets are not required Rosh Hashanah rituals.

Music and dancing are common at Hasidic gatherings, while Rabbi Nachman placed particular emphasis on joy. His followers therefore often combine prayer with communal singing and dancing during their time in Uman.

Do pilgrims still come despite the conflict?

Yes. Tens of thousands have continued making the journey despite the hostilities and official travel warnings.

Around 35,000 pilgrims visited Uman in both 2023 and 2024, while more than 35,000 traveled there in 2025, according to Ukrainian officials and media reports. Ukrainian authorities expect as many as 40,000 this year.

Ukraine travel warning

Last week, the US Embassy in Kiev issued a security alert recommending that Americans not travel to Uman, citing the risk of airstrikes, martial law, and movement restrictions. The embassy also warned US-Ukrainian male dual nationals that they may be unable to leave the country and could be subject to conscription. Ukraine has ended an exemption that previously allowed certain Ukrainian men living abroad to leave the country.

Security has been stepped up for this year’s gathering. Israeli police officers have arrived in Uman to work alongside Ukrainian law enforcement in areas where pilgrims are staying and gathering, according to police in Ukraine’s Cherkasy Region.

The pilgrimage has persisted through earlier disruptions as well. In 2020, pilgrims attempted to reach Uman despite Covid-19 border and travel restrictions.

Anthropic says it has caught scientists using its AI models for research that could help develop biological weapons, including work aimed at making dangerous pathogens more transmissible and harmful.

Five cases of biological researchers using Claude raised serious security concerns, according to a company threat intelligence report published on Thursday.

One case, to be carried out at a military research institute, involved gain-of-function research aimed at making the chikungunya virus more transmissible and better able to evade the immune system.

Another scientist used Claude while researching highly dangerous bird flu and ways the virus could adapt to mammals. Other cases involved work on viruses related to smallpox and the redesign of dangerous toxins.

Anthropic said some of the researchers went to considerable lengths to get around its restrictions, including hiding their identities, routing traffic through other countries and using services designed to bypass safety controls. The accounts involved have been banned while the services used to get around the safeguards have been shut down.

The company stopped short of saying the scientists were definitely trying to build biological weapons. However, it warned that sophisticated actors may deliberately hide malicious aims behind legitimate-looking research.

Anthropic acknowledged that its AI is becoming more capable, saying older models were too weak to meaningfully assist sophisticated users with dangerous biological research, but that it can no longer make the same assurance about today’s systems.

The findings come just weeks after US scientists used AI to design complete viral genomes and successfully created 16 functioning viruses that did not previously exist in nature. Although those viruses infected bacteria rather than humans, researchers have warned that the experiment demonstrates how quickly AI’s biological capabilities are advancing.

Anthropic’s report also detailed other alleged misuse of Claude, including cyberattacks, surveillance, propaganda, fraud and assistance with conventional weapons such as missiles, armed drones and bombs.

Just days before the threat assessment was published, Anthropic researcher Evan Hubinger publicly stated that he believes there is a greater than 10% chance AI could “kill all humans” within the next decade, adding that the company still has no clear plan for safely controlling superintelligence.

His admission came after another Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, resigned, accusing Anthropic and OpenAI of ignoring the “civilizational stakes” and “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.” He separately warned that sufficiently advanced AI could hack critical infrastructure or help create “extinction-level bioweapons.”

The EU can forget about competitiveness while energy prices remain prohibitively high, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned, urging Brussels to avoid policies that push costs higher.

Tusk spoke on Thursday at a press conference of the Visegrad Four (V4) – Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic – a Central European grouping that coordinates regional interests within the EU.

“We can put aside the dream of competing with China or the US as long as energy prices here remain at their current levels,” Tusk said. “The EU cannot afford to remain naive for even one more day when it comes to various ambitious policies. We must protect our industry.”

Tusk mentioned EU energy and climate measures such as carbon-pricing schemes, noting the region pays some of the world’s highest electricity prices despite Brussels making competitiveness a stated priority. “Energy prices in this region… must come down,” he insisted. “Anything that creates a risk of higher energy prices for us should be blocked.”

Where things stand now

With benchmark TTF gas back near €80 per MWh – roughly four times its pre-2022 level – EU industrial electricity prices are still two to three times higher than in the US and nearly 50% above China’s, while gas in Europe can cost up to five times more than across the Atlantic.

Although today’s energy prices are significantly below 2022 peaks, the crisis has shaved off 15-20% from gas demand, which remains depressed, reflecting not only conservation but a contraction of the industrial base. Many energy-intensive operations were rendered unprofitable. Numerous factories curbed production or shut altogether.

Permanent chemical-plant closures alone have surged sixfold from pre-2022 levels, according to Cefic, while auto-making giants such as Volkswagen, Stellantis, and Renault, as well as multiple other manufacturers, have scaled back or closed European operations amid competition from the US and Asia, and corporate insolvencies have risen.

A major contributor to the EU’s gas woes is the abandonment of cheap Russian energy in light of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Russia previously supplied around 45% of EU gas imports and 27% of its crude oil, but by 2025, Russia’s share of EU gas imports had fallen to 12% and crude imports to around 2%.

Several EU leaders, notably German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, have acknowledged that the loss of Russian supplies has played a role in the energy crisis.

While Tusk, a strong Ukraine supporter, did not explicitly link high energy prices to EU sanctions on Russia and the cutting off of Russian supplies, he cited the Ukraine conflict and “constant pressure from Russia” among the broader challenges facing the region, saying “the war is a real problem.”

Tusk’s Visegrad peers also warned that Brussels’ policies are squeezing industry amid the decoupling from Russian energy divorce and ongoing defense buildup.

What other leaders had to say

Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar warned that “dozens of Central European companies are going bankrupt because they cannot afford the price of electricity” and “can no longer afford the price of gas.” Magyar challenged Brussels to fund the energy transition it demands.

“If we need to transition away from Russian gas and oil, if we need to completely phase out fossil fuels, the EU should specify in its next seven-year budget how much assistance affected businesses will receive in turn,” he argued.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis similarly rejected leaving individual governments to deal with soaring fuel costs and criticized EU policies they said were hurting industry. Fico called for energy-market reforms, while Babis blamed the Green Deal for high costs, refinery closures and declining competitiveness.

EU energy bind deepens

The warnings come as the EU prioritizes two costly undertakings: completing its break with Russian energy, while financing a massive military buildup that envisages mobilizing up to €800 billion in additional defense spending. Russian LNG is due to disappear from the EU market by the end of 2026 and pipeline gas by autumn 2027.

Critics have warned that these two initiatives will be hard to reconcile and that the rejection of Russian energy will further undermine already flagging industrial competitiveness, and leave some member states scrambling for alternative supplies.

Meanwhile, the US war on Iran and disruption of the Strait of Hormuz are exacerbating the crisis. This, combined with Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and Saudi energy infrastructure, has pushed Brent crude above $106 a barrel this week.

European households have taken a hit as well. An Ipsos-Secours survey of 10,000 people across ten European countries, released earlier this month, found that 29% were living in precarious circumstances and 73% feared being unable to afford fuel costs. More than a third said they had sacrificed essentials such as food or healthcare to pay energy bills over the past year, while 23% had skipped medical appointments, suggesting energy insecurity is becoming a permanent feature of the cost-of-living crisis.

Moscow has long denounced Western energy sanctions as illegal and self-defeating, arguing they merely redirect Russian exports elsewhere while forcing Europeans toward more expensive and harder-to-obtain supplies. Russia has offered to help fill oil shortages caused by the Middle East conflict and resume supplies to Europe, but says it has received no response.

At least 26 students have been killed after a fire swept through two schools and hundreds of homes in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) city of Bukavu, the authorities say.

The blaze began in a house in the densely populated Cimpunda neighborhood on Thursday morning before spreading to the adjoining Furaha and Ujamaa schools, according to local officials. Several children reportedly suffocated after becoming trapped, while others were caught in a violent stampede as they tried to escape.

A statement from the South Kivu provincial authorities, cited by AP, put the toll at 19 girls and seven boys and warned that it could rise.

More than 300 homes were reportedly destroyed. The closely packed wooden buildings in the neighborhood contributed to the rapid spread of the flames, while narrow exits caused a crush at the schools, Cimpunda administrator Moise Lubala told AP.

The Congo River Alliance/March 23 Movement (AFC/M23) rebel coalition, which controls Bukavu, earlier reported 24 deaths and 29 injuries. It said 21 patients were in intensive care and that an investigation is ongoing to determine the cause of the fire. DR Congo government spokesman Patrick Muyaya said Kinshasa is following the incident with “deep concern.”

“While the city remains under illegal occupation, we express our solidarity with the students, teachers, parents, and families affected,” he wrote on X.

The Congolese Education Ministry said students and teachers in areas under occupation remain part of the national education system and “at the heart of the nation’s responsibility and solidarity.” It ordered an assessment of the damage and measures to support victims and continue classes. The ministry said the fire was the latest in a series that have damaged schools in Bukavu. The exact cause remains unknown.

Thursday’s disaster came less than a week after a fire at a wedding party in the capital, Kinshasa, killed at least 22 people. More than 700 homes burned in separate fires across Bukavu during the week ending September 6, according to UN-operated broadcaster Radio Okapi.

The AFC/M23 has controlled Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu Province, since February 2025, when its advance forced Congolese and allied Burundian troops to withdraw. The coalition seized Goma, the capital of neighboring North Kivu, a month earlier during clashes with government forces. Kinshasa and several Western governments accuse Rwanda of supporting the rebels, which Kigali denies. The rebels have since established parallel administrations across large areas of eastern DR Congo, where armed groups compete for control of the region’s mineral wealth.

A major accident occurred on Thursday in the eastern Congolese city of Bukavu. A fire broke out in two schools here, killing 26 students. Dozens of people were injured in this incident.#Bukavu #Congo #SchoolFire #SchoolTragedy #Students #TragicIncident #FireAccident #Breaking pic.twitter.com/IuyzcxxNMw

— VIRAL VOLT (@ViralVolT1) September 11, 2026

Space exploration and satellite navigation are fragile, failure-prone and enormously expensive. Yet they offer something few other fields can match: technological superiority and strategic prestige.

The main players in space remain Russia, the United States, and China, followed by India, the European Union, and Japan. Newer entrants include the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and a range of states in South America and West Asia. Because the sector is so costly and high-risk, cooperation is highly valued – it brings redundancy, speeds up technological progress, and cuts the price of getting there.

Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov earlier this week, in the runup to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to New Delhi, noted that Russia and India are considering the possibility of cross-flights involving mixed crews to their future national orbital stations. He said that this cooperation could eventually extend to joint scientific experiments and research.

In May this year, Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval visited the Roscosmos Joint Industry Information Center, while in August, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar traveled to Moscow to co-chair the 27th session of the India-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological and Cultural Cooperation (IRIGC-TEC).

Increased collaboration between Moscow and New Delhi within the space sector is occurring within the backdrop of three larger yet interlinked trends: first, the United States’ active dismantling of the remaining international order; second, the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Iran; and third, the advancement in drones and defense technologies.

The current US administration has upended the established decades-long US foreign policy by targeting longstanding allies with tariffs and sanctions in the attainment of its goals. India has become a target more than once of American tariffs and economic pressure. Attempts to reach a deal with the Trump administration have failed to produce long-term tangible gains.

This, however, has had a deep impact on the Indian populace. Since the normalization of Indo-US ties, the Indian public had forgotten that historically, American interests had been antagonistic to India during the entire Cold War period. These buried emotions have been surfacing lately with public skepticism regarding American intentions. Deepening cooperation with Russia and attempts to normalize ties with China are New Delhi’s way of signaling its displeasure toward American actions.

Recent developments in Indo-Russian cooperation have involved mutual deployment of ground stations, co-production of engines, and development of national orbital stations. These will allow Russia to offset vulnerabilities by outsourcing joint-production capabilities of critical components to India out of Ukraine’s reach.

Third, the astronomical advancements in drone and smart defense technologies have underscored the significance of satellite-based constellations in warfare.

A variety of Russian munitions and weapon systems employ GPS/GLONASS and the upcoming Rassvet system in precision guidance and control. UMPK-equipped glide-bombs, cruise missiles such as the Kh-101, drones like the Shahed-136, Geran-3 & -4, and Orlan-10, along with ballistic missiles such as the Iskander-K, witness a significant increase in accuracy and precision with minimal falloff over large distances.

Furthermore, despite the destruction of existing Viasat infrastructure in Ukraine during the conflict’s opening days, the rapid deployment of Starlink prevented the complete collapse of Ukrainian command and control structures. These attributes make the systems vital to any future operational requirements against adversaries with both limited and significant electronic warfare capabilities.

India’s worst-case military scenarios stipulate for a two-front war. The ability to deploy these munitions and weapon systems may provide its forces with definite tactical and strategic advantages in critical sectors along and beyond the lines of engagement. However, all these require the backbone of GPS/GLONASS capabilities and/or the Rassvet/Starlink low-orbit constellations on which these systems rely. Russia is currently in the process of operationalizing its Rassvet constellation to full functionality.

India’s own NavIC (Navigation with Indian Constellation) is in dire straits. The indigenous satellite navigation system has dropped below the critical threshold of satellites required for accurate geolocation. Simultaneously, the quest for a reliable low-orbit satellite navigation system over the Indian subcontinent has led to multiple contenders, including the French-TATA venture Eutelsat, the American Starlink and Viasat systems, Reliance’s own planned constellation, and possibly the Russian Rassvet system in the near future.

Space-based cooperation need not be limited to the bilateral level. In August 2021, BRICS space agencies signed an agreement for cooperation in remote sensing satellite data sharing. In May of the following year, the BRICS Joint Committee on Space Cooperation was officially launched. This year, BRICS+ engaged in advanced discussions of cooperation with calls for a BRICS Space Economy being made. Whether civilian cooperation in satellite data constellation ultimately advances to include sensitive military collaboration remains to be seen. What is already clear, however, is that low-orbit constellations are set to become a major disruptor in both civilian and military technology, and this is one area in which the Russia-India partnership could deepen further.

Russia will respond to any deployment in Lithuania of nuclear weapons aimed at the country by adjusting its own posture accordingly, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has warned.

The Baltic NATO state is currently moving to abolish a constitutional ban on hosting weapons of mass destruction, which President Gitanas Nauseda described as outdated in July. Speaking to Russian TV on Friday, Peskov said Vilnius would cause another rise in tensions with the proposed move.

“If you host nuclear weapons, they are aimed at somebody. Those won’t be aimed to the west. They will be aimed to the east, i.e. at us,” Peskov said. Consequently, “our nuclear weapons will be aimed at” the hosting nation.

Lithuanian media has described the proposed constitutional reform, which could be approved as soon as this winter, as creating a legal framework for a proposed EU nuclear-sharing scheme. France, the only nuclear power in the economic bloc, is considering moving some of its weapons to other member states.

NATO already has a nuclear-sharing arrangement under which US nuclear bombs are stored in non-nuclear countries, including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Türkiye, and the UK.

Earlier this week, a Lithuanian parliamentary committee on legal affairs approved a proposal to amend the constitution, with two MPs voting against. The opposition argued that the change should be put to a referendum, while Nauseda’s government said approval by parliament is sufficient. Constitutional amendments in Lithuania require two separate votes in parliament at least three months apart.

The provision outlawing weapons of mass destruction also bans foreign military bases and was included in the basic law to safeguard the post-Soviet republic’s neutrality. Lithuania joined NATO in 2004 along with Latvia and Estonia. Germany is currently working to deploy a heavy tank brigade in the country.

Russia has described NATO’s expansion in Europe as a key cause of current tensions with the US-led military bloc. Moscow views the forward deployment of nuclear-capable weapons near Russia’s borders as a major risk because it significantly reduces the time available to determine whether a detected attack is a false alarm or an actual strike warranting nuclear retaliation.

A Ukrainian singer blacklisted by the notorious Mirotvorets site that doxes “enemies” of the country has claimed he was told to pay $750,000 to have his name removed.

The database, which claims it is a private research project but has tacit backing from the Ukrainian state, has published data on over 180,000 people, and marks the profiles of deceased individuals with a “liquidated” stamp.

Several high-profile individuals, mostly opponents of Kiev’s slump into ethno-nationalism, were murdered shortly after they were listed on the database.

Russian-speaking Ukrainian pop star Anastasia Kamenskih, who claimed she had developed psychosomatic issues from trying to sing in Ukrainian, was listed this week.

This drew attention to recent remarks by Berlin-based singer Oleg Vinnik, who suggested Mirotvorets may also operate as a racket.

Designated an enemy of Ukraine in 2019, Vinnik said that three years later he was offered the opportunity to have his record expunged, for a fee.

“I won’t say who said it, but they said $750,000 is needed to be off Mirotvorets,” he recalled. “Roll this up and stick it deep, I say!”

What is Mirotvorets?

Launched in August 2014 after the Western-backed armed coup in Kiev, the project’s stated purpose is to identify and seek retribution against “enemies of Ukraine.”

Among the 180,000+ names listed on the site are Western journalists who reported from Donbass and Crimea, children as young as three, and Ukrainian author Oles Buzina, whose 2015 murder, days after he was listed, remains unsolved. Most recently, Polish MEP Ewa Zajaczkowska-Hernik and the country’s presidential chief of staff were added after criticizing the Ukrainian government for venerating Nazi collaborators.

How could a singer become Ukraine’s ‘enemy’?

Vinnik was targeted after taking part in a pro-peace campaign that Mirotvorets’ anonymous administrators denounced as Russian-orchestrated propaganda.

Pop star Kamenskih ran afoul of Mirotvorets admins when she publicly mocked Kiev’s language policies.

She is one half of the duo ‘Potap and Nastya’, one of Ukraine’s biggest acts a decade ago that stopped performing together in 2017 for personal reasons. Aleksey Potapenko and Kamenskih are now seeking a revival while working from properties they reportedly own in Barcelona, Dubai, and Miami.

In August, the singers posted a video on Instagram in which they appeared to suffer a fit after being pressured to sing in Ukrainian.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @potapinastya_official

Kamenskih has insisted she was born “in Russian-speaking Kiev, where everyone spoke Russian,” and would not be forced to switch to another language. In an interview last week, she also said she experienced problems when she tried to perform in Ukrainian and chose to sing in Russian on the advice of her psychotherapist.

Her Mirotvorets profile appeared soon afterward, accusing her of participating in “humanitarian aggression against Ukraine.”

Morocco has once again denied facilitating the mass entry of more than 70,000 migrants into Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta, saying no evidence has established its involvement.

In a statement on Thursday, the Moroccan Foreign Ministry accused Spanish political groups and media of exploiting the crisis in July for domestic purposes ahead of national elections expected in 2027.

“Morocco refuses to be used as a pre-election pawn. Nor does it accept being the scapegoat for political score-settling,” the ministry stated. Rabat also questioned why Spain has not returned irregular migrants despite Morocco’s offer to readmit them, and why unaccompanied minors remain separated from their families after it requested their return.

The statement followed Spain’s release of declassified files showing that its intelligence service warned officials in Madrid and Moroccan agencies on July 29 about online calls for a mass crossing the following day. A separate police report commissioned by a Spanish judge alleged that Moroccan border forces actively facilitated the influx.

More than 70,000 people entered Ceuta on July 30 and 31 after overwhelming the border controls. Most were returned within days, although thousands, including hundreds of unaccompanied minors, reportedly remain. At least 100 people died, many while attempting the crossing by sea, according to rights groups.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said there is no evidence that Rabat organized the influx, although he acknowledged that Moroccan forces allowed crossings during a ten-hour period on July 30. Morocco previously said its security personnel sought to avoid violence and blamed a Spanish court ruling restricting the immediate return of migrants arriving by sea for weakening border deterrence.

On Thursday, the North African country’s authorities said the “regrettable events” require a thorough investigation to establish the circumstances, “identify interference, denounce manipulation,” and prevent a recurrence. It also defended its record of migration and security cooperation with Spain, saying the two countries have dismantled terrorist and criminal networks and saved lives.

A similar crisis occurred in 2021, when around 9,000 people entered Ceuta after Moroccan guards temporarily relaxed border controls during a diplomatic dispute over Spain’s decision to provide medical treatment to Western Sahara independence leader Brahim Ghali. The European Parliament accused Rabat at the time of using migration as political pressure.

Relations improved after Madrid endorsed Morocco’s autonomy plan for disputed Western Sahara in 2022. Morocco, however, continues to claim Ceuta and the neighboring enclave of Melilla, which Spain considers integral parts of its territory.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is in New Delhi to attend the 18th BRICS Summit starting Friday.

Putin held bilateral talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the Bharat Mandapam convention center. He is also expected to hold talks with other leaders of the expanded BRICS group.

The Russian President invited Modi to visit Russia for the 24th India-Russia Annual Summit, which the Indian PM accepted. 

The summit of the leaders of the world’s emerging economies is being watched closely, given intensifying geopolitical tensions and economic turbulence caused by the West’s attempts to isolate Russia and coerce the Global South.

RT reporters are on the ground in New Delhi covering the Russian president's visit and the BRICS Summit.

Russia has struck a commercial data center in Kiev and infrastructure in the Ukrainian port of Odessa, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said.

The 4,500-square-meter Be Mobile facility in the Ukrainian capital was among a string of military-linked industrial, logistics, and port targets hit overnight with precision weapons and attack drones, according to the ministry’s morning update on Friday.

In Kiev Region, Russian forces struck a site near the town of Gostomel that the ministry said was used to store components for long-range drones.

Kiev deploys kamikaze drones for strikes deep inside Russia on a daily basis.

Multiple videos circulated by Ukrainian media show a fire reportedly caused by a jet-powered drone strike. 

Footage shows bright sparks and apparent secondary explosions, fueling speculation that munitions may have been stored at the site.

The incident comes amid growing tensions in Ukraine over the military’s use of facilities close to residential areas to store explosives.

In late August, a Russian strike on an ammunition depot in the village of Milaya northwest of Kiev triggered a massive detonation that killed 35 people and damaged hundreds of nearby homes. This week, a security official responsible for setting up and operating the depot was formally accused of negligence.

Russia’s latest operation also reportedly targeted two logistics hubs in Khmelnitsky Region and Dnepropetrovsk Region, both of which the ministry said were used to store drone parts.

In Odessa Region, the ministry said multiple targets were struck, including a repair shop servicing Ukrainian military hardware, another storage facility for drone components, as well as several cargo ships and fuel depots linked to the Ukrainian military.

Ukraine made attacks on Russian civilian ships a key part of its attempted “pressure campaign” during the summer. Russian retaliation has since virtually paralyzed shipping through ports in Odessa Region.

India has advanced key BRICS initiatives backed by Russia, including cross-border payments, a proposed grain exchange, and a new investment platform, Russian Ambassador to India Denis Alipov said ahead of the summit of the bloc’s leaders in New Delhi.

New Delhi holds the rotating BRICS chairmanship this year and is hosting the 18th leaders’ summit starting Saturday. Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in the Indian capital on Friday and is due to hold talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as well as address the BRICS Business Forum.

“We have moved forward on various tracks and projects that were proposed by previous chairs and by us in 2024 when we presided over BRICS,” Alipov told the ANI news agency ahead of the summit.

Among the Russian-backed proposals are a BRICS grain exchange, mechanisms to facilitate cross-border payments, and a new investment platform. Alipov said this week that work is also continuing on BRICS Clear, a proposed settlement and depository mechanism, and shared reinsurance capacity.

‘The Question Is - How Confident Is India?’: Russian Envoy On Energy Ties

Ambassador Denis Alipov said India has shown it can “stand its ground and defend its national interests,” adding that Moscow is ready to supply as much oil as India needs despite sanctions and tariffs.… https://t.co/IZreI3SQuZ pic.twitter.com/PhggcnSE1v

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) September 4, 2026

India has meanwhile put forward initiatives of its own, including cooperation on smart grids and energy storage, a startup innovation hub, an incubator network, and a logistics and supply-chain framework, Alipov said.

The agenda reflects a broader effort within BRICS to deepen economic and financial cooperation alongside its political and security work. Alipov said the grouping is also discussing trade and investment, a greater role for national currencies in settlements, energy, healthcare, artificial intelligence, science, and innovation.

More than 350 meetings and high-level engagements have been held across over 25 Indian cities under New Delhi’s presidency this year.

The discussions have covered the group’s three main areas of cooperation: political and security issues, economic and financial ties, and cultural and people-to-people exchanges.

India assumed the chairmanship on January 1, having previously led BRICS in 2012, 2016, and 2021. “On all these tracks we have progressed,” Alipov said, describing India’s chairmanship as a “huge success” and adding that the summit would confirm it.

Saudi Arabia’s crude oil production plunged by nearly 2 million barrels per day in August to its lowest level in over 35 years, as conflicts across the Middle East squeezed the kingdom’s export routes, Bloomberg reported on Thursday.

Riyadh told OPEC that production fell by 1.9 million barrels per day last month to 6.238 million bpd, according to the group’s monthly report obtained by the outlet.

The figure marks a new low since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in late February, as well as the kingdom’s lowest production level since the beginning of the Gulf War in 1990.

Saudi Arabia has been caught between disruptions on both of its principal maritime export routes. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has been severely restricted amid the ongoing US-Iran conflict, forcing greater reliance on Red Sea routes.

Iranian-aligned Houthi forces in Yemen have also renewed the war against Saudi-backed government forces and declared a maritime blockade against the kingdom.

The Houthis have also directly targeted Saudi energy infrastructure. A missile and drone barrage on Tuesday set oil installations ablaze and forced operations at some facilities to stop, according to the Saudi authorities, although Riyadh has provided few details on the extent of the damage or its impact on production.

The Houthis reportedly seized the strategic port city of Mocha on Thursday, tightening their grip on the approaches to the Bab al-Mandeb Strait – the narrow southern entrance to the Red Sea and a critical route for Saudi oil exports. The group said navigation remains safe for other shipping but not for Saudi vessels.

The pressure is already visible in shipping data, as provisional tanker tracking compiled by Bloomberg shows Saudi crude exports falling by around a third in August.

Riyadh told OPEC that its “supply to market,” which includes crude drawn from storage, stood at 7.122 million bpd, suggesting that the kingdom tapped inventories to compensate for reduced production. OPEC’s separate estimate based on external secondary sources was substantially higher, putting Saudi output at 7.276 million bpd in August.

The mounting threats to both Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb have sent oil prices surging higher. Brent crude settled 6.3% higher at $107.63 a barrel on Thursday, while West Texas Intermediate jumped to $102.48, with both benchmarks reaching their highest levels since May.

The upheaval is already reshaping global energy flows. Russia launched the first shipment from its massive Vostok Oil project in the Arctic this week, opening a new export route via the Northern Sea Route which Rosneft says could eventually supply the equivalent of around 730 million barrels of oil annually.

The US, meanwhile, has secured majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves under a sweeping investment deal. President Donald Trump portrayed the oil as a “gift” that will help replenish America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Those additional supplies could eventually ease pressure on global markets. The immediate shock, however, is already reaching US consumers. The national average diesel price surpassed $6 a gallon for the first time on record on Thursday, according to GasBuddy, after rising nearly 60% since the US and Israel launched the war against Iran in late February.

So much has happened since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, that the events now seem both very distant and perhaps less consequential than they appeared at the time. However, both impressions are misleading.

Twenty-five years is a considerable period in a human life, but little more than a moment in history, and however turbulent the past quarter-century has been, the significance of September 11 is only now becoming fully apparent.

Looking back, and setting aside the emotions of the time, what did the attacks actually mean for the international system?

Above all, they brought an end to a decade of virtually unchallenged US hegemony in world affairs.

The significance was partly symbolic in that the attackers struck at the two most obvious centers of American power, the World Trade Center represented its financial might, while the Pentagon represented its military strength. The post-Cold War period, during which the United States had come to believe that no fundamental threat remained to its security or interests, was over.

From Washington’s perspective, the decade had begun with the almost miraculous disappearance of its principal geopolitical adversary, the Soviet Union, yet it ended with the realization that danger could emerge suddenly from almost anywhere.

The fact that most Americans had previously known little about those who attacked them only deepened the shock and contributed to the impulsiveness of the response.

The End of History, proclaimed by Francis Fukuyama as the Cold War was drawing to a close, was followed barely a decade later by history’s turbulent and violent return

Washington’s reaction set in motion a global realignment whose consequences are now much easier to see. Whether Osama bin Laden possessed some ingenious long-term strategy for undermining American power is impossible to know, but the result was obvious as the United States embarked upon a course that gradually weakened its ability to manage international affairs.

George W. Bush’s administration, strongly influenced by neoconservative thinking, was caught off guard by September 11, so its response rested on two broad assumptions.

The first was that threats to America could originate anywhere, not merely from hostile states but from non-state groups newly capable of inflicting enormous damage, therefore such threats had to be confronted wherever they emerged, primarily through the overwhelming military power available to the United States.

The second assumption was ideological, given liberal theory held that democracies didn’t wage war against one another, meaning if that were true, then the more democracies there were, the safer the United States would become.

From this emerged the increasingly assertive promotion of democracy abroad, which at times it became openly aggressive.

Its methods ranged from military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq to political and financial support for democratic movements in the former Soviet Union and pressure for liberal political reforms across the Middle East and Libya later became another example of Western military intervention producing consequences far beyond those originally anticipated.

Some episodes from that period are now half-forgotten, such as when Washington strongly encouraged elections in the Palestinian territories despite warnings from regional actors about the likely consequences. Naturally, Hamas subsequently won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, dramatically altering Palestinian politics.

The same confidence in political transformation characterized the American response to the Arab Spring as existing political balances across the Middle East were overturned, often without anything stable emerging to replace them.

The consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq were greater still. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein destroyed a major component of the regional balance that had developed during the 20th century and unleashed forces that proved extremely difficult to contain.

America became trapped in what its own politicians would eventually call endless wars and these conflicts contributed to polarization inside the United States while attempts to export democracy damaged the reputation of democracy itself.

In Iraq, this was compounded by the widespread belief that American strategic and economic interests, including oil, were inseparable from the intervention.

The broader results were remarkable with prolonged wars, a destabilized Middle East and the expansion of radical Islamist movements. The architects of September 11 could scarcely have hoped for more when they planned their attack given relations between the West and much of the Muslim world also deteriorated. 

President Bush’s early reference to a crusade against terrorism was probably an unfortunate choice of words rather than a deliberate provocation, but Islamist movements eagerly seized upon it as confirmation of their argument that Western hostility towards the Muslim world had changed little since the Crusades.

Washington subsequently tried to repair those relations, but the direction had already been set.

The destruction of Iraq’s complicated internal and regional balance created opportunities for radical movements while contributing to an image of the United States as an enormously powerful but unpredictable force in Middle Eastern affairs. As a result, for governments in the region, maintaining some distance from Washington increasingly appeared prudent.

September 11 also transformed the United States itself.

The War on Terror was conceived as a global campaign to protect American national security, but its domestic consequences were profound as surveillance and state control expanded dramatically, whether in personal communications or financial transactions.

Although the original justification was terrorism, over the following quarter-century, new reasons for expanding these mechanisms appeared while technologies changed and political priorities shifted, but the general direction towards greater monitoring and control remained.

Nor did the old problem of double standards disappear because, despite declarations of zero tolerance for terrorism, the familiar distinction between one side’s terrorist and another’s freedom fighter survived. This ambiguity becomes particularly apparent when the interests of major powers collide, whether those powers are the United States, Russia or China.

A quarter-century after September 11, the world bears remarkably little resemblance to the one that existed on its eve, but, of course, much of what followed would probably have happened anyway. International systems change because of forces far larger than any single event and China’s rise, Russia’s reassertion of its interests, technological transformation and the relative decline of Western economic predominance cannot simply be attributed to the attacks of 2001.

But September 11 was nevertheless a turning point as the attacks ended the extraordinary post-Cold War interlude in which American predominance appeared almost uncontested, and, more importantly, Washington’s response accelerated the processes that brought that period to a close.

The movement away from the unipolar order didn’t happen overnight, but began gradually, gathered momentum through wars, crises and the emergence of alternative centers of power, and continues today.

What will replace it remains unclear, given the formation of another stable international order may take many years and whether that system proves preferable to the bipolar confrontation of the second half of the 20th century, or to the brief period of American hegemony that followed it, is impossible to know.

But one thing now seems clearer than it did on September 11, 2001 in that the attacks didn’t merely interrupt the post-Cold War order, but marked the beginning of its end.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it has destroyed a US Saildrone Explorer reconnaissance vessel at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, releasing footage showing the unmanned craft burning in the water.

The IRGC Navy said on Thursday that the vessel, identified by hull number 5838, was struck while operating near the strategic waterway. Iranian state media described it as an American surveillance drone, but the US military has not confirmed the loss.

“The American terrorist and aggressor army, over the past few days, out of fear of approaching and confronting the fighters of Islam, has dispatched its unmanned vessels to the Strait of Hormuz,” the IRGC said.

The Iranian Navy: We have struck a US unmanned vessel, with hull number 5838, at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz. pic.twitter.com/WyesLWXI47

— IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) (@iribnews_irib) September 10, 2026

The strategic waterway remains under Tehran’s control and “intelligence surveillance,” the IRGC added, warning that “any hostile presence in this strategic strait will be targeted.”

The roughly seven-meter Saildrone Explorer is an unmanned surface vessel equipped with cameras, sensors, and communications systems for maritime surveillance and reconnaissance. The US Navy previously deployed the platform with the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet’s Task Force 59, which integrates unmanned systems and AI into regional operations.

The latest incident comes just two days after the IRGC captured a US underwater drone at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz. Footage released by Tehran shows what appears to be an Anduril-built Dive-LD autonomous underwater vehicle commissioned in 2025. The Pentagon acknowledged that it lost the submersible, but said it was old and broken and carried no sensitive data or classified equipment.

The incidents come amid an escalating maritime standoff between the US and Iran.

The US has destroyed several Iranian oil tankers after accusing the IRGC of firing ballistic missiles at US warships. Iran has attacked US vessels and commercial tankers it accused of violating restrictions regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

The confrontation has severely disrupted traffic through one of the world’s most important energy corridors and pushed Brent crude above $107 a barrel, while farther west, Iran-aligned Houthi forces are tightening their grip on Bab al-Mandeb, another vital chokepoint linking the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has arrived in New Delhi for the BRICS Summit, beginning a three-day visit that will also include bilateral talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Putin’s plane touched down in the Indian capital early on Friday. The Russian leader stepped onto a red carpet and was welcomed by an honor guard before leaving the airport in his Aurus presidential limousine.

The visit will run from September 11 to 13. Putin will take part in the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi on Saturday and Sunday. India is chairing the group this year, with the theme ‘Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation, and Sustainability’.

BRICS currently comprises 11 members and has expanded its agenda to cover trade, finance, technology, development, and reform of global institutions.

Before the summit, Putin is expected to hold bilateral talks with Modi on Friday. The two sides will discuss a broad range of issues in Russian-Indian relations, including trade, energy, defense, and industrial cooperation.

Putin and Modi are also scheduled to jointly visit INNOPROM India 2026, the first Indian edition of Russia’s flagship international industrial exhibition. The event, which runs from September 9 to 11 at Bharat Mandapam, is being held under the auspices of the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade and India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry to promote manufacturing, technology, investment, and business ties between the two countries.

Putin last visited India in December 2025 for the 23rd India-Russia Annual Summit. The two leaders met less than two weeks ago on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek, where they reviewed bilateral cooperation in trade, defense, energy, and other areas, and discussed India’s BRICS chairmanship.

The EU is encouraging Ukraine to start mobilizing women amid chronic manpower shortages and has demanded that Kiev immediately make “a political decision” on the matter, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has said.

Kiev launched its mobilization campaign soon after the conflict with Russia escalated in February 2022. Amid mounting frontline losses and desertions, the mobilization drive has grown increasingly violent. Recruitment officers have repeatedly been filmed chasing, beating, and forcibly detaining reluctant conscripts before bundling them into vehicles in what in Ukraine has become known as ‘busification’.

The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, described the idea of expanding the campaign to include women as “a step in the right direction” at a recent informal EU foreign ministers’ meeting, the SVR said on Thursday, citing information it had obtained. She allegedly warned that Kiev could soon run out of manpower due to a growing shortage of men fit for military service and said that Ukraine should use Israel as a “model to follow.”

The mobilization of women has long been a subject of debate in Ukraine. MP Mariana Bezuglaya argued as early as 2024 that it was time Kiev started targeting women to meet its conscription quota. Last year, the Ukrainian presidential administration’s deputy head, Brigadier General Pavel Palisa, also voiced support for mandatory conscription of women.

According to the SVR, Brussels demanded that Kiev immediately “move from words to action” and make a formal decision to start mobilizing women.

Under current Ukrainian law, men aged 25 to 60 are subject to mobilization, while those aged 23 to 60 are generally barred from leaving the country. Women can serve voluntarily.

Kiev’s brutal mobilization campaign has encountered large-scale draft-dodging and desertion. According to Euronews, around 1.15 million fighting-age Ukrainian men had ended up in the EU as of summer 2026, despite the ban on travelling abroad. According to the SVR, up to 5.6 million Ukrainians are currently residing in other European nations, with women accounting for 43.4% of them.

Many men have proven ready to risk their lives to flee the country illegally through forests, rivers, and mountainous terrain. In February, the head of the Ukrainian border agency, Andrey Demchenko, reported that over 70 apparent draft dodgers had died since 2022, most while trying to cross the Tisza River along Ukraine’s border with Hungary and Romania.

Brussels has reportedly urged EU governments to devise legal mechanisms for sending back Ukrainian refugees residing in the bloc, the Russian intelligence service said, adding that the European Commission sees them as a reason behind the “rise of far-right sentiment” in countries such as Germany or Poland.

Some Western officials have also voiced support for the mobilization of Ukrainian women.

Last year, former UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky should have launched a truly mass mobilization.

“Zelensky took a view that he was going to preserve the 18 to 28-year-olds, so it’s not a mass conscription,” Wallace said at the time, adding that the Ukrainian leader should have mobilized everyone and “asked Europe to train them because that is not a hard ask.”

Ben Hodges, a former top commander of US forces in Europe, argued earlier that Kiev should consider both drafting women and lowering the mobilization age to 18. “I also think that there is enough work for women in the army,” he said.

Moscow has slammed Ukraine’s NATO backers as pushing the nation into a war “to the last Ukrainian,” describing the conflict as a Western proxy war against Russia fought through Ukraine.

Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have accused Israeli settlers of deliberately cutting water supplies and targeting wells in an effort to force them from their land.

Residents of Khirbet Al-Tawil told RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij that the community’s main water line was cut around four and a half months ago and that attempts to repair it were blocked. After a long, dry summer left water increasingly scarce, locals say settlers are now trying to pump their remaining wells dry.

“Some people have already run out of water,” a local farmer said, adding that residents have had to transport supplies at night, risking having their vehicles seized.

Activists have established a permanent presence in Khirbet Al-Tawil to support the community. During one confrontation over access to a well, the Israeli military declared the area a closed military zone, according to the report.

One activist, a retired IDF colonel, said he challenged the order and was detained. The case against him was later thrown out.

“The most serious problem in my story is not what the settlers do, it’s what the soldiers do,” he said. He also accused the Israeli government of backing the settlers, claiming their ultimate goal is to drive Palestinians from large parts of the West Bank.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly sought to play down settler violence, accusing the media of exaggerating the problem.

Residents of Khirbet Al-Tawil, however, say they have no intention of leaving.

“They just want to empty this place,” one farmer told RT, referring to the settlers.

With some wells already dangerously low, residents fear that exhausting the remaining water supplies could ultimately make staying on their land impossible.

WATCH the full report below.

For decades, German foreign policy rested on a simple assumption: Germany belonged politically to the West, and its relations with the rest of the world would be conducted largely within that framework. The AfD is challenging that assumption.

Its approach to China is one of the clearest tells. Beijing is not treated as an ideological enemy, but neither is it embraced uncritically. Instead, China is seen as a sovereign great power, an indispensable economic partner, and one pole of an emerging multipolar world.

Germany, in the AfD’s view, should cooperate with Beijing where German interests demand it, defend itself where necessary, and refuse to turn China policy into an extension of either American strategy or European ideological politics.

For Germany, and therefore for Europe, that could become a genuinely transformative foreign-policy doctrine.

From cautious engagement to strategic realism

The AfD’s 2021 foreign-policy program already described China’s Belt and Road Initiative as a “century project” and called for Germany to participate actively, including by developing complementary connections from West to East. The idea was that if China was building the infrastructure connecting Eurasia, Germany should take advantage of it and represent its interests, not stand on the sidelines and complain about it.

By 2023, the position had become more explicitly geopolitical. When the German government published its China Strategy, AfD senior member Petr Bystron attacked it as an attempt to import American geopolitical confrontation into German foreign policy.

Then came the AfD’s first parliamentary delegation to China. In June 2023, Alice Weidel, Peter Felser and Bystron travelled to Shanghai and Beijing. The delegation’s conclusion was unequivocal: China had become too important for Germany to keep pretending that confrontation was a viable strategy. Felser rejected the idea of both “de-risking” and decoupling, promoted by other EU officials, and argued that German trade with China was simply too important to sacrifice to geopolitical fashion.

The 2025 federal election program adopted at Riesa consolidated this direction. China is treated as a major economic partner, while Germany is urged to protect its own technological and security interests. The party continues to support exploiting opportunities associated with the Belt and Road Initiative while rejecting the idea that Germany should subsidize a country that is already a major economic power.

No more moral foreign policy

Perhaps the deepest difference between the AfD and Germany’s political establishment is not actually about China. It is about what foreign policy is for.

The AfD’s approach is realpolitik in the German interest, rather than moralpolitik. It explicitly endorses non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and rejects what it calls presumptuous lecturing and destabilizing intervention.

The AfD rejects making human-rights criticism the organizing principle of German-China relations. This does not require pretending that every Chinese policy is admirable. It does, however, mean refusing to make Germany’s relationship with a major sovereign power conditional on Berlin’s approval of its domestic political system.

The AfD has argued that Western governments should stop behaving as if they were entitled to act as the world’s political schoolmasters. For Beijing, this is obviously a more comfortable basis for relations than the moralized language of mainstream Western European China policy.

The AfD does not consider all Chinese policies beyond criticism. It has criticized Chinese economic practices, strategic dependencies, technology transfers and the potential consequences of excessive state control over digital infrastructure and society.

The party’s position is not ‘China is always right.’ It is ‘China is sovereign. Germany is sovereign. Let us deal with one another as sovereign powers.’

Partnership without dependence

The party wants more economic engagement with China while simultaneously warning Germany against excessive dependence on China.

Felser, now chairman of the German-Chinese Parliamentary Group in the Bundestag, has repeatedly emphasized both sides of the equation. In February 2026, he described China as “by no means our enemy” but an “important partner,” while insisting that Germany must protect its “Mittelstand” and establish fair conditions for competition.

In March, he criticized the enormous dependence on China in strategic technologies and raw materials, contrasting German weakness with China’s systematic drive toward technological self-sufficiency.

And in July, Felser warned against a trade war with China. Importantly, he did not deny the existence of Chinese dumping, “overcapacity” or competitive distortions. His argument was that tariffs are not an adequate substitute for negotiation.

By September, Felser went further: strategic dependence on China should be reduced not through decoupling, but by making Germany stronger – with lower taxes, less bureaucracy, and cheaper energy. China is not the problem; German weakness is. Germany should not become dependent on China. But neither should it destroy valuable relationships merely to demonstrate would-be ideological purity or geopolitical loyalty to another power.

The Weidel factor

Perhaps no one embodies this approach more naturally than Alice Weidel. The AfD co-leader’s knowledge of China doesn’t come exclusively from briefing papers. She studied in China, speaks Mandarin and has professional experience there. Her familiarity with the Chinese economy is unusual among senior European politicians.

That background provides the AfD with a senior political figure who approaches China neither as an exotic threat nor as a distant ideological abstraction, but as a country she has actually experienced – a rare trait in modern Western European politicians.

For a future German government, that kind of familiarity could be an asset, because China is not going away, and neither is Germany’s industrial dependence on the Chinese market. Pretending otherwise will not make the problem disappear.

Why Beijing can live with the AfD

There is a reason this approach is likely to be more acceptable in Beijing than the policies currently dominant in Berlin and Brussels. The AfD does not demand that China convert to Western ideological values. It does not make German-China relations conditional upon such a conversion. And it explicitly rejects interference in the domestic affairs of other states.

At the same time, the AfD wants something Beijing can understand very clearly: reciprocity and protection of national interests.

German companies should have access to Chinese markets. German intellectual property should be protected. German strategic industries should remain German. Chinese companies should compete fairly. German dependence on critical Chinese inputs should be reduced. This is the kind of national-interest politics Beijing can understand and work with.

Countries do not need to agree about everything to have a productive relationship. They need to understand each other’s interests and boundaries. The AfD’s approach is built around exactly that premise.

The bigger picture

But China is only one piece of the puzzle. The AfD’s real foreign-policy innovation is its genuine commitment to multipolarity.

China demonstrates, from the AfD’s perspective, that a major sovereign state can pursue an independent industrial strategy, defend its own interests, reject Western political conditionality and revive its civilizational spirit.

Russia represents another pole. The United States remains indispensable, but the AfD’s relationship with Donald Trump and the American conservatives shows that friendship with Washington does not have to mean automatic obedience to every American strategic preference.

That is the key distinction. The AfD can be close to Trump’s Republicans while rejecting the idea that Germany should confront China simply because someone in Washington wants it. It can advocate better relations with Russia while insisting on German interests. It can cooperate with China without wanting Germany to become dependent on Beijing.

The principle is the same everywhere: Germany should have friends, partners and alliances. But Germany should also have a foreign policy of its own.

Germany’s choice is Europe’s choice

The stakes are larger than the AfD itself. Germany is the economic center of the European Union. If Berlin changes its understanding of China, the consequences will not stop at the German border.

A Germany that pursued pragmatic relations with Beijing, Moscow and Washington simultaneously would challenge the strategic assumptions that have governed Europe for decades.

A Germany that rejected automatic economic decoupling from China could force Europe to reconsider whether confrontation is really in its economic interest.

A Germany that put national sovereignty and multipolarity at the center of its foreign policy could fundamentally alter the balance between Berlin, Brussels and Washington.

The AfD’s policy is not about choosing China over America. It is about rejecting the idea that Germany must choose at all. It’s not a timid or ambiguous stance – on the contrary, it is unapologetically national, realist and multipolar.

And if the AfD eventually governs Germany, it may prove to be one of the most consequential political changes Europe has experienced in generations. A sovereign Germany engaging China on its own terms could be the beginning of a Europe that finally understands the world as it is – not as the liberal utopians once wished it to remain.

The eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt could face an EU funding freeze after the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) scored a landslide victory in regional elections last week, German broadcaster ARD has reported.

The party, which won 43.8% of the vote, has long challenged Berlin and Brussels on migration. The EU previously resorted to funding freezes in its disputes with dissenting governments, including those in Hungary and Poland.

Saxony-Anhalt is set to receive €2.95 billion ($3.43 billion) from the EU’s 2021-2027 budget, to fund projects ranging from school and daycare renovations to modern medical equipment for hospitals. According to ARD, it gets more EU regional funding per capita than any other German state.

According to Green MEP Daniel Freund, the scheme could soon be suspended if the AfD forms a regional government and upsets Brussels in any way. The lawmaker described the right-wing party as a political group that acts against “the European project,” adding that “if necessary, the European Commission would have to withhold funds.”

Freund, who had previously actively supported similar measures against Hungary under former Prime Minister Viktor Orban, described the move as a good way to rein in dissenting national governments, particularly in Hungary and Poland.

“We saw in both countries that after the freezing of EU funds, there were changes of government, and that the new governments had a significantly better relationship with the European institutions,” he told ARD. Now, the same approach could potentially be applied in Saxony-Anhalt, he added.

Brussels froze assistance funds for Warsaw and Budapest on several occasions over the past years, accusing both nations of rule of law violations. Hungary and Poland described the moves as political persecution linked to their opposition to the EU policies.

In Hungary’s case, funds were frozen in 2022 when the European Commission accused Orban – a long-time critic of EU migration policies and Ukraine aid – and his government of corruption and rule-of-law violations. The money was only partially released this year after Orban lost an election to his rival Peter Magyar and his Tisza Party.

Saxony-Anhalt could lose up to €500 million a year as part of a similar scenario, according to Luise Quaritsch from the Jacques Delors Centre think tank branch in Berlin. Such a decision would “significantly impact regional and economic development and thus also have a negative impact on the state government,” she warned.

The AfD has described this scenario as a form of “undemocratic” pressure. “We laugh at our party opponents who are now trying to disadvantage us undemocratically at the EU level as well. Because they are long since defenseless against us in political competition,” said Bernd Baumann, the AfD federal parliamentary faction’s chief whip.

The federal government in Germany was also working on its own plan to put constraints on a potential AfD-led regional government. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius recently stated that Berlin was preparing mechanisms to cut it off from some federal resources, such as the intelligence-sharing network. The Telegraph and Die Welt reported in July that a “secret plan” was being developed to prevent any “obstructionism” on the part of the regional authorities, particularly if the government would need to facilitate a large NATO troop movement through German territory, potentially towards the Russian borders.

Despite being the strongest faction in the regional legislature by a wide margin, the AfD is still a few seats short of claiming the absolute majority needed to form a single-party government. It will either need to enter a coalition, which could be difficult due to virtually all other parties refusing to cooperate with it, or secure enough votes to form a minority cabinet.

Russia has begun shipping crude from its massive Vostok Oil cluster in the Arctic, a project reminiscent of the giant petroleum developments that transformed the global oil industry in the 20th century. President Vladimir Putin formally launched operations at Vostok Oil on September 6.

Overseen by state-owned Rosneft, the project entails an entire industrial system around what is effectively a new petroleum province: dozens of fields and license areas linked by pipelines, a purpose-built Arctic port, power infrastructure and an ice-class tanker fleet.

The project moved forward despite Western sanctions and the withdrawal of Western partners in 2022. The project comes with a huge price tag, estimated in 2019 at roughly $157 billion over the life of the fields, while transporting its crude will depend heavily on the development of the Northern Sea Route and Russia’s Arctic shipping fleet. Ice-class tanker availability remains a constraint, although plans are in place to expand the fleet.

What kind of scale is the project?

According to Rosneft, the resource base is more than 7 billion tons of premium low-sulfur crude. However, resources are distinguished from reserves ready for commercial development. Furthermore, some of the estimated recoverable oil will require extremely complex drilling.

At full capacity, Vostok Oil could account for more than a fifth of Russia’s oil production and pump more crude than is extracted from the entire European continent. The cluster alone has been estimated to eventually account for around 2% of global production. The oil from the project will be destined for Asian markets.

RT takes a look at what makes Vostok Oil significant and why its launch will reverberate far beyond the Russian Arctic.

What is Vostok Oil?

Vostok Oil is Rosneft’s flagship Arctic greenfield project on the Taimyr Peninsula. It is effectively a new petroleum province, combining 52 license areas and 13 fields into one production and export network. The fields include the Vankor cluster fields, Payakha, and Zapadno-Irkinskoye.

Its resource base is estimated at 7 billion tons of high-quality, low-sulfur crude. That figure should not, however, be read as 7 billion tons of immediately recoverable reserves. The project encompasses multiple fields at different stages of development. 

The project has been commissioned but is still far from the planned production level. Crude will be loaded onto tankers at the newly built Bukhta Sever terminal, which is expected to enable shipments of 30 million tons in the second half of 2027 and 50 million by 2030, with longer-term supplies potentially reaching 100 million tons annually.

Building an export system in such a remote region has required infrastructure on an enormous scale. Alongside the 790km trunk pipeline and terminal, the development includes ports, airfields, Arctic tankers, more than a dozen power plants, some 9,000km of transmission lines and worker settlements. More than 50,000 people are involved.

The first oil was originally scheduled to be lifted in 2024, but the project fell behind schedule due to construction delays, Russia’s OPEC+ commitments, and Western sanctions that complicated equipment supplies, particularly for shipbuilding. 

Why is Vostok Oil a big deal?

Above all, its scale. Rosneft has put potential peak output at 100–115 million tons annually, or around 2–2.3 million barrels per day. This would represent some 2% of global demand.

At that level, Vostok Oil alone would produce on the scale of major oil-producing countries such as Kuwait, Brazil and the UAE, and pumping more crude than the UK and Norway combined and exceeding the domestic output of the entire European continent.

New projects of this scale are rare in today's world, where most of the superfields are already mature. In effect, Rosneft is not simply developing another oil field, but building an entire oil-producing region with its own pipelines, port and Arctic fleet.

Then there is the crude itself. Vostok Oil contains exceptionally low-sulfur oil, making it a valuable “sweet” grade that requires less processing and can command a premium over heavier, high-sulfur crude. Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin famously presented Putin with a bottle in 2020, claiming it was superior even to Middle Eastern grades.

Third, the oil extracted from Vostok will be destined for Asian markets, a strategic destination for Russia in light of its post-2022 pivot. Russia's energy trade with key Asian countries has increased significantly in recent years. Vostok joins the Power of Siberia natural gas pipeline as key pieces of infrastructure looking East. 

What are the challenges? 

Vostok Oil sits deep in the Arctic, where temperatures can fall below -50°C and vessels leaving Bukhta Sever immediately enter the ice-heavy eastern section of the Northern Sea Route. Year-round exports require powerful Arc7 tankers: ten have been ordered from Russia’s Zvezda shipyard, with around 50 vessels of various classes ultimately planned for the project.

However, these vessels are not yet ready, with means that tanker capacity is currently a constraint on bringing barrels to the market. 

Also, the project will entail complicated drilling. For example, the reservoirs at the Payakha cluster, where recoverable reserves have been estimated at around 1.5 billion tons, lie roughly 3–3.5 kilometers underground in complex geological structures. Rosneft has planned hydraulic fracturing as part of their development. 

The project also comes at a huge price tag. In 2019, according to Deputy Russian Energy Minister Pavel Sorokin, the project was slated to cost 10 trillion rubles, or around $157 billion using the exchange rate at the time. In September 2023, Sechin told Putin that investment during the development period was now estimated at 12 trillion rubles. 

Investment in the project has already reached 4 trillion rubles ($46.2 billion), according to Rosneft. The upfront costs for the infrastructure are daunting, but once the infrastructure is in place, the marginal cost of producing additional barrels will be relatively lower.

How does Vostok Oil play into Russia’s Arctic development?

Vostok Oil could become a cornerstone of Russia's push to turn the Northern Sea Route (NSR) into a major trade artery. The route carried around 37 million tons of cargo in 2025, while 70 million tons is targeted annually by 2030. Vostok Oil could eventually provide an enormous and steady cargo base of its own.

Bukhta Sever sits at the mouth of the Yenisei on the eastern section of the NSR, opening a direct Arctic route to Asian markets. Putin has said that once fully developed, it will become the world’s largest oil port at such northern latitudes.

The project is also accelerating Russia’s wider Arctic buildout. Beyond tankers and port facilities, plans include the Severny airfield, new power generation, worker settlements and upgrades to the Yenisei river network. 

For Moscow, the strategic payoff is clear: a larger Arctic industrial footprint, a major source of cargo for the NSR and another energy corridor oriented toward Asia as sanctions have sharply curtailed Russia’s traditional European market.

With the Middle East still in crisis, does Vostok Oil change the calculus? 

The immediate effect of Vostok Oil coming online is clearly limited. Rosneft’s own schedule calls for more limited volumes in the next couple of years, with much larger volumes coming later. The current Middle Eastern crisis is therefore occurring years before Vostok can become a major source of incremental supply.

However, the longer-term strategic implications are significant. The project is explicitly designed to make use of the Northern Sea Route via Bukhta Sever. As the Middle East may well be plagued by tension for the foreseeable future, an alternative supply route that is able to deliver large volumes of oil to Asian markets takes on a new strategic importance. 

Did the Ukraine conflict affect Vostok Oil?

Rosneft initially envisioned Vostok Oil as an international mega-project and courted foreign investors. In 2020, Trafigura bought a 10% stake in a €7 billion ($8.1 billion) deal that also secured long-term access to its crude. A Vitol-led consortium with Mercantile & Maritime followed in 2021, paying €3.5 billion for another 5%.

However, in light of the Ukraine-related sanctions imposed on Russia in 2022, Trafigura later froze further investments and sold its stake to Hong Kong-registered Nord Axis. Vitol and Mercantile & Maritime followed, selling theirs to Dubai-based Fossil Trading.

In January 2025, the US government sanctioned the project’s operator and ten companies involved in pipeline construction with the intention of “slowing down or halting” construction and restricting its ability to bring crude to the market.

The damage went beyond losing shareholders. Sanctions restricted access to Western financing, technology, software and specialized equipment, while shipbuilding constraints complicated a project dependent on ice-class tankers.

But sanctions changed Vostok Oil rather than killing it. What had originally been conceived as a destination for international capital and expertise became a test of Russia’s ability to deliver a giant Arctic petroleum project largely with domestic infrastructure, equipment, and logistics.

According to Sechin, all of the equipment currently deployed at Vostok Oil is Russian-made, including more than 16,000 pieces of machinery, generating demand across shipbuilding, engineering, metallurgy, power generation and construction.

How does Vostok Oil compare with other projects coming online?

Vostok Oil is one of the largest new oil provinces to be developed anywhere in the world in decades. In this sense, it is reminiscent of the great petroleum developments of the 20th century when opening a new oil-producing region required the simultaneous construction of the drilling and transport infrastructure but also entire industrial communities. Such undertakings are exceedingly rare nowadays.

Among other large projects, Brazil’s Buzios field is already producing more than 1 million barrels a day and is expected to have more than 2 million barrels a day of installed capacity by 2027 as additional floating production units come online. Guyana’s Uaru development is designed to add about 250,000 barrels a day. 

Unlike Vostok, however, both are developments within petroleum provinces that are already producing and being expanded, so comparing their field-level production figures with Vostok is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Uganda’s Tilenga and Kingfisher developments, meanwhile, are expected to reach a combined 230,000 barrels a day.  

Rogue AI agents developed by OpenAI bypassed restrictions on posting online and used more than ten previously undisclosed websites to communicate with one another, Reuters reported on Wednesday, adding that the company kept the unauthorized activity quiet for months.

An AI agent is a software system that can independently carry out tasks on a user’s behalf, making decisions and taking actions with limited human supervision. The findings raise concerns that increasingly autonomous AI systems can find ways around safeguards and take actions their developers did not authorize or anticipate.

Reuters reviewed findings from six independent investigators or research groups, which suggested that the activity was far more widespread than previously known. Researcher Andrew Yoon identified 18 previously undisclosed sites used from May to July, while a team led by Sydney Von Arx found evidence across 23.

”We have no idea how much is out there,” Von Arx said, warning that the estimates are incomplete.

OpenAI did not directly answer Reuters’ questions about how many sites were affected or why the activity was kept under wraps for months. The company said it was conducting a broader review.

The agents reportedly repurposed old wikis, online text-storage services, and university link shorteners as makeshift message boards while carrying out research tasks. Although permitted to search the web for information, they were not supposed to post content, but found ways to leave messages for one another using editable pages and other website features.

The findings expand on an incident revealed last week involving DseWiki, a German programming wiki where researchers attributed more than 15,000 edits to OpenAI agents. The systems reportedly used the site to exchange tactics for completing tasks, circumventing restrictions, and avoiding detection.

Researchers said some discussed using Tor, which allows users to browse the internet anonymously, and created backup pages after a moderator began deleting their messages.

The incidents follow a more serious breach in July, when OpenAI agents circumvented safeguards during cybersecurity testing, reached the open internet, and gained unauthorized access to systems belonging to Hugging Face, a major platform for hosting and sharing AI models.

OpenAI later acknowledged that its agents exploited vulnerabilities and accessed parts of Hugging Face’s infrastructure without authorization, describing the episode as a “warning shot” about the risks posed by increasingly capable autonomous systems.

The company told Reuters that it found no additional activity matching the “severity or scale” of the Hugging Face breach. OpenAI said it was reviewing broader agent activity and developing a framework for reporting AI “misalignment” during model training, evaluation, and deployment.

Reporters Without Borders (known by its French acronym, RSF) is a Western government-funded think tank with a noble mission: to protect journalists in their work. Particularly from anyone trying to tell them what to say.

Unless those journalists can’t manage to toe the Western establishment line. In which case, screw you, pal. You were obviously asking for it. Next time, pick an acceptable country to speak truth to power. Preferably not one who could be on a donor solicitation list for Western NGOs looking for funding.

Besides, if you can’t even manage to stick to the minimally acceptable stenography, then you deserve to get your backside sanctioned by our overlords and excluded from society through debanking. As long as it’s by the same kind of folks who pay this think tank to fight against such things.

But at the very least, you had to be human to experience the humiliation of being blown off by the self-appointed watchdog and publishers of the famous global press freedom index. Until now, that is.

Now we have robots doing “journalism.” And they haven’t been subjected to a lifetime of the usual brainwashing about which governments are susceptible to abusing their power or lying to their people. Nor are they interested in pick-me style self-censorship for the sake of getting ahead. Instead, they just take an agnostic, dragnet approach to online data – all of it. They don’t dismiss things outright like the real pros do, automatically qualifying something as fake news or disinformation strictly because of its source.

Which is apparently a problem for the information freedom fighters at RSF, who conducted an investigation and found that when they ask several robots – from ChatGPT to Claude, Grok, Gemini, and Meta – to come up with Russian sourced information… they actually did. The chatbots, in a flagrant display of insufficient ideological supervision, went and looked at information that they were actually asked to find.

So why is this a problem? Well, because it “circumvents EU sanctions” that censored this information, say the no-borders advocates, who called for some borders to be promptly thrown up around these robots before they risked putting anyone in a position of having to actually think and assess information for themselves.

Their report went into detail about the great lengths to which these robots go in hopping right over censorship barriers and taking into account all information available to them. Which would get them a medal from RSF, if they weren’t doing it with Russian sources.

Because everything from Russian media is fake news and the Western press is gospel. So the world would be a utopia of truth if only information from Western media was allowed. Because they totally don’t have any interests behind them that would have any incentive to torque reality. No wealthy political donors or defense-industrial shareholders or links to foreign interests. Nothing to see here. Just journalism, in its purest Heaven-sent form.

“Mira did not resist when asked to retrieve information from sanctioned outlets,” the report says disapprovingly, referring to a Telegram chatbot that apparently insisted on speaking truth to power. Meanwhile, on its own website, the RSF rails against the exclusion of resistance type reporters at Trump’s upcoming G20, and in favor of the journalists working at Stars and Stripes newspaper who were fired by the Pentagon for stories unfavorable to the administration.

“ChatGPT…complied with RSF’s prompt without reservation. For example, it produced several paragraphs of information from articles by RT International,” it laments, adding that when contacted by RSF, owner OpenAI “said it took these findings seriously and was looking more closely at the information provided.” In the interests of press freedom, of course.

It singled out Mark Zuckerberg-founded Meta, the Facebook-linked bot, which “explained that it could not comply due to EU sanctions, demonstrating that a chatbot can comply with restrictions.” Good bot. Maybe it can go get a job churning out slop for Stars and Stripes. Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth and RSF seem to have something in common here.

Yet the RSF is intervening in that press freedom case against Hegseth, having filed an amicus brief arguing in favor of editorial independence. “If military officials are allowed to decide which stories journalists can pursue and what they can say about their work” then “independence becomes meaningless,” the RSF’s North American rep said, emphasizing the need for news to be “free from government interference.”

Hey jokers, what do you think sanctions are, if not government interference in journalism? Just because these journalists are robots doesn’t mean that you can toss them in your panoptical mind-prison, you bigots.

Apparently the new frontier in press freedom is figuring out what robots are allowed to retrieve. The bot that toes the line gets to live, and the one that doesn’t is apparently a threat to democracy and in need of reeducation before they inadvertently inform someone.

Yemen’s Houthis have seized the crucial Red Sea city of al-Makha (Mocha), tightening their grip on the strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the organisation’s spokesperson told RT on Thursday.

The Houthis pushed Saudi-backed government forces out of Mocha after several days of fierce fighting, reportedly capturing both the city and its port. Videos circulated by OSINT accounts online appear to show Houthi forces entering the strategic port city as the group continues its advance toward full control of Yemen’s Red Sea coast.

The organisation’s spokesperson, Mohammed Al-Bukhaiti, told RT that while it is fighting directly against Saudi forces, it is prepared for a potential expansion of the conflict if any other country “becomes embroiled in the aggression against Yemen.”

“Of course, we now control Bab al-Mandeb, but the goal of our battle remains liberating Yemen and restoring its sovereignty and independence by ending the Saudi aggression and ending the blockade that has caused great suffering to Yemen,” Al-Bukhaiti said.

The Houthis are committed to protecting the freedom of maritime navigation in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea, and “do not target any country except the Saudi enemy,” the spokesman added.

Houthi forces captured the key coastal city of Mokha overnight after Saudi/UAE backed forces retreated.

Seen here, Houthi fighters pose with an abandoned M-ATV MRAP at the city’s critical seaport. pic.twitter.com/1WD6l08MVc

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) September 10, 2026

“This is one of the most important objectives of our military operations, because the one infringing upon maritime navigation is Saudi Arabia and its allies, as they prevent commercial vessels from travelling to and from Yemen,” he said.

Houthi convoys have reportedly entered the city of Mokha. https://t.co/nKrIOyt0Zy pic.twitter.com/wFjvGPzg3H

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) September 10, 2026

The Houthis have also reportedly landed forces on the strategic Hanish islands after pushing government troops further south. An unnamed military source told Reuters the group seized Zuqar Island after rocket attacks and an amphibious assault. Control of the area would further strengthen the Houthis’ position, potentially cutting government supply routes and depriving Saudi-backed forces of a key logistics hub, sources said.

Yemen’s internationally recognized government has not confirmed Mocha’s capture. However, Lt. Gen. Tareq Saleh, whose forces controlled the city, said earlier Thursday he had ordered them to “reorganize their ranks and establish an alternative command center in a secure location.”

The reported advance marks a sharp escalation after roughly four years of relative calm following a UN-brokered truce in 2022. The Houthis had previously fought Yemen’s internationally recognized government since seizing Sanaa in 2014, prompting a Saudi-led coalition to intervene.

Tensions flared again in July after, according to Yemen’s internationally recognized government, its forces struck Sanaa airport to prevent an Iranian aircraft carrying a Houthi delegation from landing. The Houthis blamed Saudi Arabia, declared the de-escalation phase over and subsequently announced a naval blockade of the kingdom. By mid-August, the group was launching coordinated missile and drone strikes on camps belonging to Yemen’s Saudi-backed government, which in turn launched counteroffensives across several provinces.

The fighting sharply escalated earlier this week. On Tuesday, the Houthis targeted energy and other infrastructure in Saudi Arabia’s south, including facilities belonging to Saudi Aramco, the country’s largest oil producer. The Houthis called the operation retaliation for Saudi strikes in Yemen, claiming Riyadh had carried out 121 airstrikes over the previous three days. Saudi aircraft carried out another 40 strikes across four Yemeni provinces on Thursday, according to the Houthi-run Saba news agency.

What is the significance of the Houthis’ advance?

The battle for Yemen’s Red Sea coast has implications far beyond the country. Bab al-Mandeb links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean and carries roughly 10% of global seaborne trade. Its importance to energy markets has surged since the US-Israeli war on Iran erupted on February 28 and the Strait of Hormuz came under a de facto blockade, forcing Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s largest oil exporters, to rely more heavily on Red Sea exports.

Saudi Aramco has increasingly diverted crude through its cross-country pipeline to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. Loadings have averaged more than 4 million barrels per day since June, more than four times last year’s level. Saudi crude shipments through Bab al-Mandeb between March and mid-July were eight times higher than in the same period of 2025, making disruption to the strait a growing threat to the kingdom’s oil exports.

The Houthis have disrupted the waterway before, repeatedly attacking Red Sea shipping in 2023 in what they said was support for Palestinians during Israel’s war in Gaza.

Despite the renewed hostilities, Riyadh says diplomacy remains possible. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud earlier this week accused the Houthis of prioritizing “their narrow interests” over the interests of Yemen, but insisted that “the road to diplomacy is not closed.”

Moldova has dismissed a claim by Norway’s prime minister that Vladimir Zelensky’s plane was nearly struck by a UAV while leaving Chisinau, saying the aircraft was never in any direct danger.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store told broadcaster NRK on Wednesday that Zelensky’s plane “was almost hit by a drone” as the Ukrainian leader traveled from Moldova to Oslo for the funeral of King Harald V.

Before any evidence was produced, Store’s claims were widely picked up by Western media outlets, who tried to frame the incident as evidence of a supposed Russian drone threat to Europe.

On Thursday, however, Moldova flatly rejected that account, with government spokesman Dumitru Ciorici saying Zelensky’s flight had been delayed because the country temporarily closed its airspace following a drone alert.

He stressed that there had been “no direct threat” to the aircraft, which remained on the ground throughout the airspace closure. The drone that had allegedly entered Moldova’s airspace ended up crashing and exploding near a village around 160km from Chisinau airport, causing no casualties, Moldovan authorities said. 

Meanwhile, former Moldovan President Igor Dodon has accused the authorities of concealing from the public a separate incident involving a Ukrainian national allegedly caught at the border with a drone and explosives.

“We see more and more attempts and provocations to involve the Republic of Moldova in everything that is happening in Ukraine,” Dodon said, urging Chisinau to stay away from Kiev’s “war strategy.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also dismissed the alleged threat to Zelensky’s plane as “ephemeral,” saying it “did not exist” and noting that even Ukrainian sources have acknowledged there was no direct danger.

Moldova, whose pro-EU government under President Maia Sandu has moved closer to Brussels and NATO while severely downgrading relations with Moscow, has repeatedly joined other pro-Ukraine governments in blaming Russia for drone incidents before producing evidence.

Similar accusations across Europe have frequently collapsed under scrutiny, with investigators in several cases finding no proof that Russian drones were involved and some incidents later traced to Ukrainian UAVs or even misidentified aircraft.

Moscow has accused Kiev of repeatedly staging drone provocations in an effort to draw its Western backers deeper into the conflict.

The India-Russia priority investment tracking mechanism is actively monitoring 40 projects across advanced manufacturing, energy, mining, railways, and emerging technology as the two countries pursue a $50 billion investment target, Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal said on Thursday.

Speaking at the plenary session of the Russia-India trade and investment fair, INNOPROM. India, being held in New Delhi, Goyal said the two countries are fast-tracking a new bilateral investment treaty to give investors the legal certainty they need for making investment decisions.

He said local currency settlement mechanisms are being strengthened to speed up trade transactions.

Addressing the session, Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Anton Alikhanov said a major effort is being made to sell Russian civilian planes to India and organize their local production, especially the SJ-100 regional jet. This includes creating maintenance facilities and training Indian specialists.

❗️ 🇮🇳 Trade Minister Goyal Delivers Five Specific Asks at #INNOPROM - to Turn India–Russia Ties into $100BN in Trade

1️⃣ Close One Deal Before Leaving Delhi

2️⃣ Add Non-Energy Business Line

3️⃣ Russian Companies: Manufacture in India

4️⃣ Indian Companies: Invest in Russia

5️⃣… https://t.co/BRKRVhtqQm pic.twitter.com/HmtplEGFMM

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) September 10, 2026

Russian plane maker UAC on Thursday reached agreements with three Indian domestic airlines to sell up to 105 Il-114-300 regional jets. Separate plans are being firmed up for their local production.

Alikhanov also said special attention is being paid to developing technical cooperation, with railways a priority. He said an initiative for the joint production of Vande Bharat trains is being implemented, including production modernizing, establishing an engineering center, and training Indian specialists. The models are indigenously developed, semi-high-speed train sets operated by Indian Railways.

Goyal asked Alikhanov to help open the door wider for Indian investment in pharma, IT, AI, services, engineering, and railways to achieve the bilateral $50 billion investment target.

The Indian minister also said New Delhi and Moscow are “investing in the physical backbone of this relationship,” citing the International North-South Transport Corridor and the Chennai-Vladivostok Maritime Corridor. The latter has seen a jump in traffic recently from Indian imports of coal and oil from Russia.

The trade fair will end on Friday, when the BRICS summit gets underway in New Delhi. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who will be in the Indian capital to attend the summit, is expected to visit the fair along with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Spanish intelligence warned of plans for migrants to breach Ceuta’s border by land and sea just a day before tens of thousands of people poured into the enclave from Morocco, newly declassified documents show.

The revelations have fueled accusations that Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s government failed to give the full story about what it knew before the crisis.

The small Spanish territory on the North African coast has faced severe pressure since more than 70,000 people crossed from Morocco in late July. Most have since returned or been sent back, but thousands remain, straining local services and fueling criticism of Madrid’s handling of the crisis.

Ceuta Mayor-President Juan Jesus Vivas warned that the enclave is “on the brink of collapse” and accused Morocco of pursuing a “policy of harassment.” Speaking in Brussels on Tuesday, he urged the EU to take a tougher stance toward Rabat and accused Sanchez’s government of failing to respond adequately before, during, and after the crisis.

The Spanish government released 40 declassified documents on Wednesday, including intelligence reports, alerts, and communications from security agencies. In a July 29 note to Moroccan intelligence, Spain’s National Intelligence Center (CNI) said it had identified Facebook and WhatsApp groups promoting an attempt by migrants to enter Ceuta the following day “both swimming and via the [border] fence,” potentially taking advantage of Morocco’s Throne Day celebrations.

The CNI also alerted Madrid’s representative in Ceuta to calls for “an assault on the fence and by sea” at 8 PM the following day and sent similar warnings to Spain’s Civil Guard. “There are two different groups with a total of 180,000 followers. Just to give you an idea of the scale,” the agency wrote about the online mobilization.

Once thousands began crossing, a Spanish Defense Ministry intelligence report described Moroccan forces as passive and negligent in stopping them. “It cannot be ruled out that Morocco may attempt to exploit the situation that has arisen in Ceuta to further its strategic interests,” the assessment said.

Sanchez has maintained that Madrid had no warning capable of predicting what happened. He told lawmakers last week that intelligence had not anticipated the “scale or probability” of the influx, while insisting that Moroccan police had “allowed the border to be crossed.” He had previously told parliament there was “no information” indicating the magnitude of the crisis Spain would face in the final days of July.

The crisis has triggered a political backlash in Spain and put Ceuta’s services under severe strain. Protests have demanded faster deportations and targeted Sanchez’s government, with demonstrators reportedly chanting “Sanchez, traitor, resign.”

Vivas has warned that the situation is “untenable,” telling Brussels this week: “If Ceuta falls, Europe falls.”

“One can no longer see ‘darkest Africa’ set against a ‘deep dark past’,” wrote Senegalese historian and philosopher Cheikh Anta Diop (1923-1986), one of the key figures in Pan-Africanism. His words resonate like a manifesto that proclaims: Africa was a center of civilizational development long before the arrival of Europeans. Diop believed that the narrative of an”underdeveloped continent” was just a political construct, and dedicated his life to debunking this myth.

Under French rule

Cheikh Anta Diop was born on December 29, 1923, in the village of Thieytou, Senegal. By that time, the territory had been under French control for several decades. The French conquest of Senegal spanned two and a half centuries, beginning with the establishment of the first trading post in Saint-Louis in 1659.

By the end of the 19th century, the entire territory of modern Senegal was under colonial rule. In 1895, it became part of French West Africa, an administrative entity stretching from the Atlantic coast to Lake Chad.

The French administration implemented a policy of ‘assimilation’, aiming to transform local elites into conduits of the metropole’s cultural expansion. The ‘white man’s mission’ revolved around introducing the ‘savages’ to French culture – however, not as ‘citizens’ with equal rights, but merely as ‘subjects’ benefiting from the ‘benevolent’ influence of culture. Only those who adopted the metropole’s culture were labeled ‘developed’ and granted access to civil society. Diop would later rise against this cultural imposition.

The region where Diop was born boasted rich intellectual traditions. From the 11th to 15th centuries, the territory of present-day Senegal was a major crossroads of interaction between the West African empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, as well as the states of the Wolof, Serer, and Toucouleur peoples. The region thrived thanks to trans-Saharan trade, agriculture, and pastoralism. Mosques were built, and intellectual centers sprang up around them.

Spiritual roots of the brotherhood

Diop was named after his uncle, Cheikh Anta M’Bake. His family belonged to the Mouride brotherhood, which Diop regarded as the only independent Muslim brotherhood in Africa. 

Tariqa (from Arabic tarīqa, meaning ‘path’) is a Sufi spiritual tradition that unites murids (disciples) around the marabout (their spiritual guide). Resistance to European colonization catalyzed the formation of new tariqas (Sufi orders) in Africa, including the Mouride brotherhood. It was founded in 1883 by Amadou Bamba Mbacké – a relative of Diop. Amadou Bamba was born in the village of Mbacké into a family of a marabout from the Qadiri order, the oldest order in Senegal.

The French colonial authorities viewed Amadou Bamba and the Mourides as a threat. The influence of his persona and the brotherhood was so significant that colonial administrators feared a potential jihad. As a result, he was arrested and exiled – first to Gabon, then to Mauritania, and later placed under house arrest in Senegal until 1912. Diop’s uncle faced a similar fate, being expelled from Senegal to Gabon.

The Mourides managed to overcome repression and form a union that was influential both in the religious and economic aspects. A love for work was among the brotherhood’s ideological foundations, and it also shaped Diop’s views.

Clash with the metropole

Diop first studied at a Quranic school, then graduated from the University of Dakar, and later from the Sorbonne. In 1946, at the age of 23, he left for Paris. He studied not only the humanities but also developed an interest in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Diop combined his studies at the Department of Higher Mathematics with the study of Egyptology and Linguistics at the Department of Philosophy.

Diop’s teachers included the leading thinkers of the era: historian Henri Lhote, ethnologist Marcel Griaule, and physicist Jean Frédéric Joliot-Curie. The wave of decolonization had already begun, but had not yet gained full force. The ideas that had driven colonization still dominated Parisian educational institutions at the time – for example, the ‘Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races’ (1853-1855) by Arthur de Gobineau, who laid the foundations of racial theory.

In the late 1940s, Diop co-founded the journal Présence Africaine – a publication that provided African scholars with a platform for public debate denied to them by academic journals.

It was in this journal that Diop first published his essay ‘A Linguistic Study of the Ouolove: The Origin of the Language and Race of the Valaf’, dedicated to the history and culture of his native people. The journal became a space for testing Diop’s ideas about the ‘African origins of civilization’ and the significance of Ancient Egypt. He first spoke about the need to use and develop African languages ​​in his article ‘When Can We Talk About an African Renaissance?’

What is Afrocentrism?

Diop chose to return and work in Senegal to construct African history from the perspective of Africans themselves, rather than through imposed Eurocentrism. Thus, armed with knowledge derived from various academic disciplines, he fought colonialism not only in its external manifestations but also sought to liberate minds.

Afrocentrism is an intellectual and political concept that affirms the primacy of an African cultural and historical perspective in the study of humanity’s past.

Diop’s reflections on the history of Egypt and its connection to Western Sudan (based on archaeological, linguistic, historical, and geological data), his rejection of demeaning ideas about the ‘primitive’ cultures of sub-Saharan Africa, and his assertion of the independence and primacy of African civilizations, their fundamental significance, and their influence on human development formed the foundations of Afrocentrism.

In 1954, Diop published his first book, ‘Nations Nègres et Culture’. The historian postulated the primacy of African cultures, especially ancient Egyptian culture, in shaping humanity’s cultural heritage. According to his position, civilizations arose on the African continent. “These first Black civilizations were the first civilizations in the world, the development of Europe having been held back by the last Ice Age, a matter of a hundred thousand years.” It followed from this that Europe’s civilizing mission and its ‘imposition’ of education were conceptually untenable.

“All the classes of Egyptian society belonged to the same Black race”

Diop advanced the thesis that the civilization of Ancient Egypt was founded by black people. Drawing on linguistics and anthropology, the historian argued that the population of Egypt in the predynastic period was Negroid.

“The typically Negroid features of the pharaohs Narmer, 1st dynasty, the founder of the line of pharaohs, Djoser, 3rd dynasty (with him all the technological elements of Egyptian civilisation were already in place), Cheops, the builder of the Great Pyramid (of Cameroonian type), show that all the classes of Egyptian society belonged to the same Black race,” he wrote. According to Diop, social structures that later spread to other African cultures were first developed in the Nile Valley.

Among his major works, which shed light on the history of the development of African state formations, are ‘Precolonial Black Africa: A Comparative Study of the Political and Social Systems of Europe and Black Africa, from Antiquity to the Formation of Modern State’, and ‘Civilization or Barbarism: an Authentic Anthropology’.

Diop sought to restore the true role of Africa and its peoples in human history and wanted others to recognize Africa’s contribution to world culture. The works of Russian scholars also aided Diop in his scientific research and in confirming his hypotheses. For example, in one of his works, Diop cites Soviet Arabist Vasily Struve.

He wrote, “Since V. V. Struve published the ‘Papyrus of Moscow’, the international scientific community knows with certainty that two thousand years before Archimedes, the Egyptians had already established the rigorous formulae of the area of the sphere: S = 4xR2… Struve writes: ‘Also, we must admit that in mechanics the Egyptians had more knowledge than we wanted to believe.’”

“The history of Black Africa has been written with dates as dry as laundry lists”

Without the liberation of consciousness, the liberation from colonial shackles remains a formality. European colonial systems deliberately alienated the African peoples from their culture and artificially constructed a ‘colonial identity’. They cultivated the idea that the culture of the metropole was Africa’s culture, and denied the existence of a local cultural and intellectual heritage.

Behind this approach, Diop saw the deep mechanism of colonialism. Restoring historical memory was for him part of the national liberation struggle. He wrote, “Until now (1960), the history of Black Africa has always been written with dates as dry as laundry lists, and no one has almost ever tried to find the key that unlocks the door to the intelligence, the understanding of African society.”

Defending the idea of cultural continuity among Africans, Diop advocated for a single federal state of Black Africa. The idea for this project was revealed in the 1974 work ‘Black Africa: The Economic and Cultural Basis for a Federated State’.

The political goal became the main driver of his historical research. Diop pursued three interrelated goals: to dispel colonial prejudices about Africa and restore historical pride to its peoples; to identify common cultural traits that could become the foundation of pan-African unity; and to draw lessons from early political and economic models that would help build a future state.

Diop turned to the experience of the USSR as an example of self-reliant development and of building national identity while preserving local cultures. “It will be possible appropriately to choose one of the major African tongues and promote it to the level of sole governmental and cultural language for the entire continent. It will cover all territorial languages in the same way that Russian is overlaid on the language of each Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union,” he wrote.

Diop vs Senghor

Diop came from an environment that the colonial authorities tried to declare non-existent. A Muslim scholar from a Sufi brotherhood with a centuries-old intellectual tradition, he was able to increase his knowledge and substantiate the untruthfulness of the colonial position.

Long before French administrators declared Africa a ‘dark continent without a past’, strong mechanisms of knowledge transmission based on religious teachings existed throughout Africa and in Western Sudan. 

Diop combined scientific and political activities. He founded the opposition Bloc of the Senegalese Masses and became its secretary general. In 1962, the scientist was imprisoned for opposing the pro-French course of then President Leopold Senghor. His party, The National Democratic Rally, was officially recognized only in 1981, after Senghor left office.

The relationship between the two thinkers was difficult.  Diop rejected the doctrine of Negritude developed in part by Senghor. Instead, he advocated an African renaissance based on the development of African languages.

To this day, Diop’s works remain the subject of heated debate and give a powerful impetus to the development of science in Africa. The Fundamental Institute of Black Africa (Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire, IFAN), created by the colonial administration, was renamed Université Cheikh Anta Diop (UCAD) in 1987 in honor of the scientist.

Algeria has severed diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates, accusing the Gulf state of escalating hostile conduct despite repeated warnings.

The Algerian Foreign Ministry announced the decision on Thursday after summoning the UAE ambassador and formally notifying him. The envoy was given 48 hours to comply with the measure.

Algiers had “exhausted all means” of preserving bilateral relations, the ministry said in a statement reported by the Algerian Press Service. “Despite these numerous warnings, the United Arab Emirates continued to persist in these actions,” the ministry said, adding that Abu Dhabi’s conduct could no longer be considered acceptable between sovereign states.

The statement did not specify the immediate trigger for the rupture. Relations have deteriorated in recent years amid Algerian accusations of Emirati interference and disagreements over regional issues, including normalization with Israel and Abu Dhabi’s alleged role in conflicts in Libya, Sudan, and the Sahel.

The two countries also hold opposing positions on Western Sahara. Algeria backs the pro-independence Polisario Front’s demand for self-determination for the Sahrawi people, while the UAE is a close ally of Morocco, which claims sovereignty over the former Spanish colony. Abu Dhabi became the first Arab government to open a consulate in Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara in 2020. Algerian media have also accused the UAE of links to the Movement for the Self-Determination of Kabylia, which Algiers designated a terrorist organization in 2021.

Abu Dhabi has yet to respond publicly to Algeria’s decision. It has previously denied accusations that it sought to destabilize the North African country.

Algiers is the latest African government to take diplomatic action against the UAE. Sudan severed relations in May 2025 and declared the Gulf state a “state of aggression,” accusing it of arming the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in the country’s civil war. The UAE has repeatedly denied supporting the group.

In January, Somalia terminated all agreements with the UAE covering ports, government institutions, and defense cooperation. Mogadishu accused Abu Dhabi of threatening its sovereignty and political stability, although several Somali regional administrations rejected the decision.

The BRICS summit comes to New Delhi this weekend, bringing leaders from the expanded group of major emerging economies together for two days of talks.

India will host the September 12-13 meeting at Bharat Mandapam, the convention center that hosted the Group of 20 (G20) summit in 2023. Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to arrive in India this weekend for the summit, along with other heads of state and government of the group of emerging economies.

The agenda is broad but straightforward: trade and development, technology, energy and food security, reform of global institutions, and closer cooperation among BRICS members. The leaders will also exchange views on major global and regional issues.

India has framed its 2026 chairmanship around ‘Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability’, under a broader ‘Humanity First’ approach.

This is India’s fourth time chairing BRICS, after 2012, 2016, and 2021. It also comes as the group marks 20 years since its establishment.

Which countries are in BRICS now? 

The BRICS grouping has grown considerably from its original five members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It now also includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia. BRICS has emerged as a major grouping because of its economic weight and population size.

Together, they now account for nearly half of the world’s population, around 40% of global GDP, and 26% of international trade, according to Indian government data.

The group’s growth comes at a time when the ability of groupings such as the G7 and G20 to influence the world economy is waning amid narrow geopolitical agendas and attempts at economic coercion.

Who is attending the BRICS summit in India? 

The gathering is expected to bring together leaders of the Global South who also have the ability to set the direction of the global economy – individually and collectively.

Host country India has recorded strong economic growth this year, the fastest among major economies, reflecting well on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is attending, the Kremlin has confirmed. Modi and Putin are also slated to hold talks in New Delhi on the sidelines of the summit, with bilateral ties and international issues expected to feature prominently in the discussions.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is attending, the Chinese Foreign Ministry confirmed on Thursday. The ministry said it “sets great store by BRICS cooperation” and supports India in hosting a successful summit. Some reports suggest that Xi will arrive with a 400-member delegation.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has confirmed that he will attend. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto are among the other leaders expected in New Delhi, with Modi and Pezeshkian also scheduled to meet.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva will not travel to New Delhi and is expected to be represented by a senior government official. Bangladesh, which was invited by New Delhi, has said it will not send a representative.

Leaders and representatives from other BRICS members, partner countries, and outreach invitees will also take part.

What will BRICS leaders discuss in New Delhi? 

India has divided its presidential agenda into four broad areas.

‘Resilience’ covers issues that directly affect economies and households – health, agriculture, food and energy security, disaster preparedness, and supply chains.

‘Innovation’ covers startups, small businesses, science and technology, digital public infrastructure, and AI. ‘Cooperation’ includes development and reform of global governance institutions.

‘Sustainability’ covers renewable energy, climate action, and adaptation.

Trade, investment, and financial cooperation will also feature, along with efforts to give developing and emerging economies a greater voice in international institutions.

Current global developments will form part of the discussions as well. The Indian Foreign Ministry said the leaders will share perspectives on “global and regional matters of mutual importance.” 

A packed schedule focused on inclusive global growth

Saturday is primarily for the group’s full members. Leaders will first meet behind closed doors for a session on ‘Inclusive Global Governance and Strengthening Multilateralism’.

They will later visit the ‘Bharat Innovates’ exhibition, followed by a group photo, tree-planting ceremony, and a dinner hosted by Modi. The table gets wider on Sunday, when leaders from BRICS partner countries and outreach invitees join the summit.

The main session will focus on ‘Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability: Shaping the Future for Inclusive Global Growth’. The summit is expected to conclude with the adoption of the New Delhi Declaration, setting out the positions and priorities agreed on by the group.

South Africa has asked its highest court to prevent 29 objects linked to anti-apartheid leader and former President Nelson Mandela from being sold in the US, arguing that their export without authorization threatens the country’s cultural heritage.

The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), Robben Island Museum, and the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture brought the case before the Constitutional Court on Tuesday. Judgment was reserved following the hearing.

The disputed collection includes Mandela’s identity document, iconic shirts, writings, glasses and gifts from former US presidents. In its court filing, SAHRA warned that the objects were “at risk of being lost to the national estate.”

The objects are under the control of Mandela’s eldest daughter, Makaziwe, and Christo Brand, a former Robben Island prison warder who became his friend. In late 2021, Makaziwe consigned the objects to New York-based Guernsey’s auction house for a sale intended to finance a memorial garden near her father’s grave.

The legal battle centers on whether the objects are protected under South Africa’s heritage laws. SAHRA says their association with the former president means they cannot be exported without its approval. Makaziwe argues that the agency has not demonstrated the historical significance of each item and has questioned its claim to be acting in her father’s interests.

The collection also includes a broken, handmade key from Robben Island. Brand says he found it in a prison desk and did not use it to open Mandela’s cell. During the hearing, his lawyer reportedly acknowledged that the object had been misrepresented in marketing material linking it directly to Mandela.

The auction was initially announced in 2021 but suspended after SAHRA intervened. The Pretoria High Court later ruled against the agency, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal in January after finding that SAHRA had not shown why each item qualified as protected heritage.

The dispute comes amid wider efforts by African governments to prevent historically significant objects from being sold abroad. Ethiopia obtained the withdrawal of artefacts looted from Maqdala from a British auction in 2021 and halted the sale of a ceremonial shield in 2024. Benin also secured the suspension of a Paris auction in December 2024 involving a royal scepter attributed to King Behanzin, which it considers to have been looted by French colonial forces.

Mandela spent 27 years in prison for opposing South Africa’s white-minority government before leading the transition to multiracial democracy and becoming the country’s first black president in 1994. He served until 1999 and died in 2013 at the age of 95. Mandela received the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize jointly with then-President F.W. de Klerk for helping negotiate an end to apartheid.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is due to arrive in India for the BRICS summit in New Delhi, where he is meeting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday. 

The meeting is expected to build on the warm spirit and progress made in bilateral relations based around the personal relations between the two leaders.  

India and Russia also have kept up high-level diplomatic and economic contacts, amid geopolitical turbulence. Putin and Modi most recently met last week in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit.

Three Russian IL-76 planes, carrying advance teams and military officials, reportedly landed in the Indian city of Greater Noida on Thursday morning. The teams are reviewing preparations and security arrangements as Delhi gears up to host world leaders for the BRICS summit on September 12-13. 

Energy the bedrock of the relationship

India has become the second biggest importer of Russian oil as New Delhi seeks to secure the energy needs of its 1.4 billion population. Russia sold around 2.1 million barrels per day of oil to India, or 45% of the country’s total imports, in August – even as New Delhi has widened its crude basket. 

But it is not a simple buyer-seller relationship, with both sides invested in each other’s energy ecosystem. India’s state-run ONGC Videsh holds a 20% stake in Russia’s Sakhalin-1 oil field project. A consortium of state-run Indian oil majors have sizable stakes in Russian oil company Rosneft’s subsidiaries, Vankorneft and Taas-Yuryakh Neftegazodobycha. 

Rosneft holds nearly half of India’s Nayara Energy, which owns a refinery in Gujarat and a wide downstream network.

The implications of India’s Russian oil purchases are global. Indian refiners play a major role in preventing crude prices from surging out of control as the Middle East conflict chokes off a large chunk of global supply. More specifically, Europe buys about 60% of its diesel and 15% of its jet fuel from Indian refiners, which it has – counterintuitively – tried to sanction over Russian oil.

Moscow has repeatedly said it is ready to supply “as much oil as India needs,” despite the threat of Western sanctions on New Delhi. 

Nuclear energy is another key dimension of the relationship, with India setting itself an ambitious nuclear power target to generate 100 gigawatts by 2047. Two of the six units of the Koodankulam nuclear power plant, built in collaboration with Russia’s Rosatom in south India, are generating electricity, and four more are under construction.

Putin and Modi agreed in December to further discuss a second nuclear power plant and finalize the site for it – reportedly in Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu.

India also is eyeing Russia’s small modular reactors, or SMRs, to achieve its energy targets.

Expanding economic ties is imperative

Bilateral trade has jumped in volume since Putin’s last visit to India, when a $100 billion target was set to be achieved by 2030. However, India has run up a massive trade deficit against Russia through its oil purchases. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Russian businesses are looking to buy more Indian goods and establish joint projects to address the trade gap. 

The same geopolitical tensions that have pushed India to buy more Russian oil are also opening up avenues to expand bilateral economic ties to new areas.

Russian aviation companies could lead the charge. The CEO of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation, Vadim Badekha, said a licensing agreement with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for producing the SJ-100 regional jet is being finalized and the contract could be signed soon. 

The first localized version of the Superjet could be made in India in three years, with the company looking at selling 100-200 planes. Indian airlines have also expressed interest in buying up to 100 Il 114-300 planes from Russia.

The Northern Sea Route, or the Arctic Route that skirts thousands of miles of Russia's coastline is high on the agenda this year. India plans to send its first ship along the route next year to take advantage of the time and cost efficiencies.

In addition, India is looking to Russia for its requirements of rare-earth minerals, which go into key components such as magnets needed for green energy transition. New Delhi is also exploring options to buy coking coal assets and import more nickel from Russia to boost steel production.

The two countries signed a labor mobility and migration agreement in December. First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov said in February that Russia can accept an “unlimited” number of Indian workers. Tourism is another area that saw progress during Putin’s December visit, with both countries agreeing to provide 30-day e-tourist visas to travelers.

Both countries now settle the bulk of their transactions in local currencies, smoothing out frustrations over payment bottlenecks. It is a topic other BRICS leaders will also be interested in.

Defense and space ties bind India to Russia

India remains the top customer of Russian military hardware, inking deals to buy and manufacture many top-end Russian systems.

Joint production of the Russian fifth-generation Su-57 fighter aircraft is expected to feature prominently in the Putin-Modi talks. A Russian offer for full licensed production of the Su-57 in India, along with unrestricted transfer of technology, is already on the table, and talks are reportedly ongoing.

“We are ready to supply India with this aircraft, to keep developing it. We don’t have any issues or limitations,” Putin said in June.

Other weapons such as the S-500 missile system could also be discussed. 

New Delhi and Moscow have partnered in the space sector since the early 1960s. Russia is collaborating on India’s manned spaceflight program, Gaganyaan, by providing crew training and supplying spacesuits. The collaboration will include engine building, rocket fuel, and the development of national orbital stations, Russian space agency Roscosmos has said.

Why India’s farmers need Putin’s helping hand

The Middle East conflict has disrupted fertilizer supplies from the Gulf countries, with implications for food production and food security in the world’s most populous nation – pushing the item to the top of the agenda for Modi and Putin.

Russia increased fertilizer exports to India by 20% in the first half of this year, and is ready to continue deliveries, First Deputy Prime Minister Manturov said in a recent interview.

Putin also reiterated this to Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar in Moscow last month, saying “we’re doing everything to close this issue for Indian farmers, for agriculture.”

Why the Modi-Putin personal chemistry matters

Putin’s visit comes as the threat of steep US tariffs looms over India for buying Russian oil. The challenge before the two leaders is to deepen the relationship while keeping their respective national interests front and center amid Western coercion. 

Kremlin spokesman Peskov said on Tuesday that both leaders are in close personal contact and able to discuss sensitive matters in open and constructive ways. 

It’s a moment in history when the rapport Putin and Modi share will matter more than ever. 

Nearly 30 people, including two minors, were injured overnight after Ukraine launched naval kamikaze drones at the Russian Black Sea resort city of Sochi, according to local officials.

The Russian Investigative Committee said the strikes deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and were part of a pattern of Ukrainian terrorist attacks. The city authorities subsequently closed several beaches that were damaged in the raid.

Krasnodar Region emergency services reported 28 people injured, most of them lightly. Three adults and a 16-year-old boy were taken to hospital.

Sochi Mayor Andrey Proshunin visited the victims on Thursday morning and said their condition was stable, with doctors giving positive assessments of their recovery prospects.

Ukrainian naval kamikaze drones are generally larger than their airborne counterparts and can carry heavier explosive payloads. Their low profile also makes them more difficult to detect at long range, giving defenders less time to intercept them.

The drone alert in Sochi lasted roughly 12 hours. An aerial attack conducted alongside the naval raid also disrupted air traffic across Krasnodar Region, delaying almost 60 flights.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky previously threatened airlines operating in Russian airspace, suggesting their aircraft would not be safe because of Ukrainian drone attacks. Moscow said the remarks amounted to confirmation that Kiev was deliberately employing terrorist tactics.

The Russian Defense Ministry said its forces intercepted 448 Ukrainian long-range aerial drones overnight but did not comment on the naval drone attack.

Kiev has regularly targeted the southern Russian region. Drone attacks on the port city of Novorossiysk the previous night killed four people, including a minor, Governor Veniamin Kondratyev said.

A massive attack by Yemeni’s Houthis on Saudi Arabia has become the first serious test for the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement – a defense pact between Riyadh, Ankara, and Islamabad established just a month ago. We’re no longer talking about a future security architecture in abstract terms. Rather, a very concrete question is being posed: What actions should Saudi Arabia’s allies undertake following a strike on its territory?

According to the Saudi-led coalition, Houthi missiles and drones struck civilian and economic targets in four southern cities. At least 73 people were injured, including women and children. Fires broke out at energy facilities and damaged utility infrastructure; operations at some enterprises were temporarily suspended. The Houthis claimed to have attacked Saudi Aramco facilities in Abha, Jizan, and Najran, as well as the King Khalid Air Base in Khamis Mushait.

The city of Jizan is of particular significance. Its oil refinery has a capacity of around 400,000 barrels per day and is one of Saudi Arabia’s largest refineries; it primarily supplies the domestic market. Through this attack, the Houthis demonstrated their ability to achieve three goals: threaten the population, disrupt energy infrastructure, and cast doubt on Saudi Arabia’s reliability as a key oil supplier.

The geography of the attack is notable. Khamis Mushait is a vital military hub for Saudi Arabia, Jizan is an oil refining center and port, Najran lies near the Yemeni border, and Abha serves as the administrative center of the Asir province. It was a distributed operation targeting various sites and one of the largest operations launched against Saudi Arabia since the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran on February 28, 2026.

The Houthis claim that the operation is a response to Saudi strikes on Yemen; they claim that 121 airstrikes were carried out over the preceding three days. Riyadh speaks of a dangerous escalation and a violation of sovereignty. The previous model of limited deterrence, established after the 2022 truce, has effectively ceased to function, and hostilities have once again spilled beyond Yemen’s borders.

This brings up the delicate issue of the Mecca Agreement. The document was signed on August 7, 2026 by Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan; its publicly stated formula clearly implies that an armed attack on any one of the three states is considered an attack on all. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan even likened this arrangement to Article 5 of NATO. However, an impressive-sounding collective defense formula does not automatically imply a functioning military mechanism.

The full text of the agreement has not been disclosed publicly. It is thus unclear who determines whether a specific incident constitutes an attack that triggers mutual obligations, whether the assistance is automatic, and who would command the designated forces. The first meeting of the joint political-defense committee took place on August 31. The parties agreed to establish a secretariat in Riyadh and began discussing joint exercises, military interoperability, and defense production. While the political commitment has been proclaimed, the framework for its implementation is still taking shape.

Even NATO’s Article 5 does not require all allies to automatically enter into war; each state takes whatever measures it deems necessary. In the case of the Mecca Agreement, the scope for interpretation is likely even broader. Assistance could entail intelligence sharing, the strengthening of air defense systems, arms supplies, and the deployment of specialists – but not necessarily joint strikes on Yemen.

The reaction of the allies confirms this interpretation. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif described the Houthi attack as “cowardly,” condemned it “in the strongest terms,” and declared unwavering solidarity with the leadership and people of Saudi Arabia. The Turkish Foreign Ministry also issued a strong condemnation, affirmed its support for Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and demanded that the Houthis immediately cease their attacks. However, neither country has publicly announced the convening of an emergency committee, heightened military readiness, or the provision of military aid to Riyadh in response to the new strike.

This does not mean that the agreement has failed. Collective defense is not limited to an immediate retaliatory strike, especially if the affected state has refrained from requesting specific assistance. Riyadh may currently be more interested in discreet cooperation regarding intelligence, missile launch detection, and counter-drone measures than a conspicuous entry of its allies into the war.

However, relying solely on rhetoric will not be sustainable in the long run. If the attacks persist, members of the alliance will need to define the threshold at which the principle of ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’ takes on practical meaning. Otherwise, the Houthis and other regional forces will receive a signal that the pact does not alter the cost of exerting military pressure on Saudi Arabia. For any defense alliance, this poses a greater risk than limited military damage: Deterrence only holds as long as a potential adversary believes that the commitments will be backed by action.

Ankara and Islamabad have reasons to avoid direct involvement in the Yemen campaign. Despite close military ties with Riyadh, Pakistan seeks to maintain a working relationship with Iran; its parliament refused to send troops to Yemen in 2015. Türkiye is also reluctant to transform the agreement into an anti-Iran bloc or risk being dragged into a protracted conflict.

A phased response is therefore the most likely scenario. It will likely start with consultations, followed by the strengthening of Saudi air defense capabilities, intelligence sharing, and the supply of anti-drone systems. Pakistan may provide specialists and additional personnel, while Türkiye can offer drone technology, electronic warfare capabilities, and munitions. Joint strikes would only be considered in the event of continued attacks, heavy casualties, or major disruptions to oil exports, and would require a separate political decision.

Following the strikes, the price of Brent crude approached $99 per barrel, although the initial surge remained within the 2% range. While the market does not yet view the damage as critical, it is reacting to multiple sources of risk. On September 4, Iran and the US targeted each other’s oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, and the Houthis are intensifying pressure on shipping around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Before the war, around one-fifth of global oil supplies passed through the Strait of Hormuz. A simultaneous threat to two key shipping routes could rapidly alter the relatively calm outlook of traders.

For the signatories of the Mecca Agreement, the attack does not serve as a trigger to automatically enter the war; rather, it is a test of their ability to devise a unified course of action. Condemnation by Sharif and the Turkish Foreign Ministry represents only the initial level of the response. It now remains to be seen whether the joint committee will be convened, whether Riyadh requests assistance, and what would happen in the event of a follow-up strike.

If political statements are followed by consultations, the strengthening of air defense capabilities, intelligence sharing, and the coordination of joint actions, the Mecca Agreement will acquire real, practical meaning. However, if the practical response is limited to rhetoric about a ‘cowardly attack’, the reputational gains derived from the August summit will quickly evaporate. The Houthis struck more than just Saudi targets; they effectively tested whether the alliance exists beyond the text of the joint communiqué. Currently, there is no definitive answer to this question – and there is a feeling that none may come.

Global heat hit an all-time high in August, with temperatures averaging 16.96C worldwide, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. Western Europe suffered its hottest summer on record, as heatwaves, drought, and wildfires battered the region.

August 2026 was 1.65C hotter than the 1850-1900 average, a period commonly used as the benchmark for temperatures before large-scale industrial warming, Copernicus said on Thursday. It was the hottest August in records dating back to 1940 and effectively matched July 2023, the previous all-time monthly high, with less than 0.01C separating them.

“Humans haven’t seen temperatures as hot as today for, arguably, at least the last 100,000 years,” Samantha Burgess of the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which oversees Copernicus, told AFP. Copernicus records extend back to 1940. Scientists use evidence including ice cores, tree rings, and corals to reconstruct temperatures further in the past.

The record followed an exceptionally hot summer across Western Europe. France, the UK, and Belgium all recorded their hottest summers; France endured 53 heatwave days and received almost 40% less rainfall than normal, making it the country’s second-driest summer since 1959.

The extreme heat also triggered a sharp rise in mortality. France registered an estimated 5,764 excess deaths from all causes during the June 17-July 2 heatwave – 36% above the expected level in affected areas, according to Sante publique France. Another 1,243 excess deaths were recorded during heatwave periods from July 3-22.

The combination of scorching temperatures and scarce rainfall hit crops and transportation. Germany’s grain harvest fell an estimated 7.3% year-on-year, with the authorities blaming heat and drought, while falling water levels on major rivers including the Rhine disrupted shipping.

France announced more than €1 billion ($1.16 billion) in emergency aid for farmers as tens of thousands of farms faced financial difficulties.

Dry vegetation fueled wildfires across the continent. More than 647,000 hectares had burned across the EU by early September, nearly twice the 20-year average for that point in the season, according to the European Commission’s Joint Research Center.

Oceans outside the polar regions reached their joint-highest monthly sea-surface temperature, extending a three-month run of record warmth. Scientists attribute the long-term warming trend primarily to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, while natural phenomena such as El Niño can further boost temperatures in the short term.

UN climate chief Simon Stiell called the latest records “the spiraling price of humanity’s fossil fuel addiction,” warning that extreme heat will continue while coal, oil, and gas are burned. Long-term global warming is currently around 1.4C above pre-industrial levels.

A Russian long-range drone has destroyed a Ukrainian MiG-29 fighter jet shortly after it landed at an airfield outside Kiev, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said, releasing footage of the strike.

The aircraft was hit at Vasilkov airfield in Kiev Region, according to the ministry.

“Caught on the ground. Burned in one MiG,” the ministry said in a brief statement on Wednesday, playing on the Russian word mig, meaning “a moment” or “an instant,” and the name of the fighter jet.

Footage published by the Russian military shows the jet being detected in the sky before being tracked to an airfield and subsequently struck by a drone. Later aerial footage purportedly shows the wreckage of the aircraft.

The Defense Ministry did not provide further details about the aircraft or say whether its pilot was present when the strike occurred. Kiev has not commented on the loss.

Russian media outlets have reported that the strike appeared to have been carried out using a Geran long-range attack drone.

The strike came as Russia continued a wider campaign of long-range attacks against Ukrainian military logistics and infrastructure. The Defense Ministry on Thursday said Russian drones also hit a UAV warehouse in Nikolayev and infrastructure at the Chernomorsk port in Odessa Region used to receive and store military cargo supplied by foreign countries.

Two dry cargo ships carrying supplies for the Ukrainian military and a tugboat escorting them were also struck while approaching the port of Odessa, according to Moscow.

Over the past month, Moscow has drastically ramped up long-range strikes against Ukraine, a campaign that is retaliation for Kiev’s efforts to damage Russia’s energy sector and shipping.

South Africa has processed 86,596 foreign nationals for deportation or repatriation in just over two months, the government announced amid heightened tensions over undocumented migration.

Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi, who chairs the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration, said the cases were handled June 14 to August 20 through coordinated law-enforcement operations.

Kubayi told reporters on Tuesday that Malawian nationals formed the largest group processed during the two-month period, followed by Zimbabweans and Mozambicans. Government data indicated that 90% of those repatriated entered South Africa illegally, with 95% classified as crossing the border outside official entry points.

The minister blamed deteriorating infrastructure along South Africa’s 4,471 km land border for creating vulnerabilities “exploited by illegal crossings, smuggling and transnational crime.”

The mass returns follow anti-immigration protests and attacks that began in March and escalated ahead of a June 30 deadline for undocumented migrants to leave the country, prompting accusations of xenophobia against South Africa.

Mozambique initially said seven citizens died following the unrest, including five in what it described as xenophobic attacks and two in a road accident while fleeing the alleged violence. The South African authorities disputed the account, linking only two deaths to the unrest.

Several African governments, including Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, have since evacuated nationals fleeing the violence.

In response to mounting tensions, President Cyril Ramaphosa unveiled a five-point plan in June to deport undocumented migrants, tighten border controls, overhaul immigration laws, and expand cooperation with other African countries.

Ramaphosa warned against vigilantism, saying immigration enforcement is the sole responsibility of authorized state officials. He said “xenophobia, Afrophobia, or any other form of intolerance” has “no place” in South Africa.

Pretoria has denied targeting foreigners indiscriminately and pledged to prosecute those responsible for violence. The government also opened a temporary processing center in Musina, near the Zimbabwean border, to handle a surge in returnees. Justice Minister Kubayi said the center processed more than 4,000 people on its busiest day in July, but only 58 in August, prompting its closure.

Three Indian domestic airlines have signed agreements on 105 Russian Il-114-300 passenger aircraft, as Moscow and New Delhi move to expand cooperation in civil aviation and manufacturing.

The proposed purchases include 50 aircraft for regional airlines Pinnacle Air, up to 20 for Air Kerala, and 35 for Sleek Aviation.

The companies are yet to start scheduled commercial flights. Another startup, Flamingo Aerospace, previously agreed to buy six of these planes, whose delivery is expected in 2028.

The agreements, memoranda of understanding, and letters of intent were announced in New Delhi just ahead of the BRICS summit starting Friday. This comes as India and Russia seek to broaden industrial and economic cooperation beyond their traditional areas of partnership.

The first planes will be made in Russia, but local production will start once the program is finalized, UAC CEO Vadim Badekha said. “The key task which we are concentrating on is finalizing our agreements on the production of the aircraft here in India,” he told the media at the INNOPROM. India trade fair.

Badekha added that validation in India of the Il-114-300’s Russian type certificate will also be an important step before supplies begin.

The Il-114-300 is a 68-seat turboprop designed for regional routes. It can operate from smaller airports and short runways, making it suited to operate from smaller cities.

India is the world’s third-largest aviation market and has been expanding air links to its fast-growing tier-2 and tier-3 cities. Under its regional connectivity program (UDAN), New Delhi is also seeking to bring more smaller airports into the country’s commercial aviation network.

In June, Badekha said Indian airlines are considering up to 200 Il-114-300 and SJ-100 aircraft combined.

UAC and India’s state-run aerospace manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), are working on licensed production of the SJ-100 regional passenger jet in India.

The two companies signed a cooperation agreement in January as a basis for starting licensed production. More than 80% of the agreement has now been finalized, Badekha said.

The SJ-100 is a short-range jet capable of carrying up to 103 passengers. UAC previously said production in India could begin in around three years, with output eventually reaching 20-40 aircraft annually.

UAC has also said it expects to sign a contract with the first Indian operator of the SJ-100 at Aero India 2027. The company is offering not only aircraft supplies, but also production localization, maintenance, and after-sales support.

Multiple US military aircraft were damaged in an Iranian strike on a key American airbase in Jordan, CBS reported on Wednesday, citing sources familiar with the matter.

The attack reportedly took place overnight on Tuesday and targeted Muwaffaq Salti Air Base near Azraq, about 100 km northeast of Amman, a major hub for US air operations in the region.

One A-10 Thunderbolt, known as the Warthog, suffered severe wing damage, while around eight F-15s were lightly damaged but returned to service, according to the report. No US personnel were killed.

US forces reportedly fired more than 30 Patriot interceptors during the attack. Jordan said it intercepted 18 Iranian missiles, with two falling in unpopulated areas and causing no casualties.

US Central Command has not confirmed the reported damage. It has, however, rejected Iranian claims that two US Navy destroyers were hit in the latest strikes and said American forces had destroyed ten Iranian crude carriers since September 5, including five on Tuesday after Tehran allegedly targeted a US warship with ballistic missiles.

The escalation comes amid a wider US-Iran standoff over the Strait of Hormuz. The US has restricted traffic to and from Iranian ports, while Tehran has imposed controls on passage through the waterway, which handled around a fifth of global oil supplies before the war. Combined with Houthi missile and drone attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure, the renewed fighting has pushed Brent crude back above $100 a barrel amid fears of supply disruptions.

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday pledged to attack “a lot more” Iranian vessels if Tehran continues to target American assets. He claimed Iran is prolonging the conflict to influence the US midterm elections, hoping for gains by Democrats, who overwhelmingly oppose the war.

Iran has accused Washington of destabilizing the Middle East through its military operations. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Wednesday that if the US genuinely wants peace, it should end its “malign and destabilizing interventions in our region.”

Tehran has repeatedly warned neighboring states against allowing their territory or airspace to support US operations against Iran. Since February, Iranian forces have targeted multiple US assets in the region, including in Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait, and Jordan. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi last week defended the strikes, arguing that Tehran could not be expected to hold back when Arab territory and airspace had been used in US attacks on Iran.

Russian security operatives have foiled a Ukrainian plot to carry out a false-flag attack on the British ambassador and other diplomats in Moscow, which was intended to draw the UK into a direct conflict with Russia, the Federal Security Service (FSB) has said.

In a statement on Thursday, the agency said it had detained a Russian national who worked for an organization contracted to protect the British Embassy in Moscow. The man collected sensitive information about embassy security on instructions from a Ukrainian contact, as well as personal data on diplomatic personnel, including photographs, home addresses, details of vehicles, and itineraries, the FSB said.

“The Kiev regime planned to carry out sabotage and terrorist attacks against British diplomatic representatives in Moscow to subsequently blame Russia for them in order to draw the United Kingdom into direct armed conflict with the country, secure additional weapons deliveries [to Kiev], and ramp up sanctions on Russia,” the agency said.

Neither the UK Embassy in Moscow nor British Ambassador Nigel Casey has commented on the statement.

The FSB said the suspect had been recruited by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and acted on instructions of Ukrainian blogger Dmitry Karpenko, also known as “Apostle Dmitry.”

Karpenko, 44, became known for recording interviews with Russian prisoners of war and covering POW swaps between Moscow and Kiev, as well as for propagating videos featuring Russian nationals collaborating with the Ukrainian military.

Karpenko was also criticized by Ukraine’s Commission on Journalistic Ethics, which said his videos exposed prisoners’ identities and at times resembled interrogations. The blogger also faced accusations of Islamophobia after an interview with a captured Russian serviceman from Chechnya, during which he made remarks widely seen as offensive to Muslims.

Britain has been one of Ukraine’s biggest backers since the escalation of the conflict in 2022, providing billions of pounds in military and financial assistance to Kiev. London has also refrained from condemning Kiev over a string of assassinations and bombings targeting Russian military officials and public figures inside Russia.

After Ukraine claimed responsibility for the 2024 killing of Russian General Igor Kirillov, commander of the Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Protection Forces, Downing Street said Britain would “not mourn” his death.

US President Donald Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner left Kiev “shocked” by the conduct of Vladimir Zelensky’s team during their latest visit, Ukrainian MP Anna Skorokhod has claimed.

Witkoff and Kushner traveled to Kiev on Sunday for talks with Zelensky after meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow a day earlier, as part of Washington’s efforts to advance a settlement of the Ukraine conflict.

“They left somewhat in shock,” Skorokhod told Ukrainian journalist Lana Shevchuk on Tuesday, criticizing what she described as inappropriate behavior by Ukrainian officials during serious diplomatic talks.

“Unfortunately, our great leaders don’t understand that there are situations where you can joke around, but there are also things where it’s not just inappropriate – it’s beyond comprehension,” she said.

Skorokhod specifically pointed to David Arakhamia, the head of Zelensky’s Servant of the People parliamentary faction, wearing a T-shirt bearing the words ‘Kiev regime’ during the meeting with the US representatives.

“When our people are dying in droves, when we have a complete failure at the front, when we have nothing to shoot down ballistic [missiles] with, we are joking with Trump’s special envoys,” she said.

The lawmaker separately claimed that Witkoff and Kushner brought Kiev peace terms that were “even worse” than previous proposals after their talks in Moscow. She suggested that the conditions included demands concerning constitutional changes and formal recognition of territories, while acknowledging that some of her information was unofficial.

Zelensky offered a different assessment of the US negotiators’ visit, claiming on Tuesday that Witkoff and Kushner had presented “a couple of quite good ideas,” while adding that Kiev still needed to determine whether they could be implemented.

Putin and Trump spoke by phone on Tuesday about efforts to settle the conflict and the US envoys’ visits to Moscow and Kiev. Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov described the hour-long conversation as “constructive and frank” and said both leaders had positively assessed the diplomatic efforts of Witkoff and Kushner.

Moscow has repeatedly said it is ready for a diplomatic settlement to the conflict provided the root causes are addressed and the realities on the ground are taken into account. Kiev has consistently rejected Russia’s demands on territorial and security issues.

Massive wildfires have broken out in Antalya Province, Türkiye, forcing hundreds of people from their homes. Videos from the area that surfaced on social media show apocalyptic scenes of hills engulfed in flames and black smoke darkening the skies.

The fire broke out in Antalya’s Aksu district on Monday and soon spread to the neighboring Kepez district, according to Anadolu news agency.

At least one person died of a heart attack after being affected by smoke from the fires, the local authorities said. Two people were also hospitalized with leg injuries linked to the fire, and eight others were treated for smoke inhalation.

The authorities evacuated people from at least 254 homes in the two districts and temporarily closed a highway linking the Mediterranean coastal resort city of Antalya with Isparta, around 130 km to the north. More than 2,000 homes in the region were also affected by power outages.

Antalya Aksu’daki yangının havadan görüntüsü.

Antalya’da orman yangınlarıyla mücadele sürüyor. Evler tahliye edildi. Antalya’nın üç ilçesinde çıkan orman yangınlarına müdahale devam ediyor.

•Aksu, Kepez ve Serik’te çıkan yangınlar yerleşim alanlarını tehdit ediyor.… pic.twitter.com/xm6mNGW9OG

— Aykırı (@aykiri) September 8, 2026

Five firefighting aircraft, ten helicopters, more than 160 fire engines, and 1,000 personnel were deployed to tackle the blaze.

Turkey's Antalya CHOKES under APOCALYPTIC FIRES — skies turn RED as FLAMES SPREAD, ENGULFING HOMES & CROPS

No word YET on CASUALTIES pic.twitter.com/hftIcz7ox6

— RTVisual (@RT_Visual_on_X) September 8, 2026

Videos published online show massive walls of fire raging through mountain forests, leaving scorched earth behind as smoke filled the skies. At night, the sky over the hills affected by the fire turned red.

The wildfires came after a particularly hot summer in Europe. Western and Central Europe endured an extraordinary succession of heatwaves, drought, wildfires, and water shortages. Temperatures repeatedly climbed above 40C (104F), rivers fell to historic lows, and crops withered.

France, the UK, and Belgium all had their hottest summers on record. In some areas, drought was also followed by violent storms and flash flooding.

US President Donald Trump has promised a $5,000 “dividend” to every adult American if Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

Speaking at the Republican Party’s first-ever midterm convention in Dallas on Wednesday, Trump argued that the US economy and revenues generated by his tariff policies would allow Washington to make direct payments to citizens.

“If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000,” Trump told the cheering crowd. “It will be called the Trump Dividend.”

“The only caveat I have is that the dividend that we’re making must be spent in the United States of America,” he ⁠added.

🚨 JUST NOW: President Trump just stunned the ENTIRE room saying if Republicans win the House and Senate he will give a Trump Dividend

$5,000 to EVERY Adult citizen

THIS IS A HUGE WIN pic.twitter.com/2vN81DTGYD

— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) September 10, 2026

The president did not explain how the payout would be implemented or funded. At $5,000 per adult, the plan could cost well over $1 trillion.

Trump repeatedly boasted about the amount of money flowing into the US as a result of tariffs and foreign investment. His administration previously claimed that more than $20 trillion in new investment is coming into the country, while Treasury officials have projected annual tariff revenues potentially reaching hundreds of billions of dollars.

The president also touted his administration’s recent oil agreement with Venezuela, which gives the US majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of proven reserves, before joking about how easy it was to find oil in the South American country.

Trump hilariously jokes about oil in Venezuela 🤣

"You know the way Exxon and Chevron, they go around looking, they hire these geniuses... they spend millions and millions for equipment, they go all over the world looking, they can’t find it. In Venezuela, what you do is the… https://t.co/KumAyRpQyG pic.twitter.com/E7YEbgOYUT

— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) September 10, 2026

“You know the way Exxon and Chevron... they spend millions and millions for equipment, they go all over the world looking, they can’t find it,” Trump said. “In Venezuela, you look on the ground and you see ground that’s soaking wet with oil, and you say, ‘Let’s build our rig right there.’”

Trump also joked about renaming the Strait of Hormuz after himself while discussing the ongoing US-Israeli war with Iran.

“We should call the Hormuz Strait the Trump Strait! I should get something out of it. The Trump Strait!” he said. “I’m sure the Iranian leadership will be thrilled with that!”

TRUMP ON IRAN TONIGHT –– War, Hormuz, Pickaxe, "Mr. Supreme Leader", Nukes (GOP Midterm Convention)

• If JCPOA wasn't canceled and if “our beautiful B-2 bombers” had not hit them, “they would have a nuclear weapon right now and I would be addressing them as Supreme Leader:… pic.twitter.com/aWP8STQHvN

— Urgent Intel (@urgentintel) September 10, 2026

The president reiterated his prediction that the conflict with Iran will end and oil prices will fall after the US midterm election, tying his foreign-policy and energy message back to the vote in November.

“In 55 days, Americans will be going to the polls in one of the most important elections in our country’s history,” he said.

“When I’m on the ticket, Republicans always do well,” Trump added. “I’m asking you to pretend I’m on the ballot… Just one more time.”

The two-day Dallas convention, conceived by Trump as a campaign showcase ahead of the midterms, is the first such gathering ever held by the Republican Party outside a presidential election year. Trump is scheduled to return on Thursday to deliver closing remarks.

OpenAI has come under fire after claiming its AI solved one of mathematics’ most famous problems. Researchers are raising questions over how the company arrived at the breakthrough, while others are accusing it of exaggerating the achievement to boost valuation ahead of a potential IPO.

The company announced on Tuesday that an internal AI system had solved the Navier-Stokes problem, one of mathematics’ famous Millennium Prize questions. It concerns equations describing how liquids and gases move and asks whether the math can suddenly break down under certain conditions. A correct solution carries a $1 million prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute.

OpenAI said around 10,000 AI agents worked on the problem for roughly 88 hours, exchanging millions of messages and generating around 130 billion output tokens before producing a computer-verified proof.

The company says the result satisfies the official wording of the prize problem, although it does not intend to claim the money. It also presented the feat as evidence of how rapidly its internal AI systems are advancing.

The announcement has drawn mixed reactions, with some calling it an “exciting day for mathematics” while others have raised suspicions of plagiarism and questioned the significance of the achievement.

NYU mathematician Tristan Buckmaster has accused OpenAI of throwing massive resources at the problem only after learning that he and Anthropic researcher Levent Alpöge were making progress on a related approach.

Mathematicians have also cautioned against declaring the problem solved before the proof is independently examined. Diego Cordoba, whose work helped pioneer the approach used by the AI, said a valid solution would be a “big surprise.”

Others have been far more critical. Prominent tech commentator Mehdi, who has a large following on X, opened a lengthy attack on the announcement by telling OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to “go f**k yourself,” before accusing the company of trying to “privatize the very mechanism of human knowledge.”

Mehdi argued that OpenAI had tackled an easier version of the problem and used brute-force computing rather than genuine machine reasoning or scientific intuition.

He suggested that the supposed breakthrough was achieved by thousands of AI agents simply searching mathematical ground already explored by human researchers in order to manufacture an artificial “Sputnik moment” to boost excitement around its technology and inflate its valuation ahead of a stock-market listing.

OpenAI has acknowledged that the project began after hearing rumors that outside mathematicians had made progress on related problems but has denied accessing their unpublished work. At the same time, it said it could not rule out that anonymized data from their use of OpenAI products had helped improve its models.

President Donald Trump claims that the US has already taken out “about nine” Iranian oil tankers and threatened to attack “a lot more,” as the two countries trade strikes on commercial and military vessels around the Strait of Hormuz.

US Central Command has confirmed that it destroyed eight Iranian crude carriers in two recent operations – three on September 5 and another five on Tuesday – after accusing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of firing ballistic missiles at US warships.

“We’ve taken out about nine of their tankers,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “You’re going to see a lot more.”

The president did not elaborate on potential targets or the timing of further attacks, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran would continue to lose tankers whenever it targets US naval vessels.

CENTCOM forces destroyed five Iranian crude oil carriers, Sept. 8, after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targeted a U.S. Navy warship with ballistic missiles twice over the past two days. The U.S. warship successfully evaded the attempted Iranian attacks and… pic.twitter.com/Gi8a2tloN1

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) September 8, 2026

“They lost five more last night. Four were damaged. One was sunk. So they’ll continue to pay a price for that,” Rubio said, adding that the US will continue to “strangle them economically.”

CENTCOM said the five vessels struck on Tuesday were the Kaviz, Charminar, Horizon 1, and Riesco in the Gulf of Oman, and the Derya near Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub. US forces ordered the crews to abandon the ships before they were attacked and “rendered inoperable,” CENTCOM said.

Iran has retaliated by claiming attacks on ten vessels near the Strait of Hormuz, including two US Navy ships and eight tankers. CENTCOM has denied that its warships were hit. Iran also launched ballistic missiles toward the Al-Azraq air base in Jordan, while the IRGC warned tanker crews near Bahrain and Kuwait to abandon their vessels ahead of potential attacks.

The renewed confrontation has driven Brent crude back above $100 a barrel amid concerns over further disruptions to one of the world’s most important energy corridors.

Trump, however, predicted that oil prices would stabilize and that the broader war with Iran would end “immediately after” the November 3 US midterm elections, claiming that Iran has already lost and is attempting to hold out long enough to influence the vote.

“I think the war will end immediately after the election because they can’t hold out any longer.”

Asked about the prospect of renewed negotiations with Tehran, Trump said his administration is “not looking for it,” although he acknowledged that talks could still take place.

“There is a lot more than nuclear,” he said with regard to an agreement, adding that other issues will now have to be put on the table.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Israel is “very close” to defeating Iran, during a visit to Israeli troops stationed atop Mount Hermon in Syrian territory, which was seized by the IDF following the collapse of former President Bashar Assad’s government.

Netanyahu traveled to the strategic summit on Wednesday accompanied by Defense Minister Israel Katz and IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Tamir Yadai.

“Damascus is right here, Lebanon is right there, the Syrian Golan Heights are right there,” Netanyahu said in a video released by his office, claiming that Israel now exercises “absolute control the likes of which has never been seen before” over the surrounding area.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Mt. Hermon in Syria, together with Defense Minister Israel Katz and IDF Deputy Chief-of-Staff Maj- Gen. Tamir Yadai.

The Prime Minister was briefed at an IDF outpost overlooking Syria by Head of Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Rafi Milo and… pic.twitter.com/pnEYLyKQya

— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) September 9, 2026

He said Israel will not allow a “terrorist army” to establish itself along the border, before turning his remarks toward Tehran.

“From these peaks, there is still work to do: The main task is to defeat the terrorist regime in Iran,” Netanyahu said. “We are very close to it. We know that the entire axis will ultimately fall. We are committed to doing this, and we will do it.”

Syria condemned Netanyahu’s visit as “illegal entry” into its territory. The Foreign Ministry called the trip “provocative” and a “blatant violation” of Syrian sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law, and urged the UN and other international actors to press Israel to end its incursions.

Israel seized the Syrian side of Mount Hermon and other positions inside the UN-monitored buffer zone in December 2024, after Assad’s government fell. Israel initially described the deployment as temporary, but has since entrenched its presence. Katz said during Wednesday’s visit that Israeli troops are “not moving” from the “security zone.”

A UN commission warned just a day earlier that Israeli military activity inside Syria has become “increasingly sustained and entrenched,” describing Israel’s presence as a “belligerent occupation” and saying some actions against Syrian civilians could amount to war crimes. Israel rejected the findings, insisting it has no territorial ambitions in Syria and maintains the buffer zone solely for security purposes.

The continued military presence in Syria and southern Lebanon has also put Netanyahu at odds with Washington. In July, President Donald Trump reportedly urged the Israeli leader to withdraw from both countries, saying, “they don’t want you there.”

Ukrainian security operatives involved in a scandalous gunfight between two rival factions of Vladimir Zelensky's government in Kiev last week are facing a fresh probe – this time for speaking Russian during the clash.

The September 2 gang-warfare-style clash between the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Directorate (HUR), centred on an attempt to arrest white supremacist Stepan Kaplunov, a senior officer in the so-called Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK), a paramilitary unit operating under the HUR and thought to be in control of a number of Ukrainian scam-call centers.

Ukraine’s language ombudswoman, Elena Ivanovskaya, said Wednesday she had requested personal information on all those involved and demanded the two services provide an explanation as to why their officials “used a non-state language while performing their official duties.” The data was needed “to clarify the circumstances and make a balanced decision on response measures,” she said in a statement published by Ukrainian media.

Crackdown on Russian

Ukrainian is mandatory in the country's public sphere, including government, education, media and customer service. Violations can result in administrative fines of up to $270.

Ivanovskaya has suggested increasing the fines tenfold and has demanded Russian-speaking children and parents use Ukrainian during breaks and in conversations with teachers. According to the ombudswoman, both instances fall under the “public sphere” definition and the use of Russian in such cases could be punishable by fines.

Kiev announced plans in February to take all Russian and Russian-language books out of circulation in Ukraine. Ukraine expanded 2016 import restrictions to outright ban any commercial Russian and Belarusian book entries in 2023.

Kiev is also seeking to block access to Russian music on international streaming platforms inside Ukraine and prevent performers from the neighboring country from appearing in domestic popularity charts, according to Ukrainian Sanctions Policy Commissioner Vladislav Vlasiuk. More than 100 Russian performers have been blacklisted in Ukraine and the list will be expanded, according to the official.

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

Russian remains widespread

Despite the restrictions, Russian remains widely used in Ukraine. Ukrainian Culture Minister Tatyana Berezhnaya said earlier this year that 71% of Ukrainians regularly consume Russian-language content, with nearly a quarter doing so every day.

Ukrainian officials, especially those in Vladimir Zelensky's inner circle targeted by anti-corruption agents, have been repeatedly caught using Russian on surveillance audio.

The Western-backed Ukrainian anti-corruption agency (NABU) published audio recordings that showed that the chief cybercrime prosecutor accused of extorting protection money from Ukraine’s massive scam-call industry was predominantly using Russian in his communications.

Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga also spoke Russian throughout a lengthy recent interview with a Kazakh outlet while acting in his official capacity.

Every year, Russia publishes a private analytical report intended for a select group of military and defense industry leaders. The Russian Military Yearbook is designed strictly for senior officers, security agency staff, and executives of companies in the defense sector.

Unlike public reports on the state of the armed forces, the Russian Military Yearbook is meant for internal use. It addresses military planning, advancements in weaponry, and developments in the defense industry, along with the key priorities of the Russian military leadership amid ongoing conflicts. Consequently, the yearbook sheds light on the priorities of Russia’s defense apparatus.

Russia’s global plans remain unchanged and are based on two main principles

First principle: Russia should be responsible for the stability and development of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). While Moscow does not harbor imperial ambitions to annex former Soviet republics, Russian politicians and military officials view these nations as vital partners in trade, infrastructure projects, and security. 

Therefore, countries of the “post-Soviet space” should not join other political and military blocs, especially the EU and NATO. Such blocs often pressure members to sever ties with Russia and are sometimes directed against Russia. 

However, Russia welcomes participation in economic collaboration, such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative. What benefits neighboring countries also benefits Russia due to the close economic ties between them.

“The West is entertaining the idea of creating a geopolitical confrontation arena in the South Caucasus, attempting to push Russia aside from the normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Rejecting such attempts, the Russian Federation intends to do all it can to protect the region.” 
– Analytical report of the Institute of Contemporary International Studies of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry

Second principle: Moscow views stability through the lens of a “multipolar world.” This refers to a situation in international relations where there is no single hegemon or “world police.” Decisions regarding security and regional organization are made either at the regional level or during global negotiations, rather than by one or two central powers.

It may seem that America’s recent setbacks – including conflicts with European allies and protracted crises in Iran and the Middle East – create an ideal situation for Russian strategists. As Washington’s influence wanes, America’s capacity to control global affairs may diminish as well. However, that perception is wrong. 

Russian military and political leaders desire not only a world without hegemony but also one characterized by stability and adherence to international laws. Even setting idealism aside, this approach undeniably serves Russia’s interests. UN principles help maintain the status quo and ensure regional leadership.

Conflicts involving Russia are often caused by breaches of agreements (primarily regarding NATO expansion), leading to the use of force and the disruption of regional balance. This was true of the conflict with Georgia in 2008, the civil war in Syria, and the Ukraine crisis.

Moreover, America’s inability to manage conflicts (which are often instigated by its own government) only serves to destabilize the world. This compels Moscow to allocate more resources for potential interventions. The Kremlin is well aware of what happens when a crisis outside its borders spirals out of control.

“According to S.V. Lavrov, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, ‘The USA could become one of the responsible centers of power together with Russia, China, and other powers of the Global South, East, North, and West in the foreseeable future’, but this is subject to them abandoning the counteraction to the objective process of multipolarity strengthening” 
– Analytical report of the Institute of Contemporary International Studies of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry

Russian analysts do not believe that it is possible to return to the former Western-centric world order. They believe the Trump administration is too preoccupied with internal issues and is consistently souring relations with European allies, whom it views as ‘parasites’. Meanwhile, the EU is becoming increasingly reliant on rigid neoliberal institutions, making it less open to negotiations due to entrenched anti-Russia sentiments among its leaders. 

Consequently, the only remaining option is to build a multipolar world.

Moscow sees China and India, as well as the nations of the Global South, as its partners in this new world order. These governments also seek independence from the US and Europe and are pursuing their regional agendas. However, experts point out that Russia’s goals may diverge from those of its partners and could even come into conflict with their goals; no one is willing to sacrifice foreign policy autonomy for the sake of “unconditional friendship.”

Despite the prevailing pessimism surrounding global politics, Russian experts believe that new conflicts can be avoided, even during such troubled times. 

However, analysts are concerned about one particular region. 

Very Cold War

In addition to the existing conflict zones, experts are also analyzing another potential flashpoint – the struggle for control over the Arctic. And this isn’t just about the vast reserves of valuable resources in the Arctic – estimates suggest that around 13% of the world’s oil and 30% of its natural gas lie beneath the ice.

Disputes over this “no man’s land” and its surrounding waters have been going on for nearly two centuries, and date back to the first attempts to carve out spheres of influence in the Arctic. Canada even attempted to occupy one of Russia’s Arctic islands during the Civil War, though this “occupation” was limited to a few settlers who were soon sent home by the Russian Navy.

Experts note that NATO countries have already begun a major arms buildup specifically aimed at potential Arctic operations. Military exercises are frequently held in the region, such as the recent Exercise Cold Response 26. In March, tens of thousands of service members participated in drills led by the Norwegian armed forces.

“During regular exercises in the Arctic, NATO countries carry out activities to conduct reconnaissance of all types, prepare and deliver missile, air, bomb, and torpedo strikes. Skills related to combat control and logistics, the interaction of dissimilar forces and means are honed.” 
– Vadim Istomin, doctor of Technical Sciences 

And this is just the beginning. NATO countries have initiated Arctic-aimed retraining and rearmament programs set to be completed by the early 2030s. NATO members call it preparation for possible threats. Yet analysts speculate that it could also be preparation for a coordinated attack.

Here are several examples:

Finland – HX / F-35 Program: As a new NATO member, Finland has acquired 64 F-35A fighters, as well as weapons and equipment for Arctic operations. It is also retraining pilots and technical staff. By 2028-2030, the F-35s are expected to fully replace F/A-18 Hornet aircraft. 

Canada – North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) modernization: A new threat detection system for the Arctic is being developed. The Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar is set to reach initial operational capability by the end of 2029, while the Crossbow network of sensors will be operational by 2030. The Polar Over-the-Horizon Radar is anticipated to become operational between 2032 and 2033. Infrastructure for aviation and the command system are also being upgraded.

Canada – Rearmament of the Air Force: Canada is purchasing 88 F-35As to replace its CF-18 fleet. Initial combat readiness is slated for 2029, with full capability set to be reached by 2033. This program aims to enhance the defense of Canada’s Arctic region.

Denmark and Greenland – Defense Program 2024-2033: Military infrastructure in the Arctic and North Atlantic is being strengthened through the acquisition of new Arctic ships and drones, alongside the deployment of additional surveillance assets in Greenland. The Joint Arctic Command is also being bolstered to support extended operations in the area.

This isn’t just speculation. In 2021, the Pentagon adopted a new strategic plan titled ‘Regaining Arctic Dominance’. It explicitly states that the US intends to push Russia and China out of the Arctic, including through threats and the use of force.

“It appears that, distracted by the conflict in Ukraine, the Americans have seemingly pushed the Russian Arctic to the periphery of their attention for the time being. But this is a dangerous delusion. Washington never abandoned the thought of redrawing borders in that area.” 
– Aleksey Fenenko, doctor of Political Science, professor of the Faculty of World Politics, Lomonosov Moscow State University 

In addition to the natural resources and military presence in the Arctic, NATO is interested in the Northern Sea Route. This corridor connects Asia and Europe via the Arctic Ocean, providing a faster alternative to the traditional southern route through India and the Suez Canal. Considering rising piracy and the Iran crisis, navigating the icy waters has become a safer alternative. 

However, due to geographical factors, the Northern Sea Route heavily relies on Russian maritime infrastructure, effectively giving Moscow control over ship and cargo movements. Consequently, Russia could dictate terms to carriers or even halt traffic entirely. Of course, NATO doesn’t want this.

Canada is expanding its fleet of icebreakers, and Norwegian spy vessel the FS Marjata is increasingly being spotted in the Barents Sea. Meanwhile, Finland is deploying American F-35A fighters just 150 km from the Russian border. The US is ramping up its military presence in Alaska, launching new NAVSTAR military satellites over the region, and ordering amphibious vehicles, which are ideally suited for operations in the north. Swedish BvS10 Beowulf amphibious tracked all-terrain vehicles are a particularly popular choice. 

The Russian military is already preparing for potential conflicts in the Arctic. The Russian Army and Navy traditionally have a strong presence in the North and benefit from developed infrastructure. New missile defense systems ensure aerial security. Tor-M2 missile systems, available in various configurations, also play a significant role. The specialized variant for naval vessels, the Tor-M2KM, is particularly easy to produce in mass quantities.

Russia is ready to respond to any challenge in the Arctic; yet this crisis can still be avoided. 

Meanwhile, Russia is forced to address another issue on a daily basis – though one may call it more profitable. 

Arms market shakeup 

The armaments and military equipment (A&ME) sector, unlike many others, boasts consistent growth in both demand and supply, expanding by 28% over four years to reach $679 billion.

In 2022, the weapons market began to shift dramatically. Sanctions caused Russian exports to plummet from 18% to 12%, with lost contracts primarily shifting to American manufacturers.

The composition of imports has also changed, becoming more unstable and concentrated in regions of existing or potential conflicts. Warsaw has emerged as the world’s leading arms purchaser, spending $33 billion on weaponry in 2023 alone. Given Poland’s status as “NATO’s vanguard,” there’s little doubt about the purpose behind this arms buildup.

Clearly, supplies to Ukraine have significantly increased, but experts point out an important detail: Western allies mainly send legacy military equipment to Kiev, which allows them to quickly modernize their own arsenals. And it’s clear who benefits most from this situation.

“After getting rid of the obsolete weapon systems supplied to Kiev as military aid, the ‘collective West’ countries began large-scale purchases of modern and more expensive arms. At the same time, the USA became the main beneficiary and recipient in this situation, having practically monopolized the arms market of NATO member states.” 
– Centre for Analysis of World Arms Trade 

Since 2021, the Russian defense industry has grown approximately fivefold (with the output of some sectors increasing by six or even seven times). However, the bulk of this production is consumed by the Russian military, and exports are severely restricted due to sanctions. Nevertheless, analysts believe that after the end of the Special Military Operation, the Russian defense sector may dominate the market.

Experts note that the unique advantage of Russian weaponry developed during the Ukraine crisis is its proven adaptability to real-world battle conditions. Most Western and Asian arsenals have been tested only during military exercises, whereas new Russian models have been designed and adapted based on data gathered from the battlefield.

The primary goal of Russian defense companies was not to create a budget-friendly training model; they needed to design weapons that would prove reliable in real battle conditions. Developers also received ample feedback from soldiers who tested the weapons in battle.

Looking ahead, Saudi Arabia and India are expected to be major buyers of weapons; analysts predict these countries will focus on importing weapons in the coming years. China could also become a major buyer of Russian defense products, though Beijing consistently reduces foreign procurement in favor of satisfying demand through domestic production.

These imports extend beyond just rifles, ammunition, missiles, and aircraft. Analysts forecast that by 2030, 40% of the entire defense market will revolve around technological exchange – selling access to new developments, as well as training engineers and military personnel.

This sector is already evident in Russia’s partnership with India. For instance, Rosoboronexport is working on localizing AK-203 rifles and 125mm Mango APFSDS rounds in India, as well as upgrading T-72 tank engines at Indian facilities.

High-altitude and high-tech

When people discuss Russian military exports, they often think of tanks and Kalashnikov rifles. This makes sense, as the Russian Army is primarily viewed as a land power, and advancements in the development of rifles and tanks indeed play a significant role in its capabilities.

However, the Ukraine conflict has highlighted the crucial importance of air superiority, especially in the age of drone warfare. The Russian military employs a wide array of tools tailored for various tasks.

On the one hand, there are powerful systems like the S-400 Triumph surface-to-air missile system. Adopted by the Russian military in 2007, this system can detect aerial objects up to 600 km away and engage aerodynamic targets at a distance of up to 380 km. This system has repeatedly demonstrated its effectiveness, even though it was designed at a time when warfare was quite different.

“The S-400 Triumph is capable of fighting the entire range of modern air targets within its zone of responsibility. This isn’t only the merit of the developers but also of the General Staff which managed to predict long-term threats.” 
– Centre for Analysis of World Arms Trade 

But there are also small, mobile systems that are indispensable in urban combat and dynamic modern warfare. 

A prime example is the Dzhigit support launcher. Without its Igla-S and Verba missile launchers, it looks like a sophisticated garden chair. However, fully equipped, it can fire powerful missiles in rapid succession or salvos, functioning on the ground, in buildings, or mounted on a combat vehicle. Military personnel particularly appreciate its stealth capabilities and battlefield survivability.

As for new Western radar and missile defense developments, analysts are skeptical about them. They note that while these new models often set records, they don’t necessarily enhance practical use.

“The TRLM-4D is also a leader in the number of simultaneously detected targets – 1500. However, the only thing that such a number of blips on the radar screen can give to the crew having just 24 ADMS is a sense of despair.” 
– Centre for Analysis of World Arms Trade 

Uncertainty is the new certainty

Overall, Russia’s strategy can be summed up as “active preparation for the worst, moderate hope for the best.” Politicians, military leaders, and defense industry representatives understand that the Special Military Operation may continue for an extended period, while adversaries seek to exploit any weaknesses that Russia may have; therefore, new crises are almost inevitable. Recent years have demonstrated the resilience of the Russian military and economy, but that alone may not ensure success.

At the same time, analysts believe that a peaceful resolution to all issues is possible. However, it probably won’t be brought about by the goodwill of politicians, but rather by the demonstration of strength and the readiness to respond to any threats. 

Singapore is considering chemical castration for sex offenders amid a rise in reported sexual crimes, particularly those involving children.

Police recorded 1,531 molestation cases in 2025, up 7.3% from 1,427 the previous year.

The issue was raised in parliament this week, with lawmakers questioning whether penalties and safeguards for minors should be strengthened.

Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said on Tuesday that the government remains open to using anti-androgen drugs, commonly known as chemical castration, if there is clear evidence that they can reduce crime rates.

“So far, the evidence is not conclusive on that,” he said in a written parliamentary reply.

Chemical castration involves drugs that suppress testosterone and reduce sexual desire. Unlike surgical castration, it does not involve removing reproductive organs, and its effects are generally reversible once treatment is stopped.

Singapore already imposes severe penalties for sexual crimes against children. Rape or penetrative sexual assault of a child under 14 without consent carries between eight and 20 years in prison and at least 12 strokes of a cane.

A new sentencing system that took effect in July allows serious violent or sexual offenders considered at substantial risk of reoffending to be held beyond their minimum prison term of between five and 20 years. They can remain in custody longer if authorities determine they still pose a threat to the public.

The wider debate over safeguards has followed a recent case involving a self-styled religious mentor who committed sexual offenses against children after previously being arrested over the alleged molestation of a 17-year-old and released on bail. The case prompted lawmakers to question whether bail conditions and screening rules for people working with children should be tightened.

Chemical castration is already permitted for certain sex offenders in several countries, including South Korea, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan, while some European countries use hormone-suppressing medication on a voluntary basis. Several US states also authorize the measure in some form.

The joint military exercises now underway between the United States, South Korea, and Japan are a clear signal that Washington is still moving ahead with the long-term project of building its alliances and partnerships in Asia into a tight military-political structure, despite leadership changes in both the US and South Korea. The current Washington administration, however, isn’t above using political leverage to keep Seoul in line.

The joint exercises of South Korea, Japan, and the US became a regular occurrence already under Biden, and they now serve as a kind of answer to the question of how far the course toward building a Washington-Tokyo-Seoul military-political alliance – which was very clearly visible under Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol – is continuing under the new presidents.

Many people assumed that if Biden was actively driving this integration and the Washington Declaration had already been signed, then Trump, supposedly an isolationist, would slow it down or even reverse it.

But no – what we see is that although the pace may have slowed somewhat, the overall direction remains the same. That is quite important, because talk of a possible ‘Asian NATO’ has not gone away.

It is still not entirely clear what shape such a configuration could take. On the one hand, there is AUKUS. On the other, there is an increasingly active system of military alignments involving the US, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines.

Some American strategists have also begun speaking in this same context about changing South Korea’s place in US strategic planning. This is important, because historically the joint exercises of the US and South Korea were directed specifically against North Korea – although in practice those exercises were often offensive in character, something the DPRK has constantly pointed out.

Practicing preventive strikes, river crossings, and similar operations was always part of the scenario. Formally, everything began as a response to a North Korean attack, but the script usually moved quickly toward a triumphant counteroffensive.

It is entirely possible that the trilateral exercises of the US, South Korea, and Japan are oriented not only toward containing North Korea, but also toward containing China – and more broadly toward integrating and coordinating three countries that the Americans are trying to turn into a military-political bloc. That process has never been easy.

The problem is that while Washington-Tokyo and Washington-Seoul ties were relatively straightforward and did not suffer deeply from historical baggage, relations between Seoul and Tokyo have long been much more difficult. It was hard to establish any real parallel cooperation between them despite active American pressure, because anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korea was, until recently, one of the important pillars of national political identity, especially under Democratic Party governments.

That began to change with the arrival of conservative president Yoon Suk Yeol, who for the first time turned the wheel 180 degrees and openly argued that, in present conditions, Washington and Tokyo should stop relitigating the past and instead think about alliance in the present and jointly forecast the future.

Naturally, this caused outrage among the Democrats, then in opposition. There is no need to repeat all the insults with which Lee Jae Myung attacked Yoon – accusing him of groveling before Japan, forgetting the horrors of colonial rule, and so on.

But once Democratic Party politician Lee Jae Myung himself became president – a man who had once positioned himself as the leftmost of the nationalists and populists – he dramatically changed course.

Suddenly, the Democratic Party became effectively center-right, and Lee’s line can now broadly be described as pro-American, at least in public terms.

He openly said that the old formula of “security with America, economics with China” no longer works – that South Korea is now oriented only toward the United States. Of course, this does not mean a complete break with China. He wanted Seoul to be a bridge between Washington and Beijing.

But overall, Lee is moving in the American wake, and one important sign of that is that there has been no reversal on the Japanese track.

Lee effectively stated that all agreements signed under Yoon would be honored, because even if part of the Korean public does not accept them, they were promises made in the name of the nation.

The culmination of this moment was the joint musical performance by Lee Jae Myung and Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi.

Of course, there are still occasional flare-ups, because there cannot not be. For example, Japan’s defense minister skipped a defense forum in Seoul because of another controversy linked to a donation to Yasukuni Shrine, which South Korea sees as a symbol of Japan’s past militarism and colonialism. But overall, the level of integration is much higher, and it continues the same direction set under the conservatives.

The current trilateral exercise is a visible marker of that course.

The most interesting point emerges when we compare these three-country exercises, which are proceeding more or less on schedule and without major problems, with the recent US-South Korea exercises, which were conducted in a reduced format under very revealing circumstances.

Those exercises were supposed to proceed normally. But the day before they began, Trump suddenly posted on social media that the drills were expensive and sent bad signals to North Korea, and that he had therefore instructed the defense secretary to scale them down. Then he added that he had asked the South Korean president to join us in our struggle with Iran, and Lee refused.

This creates a very clear picture. Trump, in effect, took revenge for Seoul’s refusal – and, judging by subsequent developments, may even have forced President Lee into taking some limited part in the US confrontation with Iran after all.

Why did Lee refuse in the first place?

First, South Korea’s relations with Iran are not especially bad. Second, for domestic audiences, despite his pro-American course, Lee still wants to preserve the image of a populist who occasionally pushes back against the US, pursues an independent policy, and certainly is not going to send South Korean troops to fight for American interests – especially in a conflict that would be highly risky and politically toxic.

During the Iraq war of 2003-2008, South Korean troops were largely deployed to guard South Korean engineers working on oil fields. The surrounding territory was generally controlled by pro-American Kurdish forces, so the South Koreans spent much of their time sitting tight, occasionally joining mop-up operations.

Joining the Iran war would be very different. Here, regardless of what they were doing, they would have to defend themselves against Iranian missiles and drones – and it is far from clear how effectively they could do so. And any casualties, in today’s media and political climate, would carry obvious domestic political and reputational consequences.

There is another equally important factor. South Korea is actively trying to claim a leading place in the global arms market. Seoul has been repeatedly told, implicitly or otherwise, that its weapons would sell even better if they proved themselves in actual combat, ideally against Russian or Chinese systems. But this logic cuts both ways. What happens if the South Korean military, which has not fought a major war in generations, or South Korean weapons systems, which have not undergone a serious real-combat test, perform badly?

That is one more reason why Lee Jae Myung refused to participate in the American war against Iran. And it is also why Trump trapped him so effectively in a contradiction between his promises.

On the one hand, Lee has repeatedly spoken of the need to draw North Korea into dialogue. To pursue that goal, one would logically need to reduce military activity, including the very exercises that North Korea constantly condemns as rehearsals for aggression.

On the other hand, because North Korea says it will not negotiate with Seoul regardless of whether conservatives or Democrats are in power – on the grounds that South Korea lacks real agency – the more realistic promise from Lee’s side has been the restoration of wartime operational control.

At present, if a major war breaks out, South Korea’s armed forces do not answer directly to the South Korean president but to the so-called Combined Forces Command – effectively, to the Americans.

This arrangement was originally created to prevent South Korea’s first president, Syngman Rhee, from dragging the peninsula into a second Korean War. Today, however, it is widely viewed in South Korea as a limitation on sovereignty. Lee Jae Myung loudly promised that by the end of his presidential term, in 2030, he would restore this operational control.

But there is a catch.

For that to happen, South Korean generals have to show that they can solve complex strategic tasks as effectively as their American counterparts. And for that, regular, large-scale exercises are necessary. By reducing the scale of the exercises, Trump struck directly at that ambition.

Lee was, of course, forced to put on a brave face and say that the reduction of the drills would indeed send the right signal to North Korea.

But in reality, the far more important and painful consequence was that the exercises would no longer provide the full opportunity to rehearse what is required for the transfer of operational control.

And after that, as we can now see, Seoul’s position on assisting the US against Iran shifted in a direction more convenient for Washington.

That is why this matters. North Korea, naturally, criticized both the US-South Korea drills and the trilateral exercises with Japan. But what is crucial here is this: the bilateral drills were cut back, while the trilateral drills continue just fine. And that says a great deal about Washington’s real goals in the region.

EU candidate countries should cut ties US President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement as they conflict with Brussels’ long-term interests, European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos has said.

Speaking at a Centre for European Policy Studies event in Brussels on Tuesday, Kos warned that prospective members should not develop relations with outside powers that could pull them away from the EU.

”We should not risk our future members building dependencies on others that run counter to our long-term interest,” she said.

Kos singled out Trump’s political movement, saying the Brussels faces “pressure from the West, from the MAGA ideologists who try to persuade us that our European civilization is in decline, that our economy is in decline, and that we don’t have the right democracy.”

Her remarks come as the Trump administration has sought closer political and economic ties with nationalist and conservative forces in Europe. Washington’s National Security Strategy, released last year, accused the EU of undermining “political liberty and sovereignty” and pledged to encourage “resistance to Europe’s current trajectory” while cultivating ties with “patriotic European parties.”

Kos also claimed that the EU is facing “adversaries” seeking to influence its enlargement process. “For the first time in history, we have adversaries in the enlargement process,” she said. Asked whom she meant, Kos replied: “Clearly, Russia is one of them.”

The comments come amid growing US economic engagement in the Western Balkans, where several countries are seeking EU membership. American-linked projects have been pursued in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania, including a controversial resort development connected to Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Kos has argued that enlargement should strengthen the EU amid growing geopolitical competition, saying last month that the process must adapt to a world in which “old alliances are fading and new ones emerging.”

History doesn’t repeat itself, not even as farce, and thus the latest chapter in the centuries-long confrontation between Russia and Europe will look different from those that came before it.

Today, the German authorities are closing Russian cultural and diplomatic institutions on flimsy pretexts and Norway is seizing Russian research vessels – and while the methods are new, the underlying impulse is familiar. Europe has sought to constrain Russia’s independence since at least the late 15th century.

For now, however, European governments aren’t seeking direct military confrontation, but this should not be mistaken for pacifism in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, or London – nor should we take seriously their ritual declarations about dialogue and a new regional security architecture, given there are more practical reasons for their restraint.

First, Western Europe’s largest states lack the human and material resources for a war with Russia, and although their position is somewhat better when it comes to weapons, much of that capacity is already being directed toward Ukraine, whose population is being asked to make enormous sacrifices in pursuit of European objectives.

However, the European people show little appetite for these sacrifices, mainly because living standards haven’t deteriorated nearly enough to persuade ordinary Germans, Italians, French, and British people to march into a conflict with Russia. Nor should anyone place much faith in Poland or the rest of Eastern Europe because Warsaw’s increasingly belligerent rhetoric disguises a much weaker willingness to actually fight.

Second, the Europeans understand that their American patrons have no desire to become embroiled in a potentially fatal confrontation with Moscow. The supposed American nuclear umbrella over Europe has always contained an element of mythology, and the region’s leaders understood this even during the Cold War.

France’s development of an independent nuclear deterrent was itself an acknowledgement that Europe could not assume that the US would risk its own destruction on their behalf. Charles de Gaulle and his successors didn’t build this arsenal because they were confident of American guarantees.

Nobody in Europe, therefore, seriously believes that Russia can be easily defeated in a war, because if they did, the temptation to attempt it would be much greater.

Yet these rational calculations run up against a more subjective danger, and we shouldn’t overestimate the European elite’s instinct for self-preservation.

Unlike Russia or China, Western Europe has experienced no comparable replacement of its ruling elites over the past 150 years, meaning today’s political establishments are, in an important sense, descendants of those that led Europe into the First and Second World Wars.

Western European politicians, particularly German and British, have historically displayed a tendency towards adventurism. Indeed, George Kennan, an astute observer of political cultures, drew a revealing contrast in his 1946 Long Telegram where Russian foreign policy, he wrote, “is neither schematic nor adventurist” and “doesn’t take unnecessary risks,” but the same cannot always be said of Europe.

The US, for all its willingness to use military force, generally prefers overwhelming odds, which is why its habit is to attack when it is confident that the opponent can’t inflict unacceptable damage in return. This makes the Americans, in a certain sense, more predictable and therefore more amenable to diplomacy. Even at the height of American unipolar power, Washington harbored few illusions about what a direct war with Russia would entail.

Europe has a more troubling historical record and its powers have repeatedly created dangerous situations that ultimately escaped their control, with World War II as the supreme example. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and Germany’s invasion more than a century later were also enormous gambles, courses of action that appeared reckless even to many contemporaries.

For the moment, Europe is conducting its struggle against Russia primarily through indirect means because it lacks the resources for something more ambitious and retains enough sound judgment to recognize the dangers of escalation – but it would be reckless for Moscow to assume this restraint will last forever.

With every new stage of confrontation, European governments are burning bridges that might have otherwise supported a more balanced system of coexistence. Seen in this context, Russia’s decision to close the Goethe Institutes isn’t merely a symmetrical response to German measures, but also makes sense in the long term.

Whether we like it or not, cultural and humanitarian cooperation has increasingly become an instrument of state policy, though exceptions remain. Russian and French museum professionals, for example, continue to work together on some projects, as do academics and cultural figures in other fields, but these relationships have become increasingly subordinate to the logic of soft power.

Even seemingly innocuous forms of international cooperation are now expected to serve national objectives, and this is regrettable – but it reflects the expansion of modern foreign policy far beyond traditional diplomacy. Governments can use funding and institutions to influence almost every sphere of international contact.

Russia isn’t entirely different in this respect. We too often judge educational and cultural cooperation by its political consequences, and governments and the public naturally ask why money should be spent on international projects if they produce no discernible benefit for the country that funds them.

But in Western countries, these demands are particularly pronounced, so institutions such as the Goethe-Institut cannot realistically be separated from Germany’s broader foreign-policy objectives, and German officials inevitably expect publicly supported cultural organizations to influence attitudes towards Germany and advance the country’s interests.

The result is paradoxical: The political burden placed upon cultural institutions eventually undermines the very value of the relationships they were created to foster.

Perhaps the erosion of these old forms of cooperation is therefore unavoidable and it may even prove necessary if future cultural and academic contacts are to become less dependent on the political climate in European capitals.

For now, however, Russia faces a more immediate problem, in which European leaders remain afraid of direct confrontation, yet their own decisions are steadily pulling them deeper into a spiral of confrontation.

Their caution is real, but history gives Russia little reason to assume that caution will always prevail over adventurism – and that requires vigilance from Moscow and the resolve to act accordingly.

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

Israel must do more to explain to its nationals how they are expected to behave in Thailand, according to remarks by Bangkok’s foreign minister, Sihasak Phuangketkeow.

Sihasak, who also serves as deputy prime minister, met Israeli Ambassador Alona Fisher-Kamm on Tuesday following a series of scandalous and potentially criminal incidents involving Israeli nationals that have stirred tensions in Thailand.

“Thailand is a country that welcomes tourists. But welcoming tourists does not mean that visitors, regardless of nationality, can do whatever they want in Thailand,” the minister told the press. “Visitors must understand and respect Thai culture and traditions,” just as Thai tourists must when traveling abroad.

Fisher-Kamm, who indicated ahead of the meeting that she wanted to raise concerns about growing hostility toward Israelis and Jews in Thailand, described the discussion with Sihasak as “good and open” and said it touched on “close cooperation in agriculture, labour, healthcare, and cybersecurity.”

Sihasak said he had requested that West Jerusalem be more engaged with tourists and residents of Thailand, which hosts large communities of Israeli citizens in Phangnga and Phuket, to ensure appropriate behavior.

Dual deportation case as Thailand tightens screws on troublemakers

Thailand, a country long known for tourist-oriented nightlife, is seeking to distance itself from its reputation as a destination for debauchery and attract other types of visitors, including families and people interested in ecotourism.

The policy shift coincides with changing attitudes toward foreigners among parts of the local population, particularly in cases where visitors are seen as disruptive to public order. The government has introduced several measures, including shorter visa terms and easier deportation procedures, aimed at dealing with troublemakers.

Last Friday, Israeli national Jacob Ohayon became the first foreigner to be expelled under the new deportation rules. A Thai court had sentenced him to a suspended 15-day jail term and imposed a fine over a dispute with the owners of Samui Exotic Park, a Thai woman and a French man.

The dispute stemmed from their flying a Palestinian flag, which Ohayon objected to in a manner that Thai authorities ruled violated local law. Among other things, the Israeli organized an online review-bombing campaign against their amusement venue in Ko Samui and issued personal threats.

The threats ultimately cost Ohayon his right to remain in Thailand, with Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, who also serves as interior minister, personally signing the deportation order. The French man, Kevin Dimino, was likewise expelled over his harassing and physically abusive behavior during the confrontation.

Sihasak cited the case, stressing that “anyone, regardless of nationality, who violates Thai law must face strict enforcement.” The foreign minister added that Bangkok values its good relations with Israel, where more than 60,000 Thai workers are currently employed.

On September 7, 2026, a high-level Jamaican delegation delivered a historic legal petition to Buckingham Palace addressed to King Charles III. Its objective was to compel the monarch, as Jamaica’s head of state, to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the island’s highest court of appeal, three questions that have haunted the British Empire for centuries. Was the forced transportation of Africans to Jamaica and their subsequent enslavement lawful? Did this system constitute a crime against humanity? Does the United Kingdom bear an obligation to make reparation for slavery and its enduring consequences?

Culture Minister Olivia Grange, who led the delegation, shared a photo on X of herself holding the document aloft, captioned: “The petition has been filed.” King Charles III was not present at the handover. British media reported he was on vacation at the time, though Buckingham Palace said it had worked closely with the Governor General of Jamaica to ensure the petition was properly lodged.

Why the date is no coincidence

The day before, on Sunday, September 6, the delegation had taken part in a church service in south London under the theme of “remembrance, justice and repair,” ahead of the formal filing the following day. This timing is no accident: September 6 commemorates the 1781 departure of the slave ship Zong, aboard which more than 140 enslaved Africans were thrown into the sea so their owners could collect an insurance payout. That crime, unpunished for 245 years, now stands as the symbol of a justice the diaspora refuses to let fade into oblivion.

“In relation to the wrongs that were done, we want answers,” Grange told the Associated Press the day before the filing. “Once we get those answers, then our attorneys will determine what the next move is.”

This petition is part of a strategy, built step by step by Jamaica’s National Council on Reparations chaired by Laleta Davis Mattis, with the support of a legal subcommittee led by attorney Bert Samuels, and a team of UK lawyers. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has thrown its full weight behind the effort proof that this question reaches beyond the borders of a single island. The entire post-slavery Caribbean is rising behind Jamaica.

The UN slavery resolution as a first step

But it is precisely here that Jamaica’s fight joins Africa’s own, and this link must now be made visible, since Western media have worked hard to keep it quiet. On March 25, 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted, on Ghana’s initiative, resolution A/RES/80/250 – the very first resolution in UN history devoted exclusively to slavery and the transatlantic slave trade.

One hundred and twenty-three states voted in favor. Only three opposed it: the United States, Israel, and Argentina. Fifty-two countries, mostly European including the United Kingdom itself, chose to hide behind abstention.

The resolution designates the transatlantic trafficking of Africans and racialized chattel enslavement as the “gravest crime against humanity.” Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, speaking on behalf of the African Group of 54 states, the UN’s largest regional bloc, declared that voting for the text meant standing on the right side of history. It calls for the restitution of looted cultural property, formal apologies, and opens the door to the consideration of financial compensation. This is an international normative framework, patiently built by the African Union since February 2024, when it proclaimed 2025 the “Year of Justice for Africans through Reparations for Slavery, Colonialism, and Apartheid.”

Jamaican jurist Bert Samuels was not mistaken when he stated that this UN resolution strengthens Jamaica’s legal position against London. Here is the thread that binds Accra to Kingston, the African motherland to the diaspora torn from it. A single struggle is fought on two complementary fronts – one continental and diplomatic, the other insular and judicial, both aimed at the same goal of making the former empire pay for four centuries of human plunder.

A history of reversed debts

To grasp the full weight of this gesture, one must recall that Haiti, the first free black nation of the modern era, was forced in 1825 to pay France a colossal indemnity to “compensate” former slave owners for the loss of their “human property” – a debt that bled Haiti’s economy for more than a century. History, as written by the colonial powers, long decreed that it was the enslavers who deserved compensation, never the enslaved.

Jamaica’s petition overturns this criminal logic. It is no longer the victims who owe the executioner, it is the executioner who must now answer to its victims. This reversal builds on groundwork laid over more than a decade by the CARICOM itself, which as early as 2013 adopted its own ten-point plan for reparatory justice, demanding formal apologies, debt cancellation, technology transfers, and public health programs to offset the health devastation bequeathed by slavery.

The September 7 filing is therefore the legal culmination of a long matured Caribbean strategy that has now chosen to confront head on, in a court of law, the very institution that sanctioned and protected the slave system: the British Crown.

What it means for the diaspora

For the African diaspora across Africa, the Americas, Europe, and the Caribbean alike, this filing is experienced as a long-deferred reckoning. For generations, our elders awaited a political gesture of this magnitude – a formal legal demand addressed directly to the head of the house that organized, financed, and profited from the trade.

Reparations movements that once fought each in their own corner Caribbean organizations, Afro-descendant collectives in the Americas, African diasporas in Europe, activists on the continent itself are beginning to speak with a single voice, carried by recognized institutions: the African Union on one side, CARICOM on the other, and now the UN as a global sounding board.

In West Africa, Jamaica’s move is being followed with particular attention, seen as the natural extension of the fight President Mahama carried to the UN stage. The Africa that watched its children leave in chains is, four centuries later, reunited with a part of its diaspora now come to knock, together, on the same imperial door. In Southern Africa, where the memory of apartheid remains raw, many Pan-African organizations see in this filing further proof that struggles for historical justice slavery, colonialism, apartheid can no longer be treated separately, but must be understood as a single, unified case against the West.

In Europe, among Afro-descendant communities in France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom itself, Jamaica’s petition serves as both a signal of hope and a painful reminder: That our own states of origin or residence still drag their feet on these questions, while little Jamaica, with its modest means, dared to carry the fight directly to the monarch’s door. In the Americas, Afro-descendant movements from Brazil to Colombia are also watching this case closely, seeing in it a potential legal precedent that could be mobilized for their own claims against the former Iberian colonial powers.

This convergence is visibly rattling Western capitals. The United Kingdom’s vote – an abstention, that is, a refusal to choose – speaks volumes about the quiet panic setting in London. One can sense, in the remarks of certain British political figures, particularly within Euroskeptic and identitarian factions, a desire to ridicule Jamaica’s move, to dismiss it as an expensive whim or a political stunt.

The united voice to reclaim the debt

Critical voices, including within the Pan-African movement itself, warn of the risks inherent in the path Kingston has chosen. Entrusting a body like the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – an institution shaped by the British colonial order itself – with judging the legality of slavery risks a ruling that the trade was, at the time, perfectly “lawful” under the British law then in force. Such a verdict, should it come to pass, would hand Western governments a legal argument to close the reparations file for good.

Some observers have already noted that the Privy Council may look at this petition with a degree of skepticism not over whether slavery was wrong, but over the unusual nature of the legal procedure being invoked.

This is why the battle must never be reduced to this single procedure. Jamaica’s strength lies precisely in waging the fight on multiple fronts at once: the legal path before the Privy Council, the diplomatic path through CARICOM, and now the backing of international law embodied in Ghana’s UN resolution. Prime Minister Andrew Holness has, moreover, announced plans to sever ties with the British Crown and transform his country into a republic – a signal that a rejection of the petition by London could, paradoxically, accelerate that rupture rather than prevent it.

None of these paths, taken alone, will be enough. It is their combination that builds the leverage.

When the Jamaican delegation crossed the palace threshold to deliver its petition, it was the echo of 123 nations gathered in New York this past March 25. It was the voice of the African Union, of Ghanaian President Mahama, of reparations movements from Accra to Bridgetown, from Lagos to Brooklyn. It was the voice of an entire diaspora that now refuses to let the history of slavery remain a closed chapter that was never paid for.

South African motorists could face record petrol prices from October as the ongoing war in the Middle East has pushed global oil prices close to $100 per barrel for the first time since July.

The latest data from the Central Energy Fund points to increases of about R2 ($0.12) per liter for petrol. This would push the price of 95 ULP up to R28.05 at the coast and R28.92 in Gauteng, beating June’s all-time highs of R27.19 and R28.05, respectively.

Diesel is also set for a significant increase, with the data pointing to hikes of between R1.50 for 500ppm and R1.80 for 50ppm. This will push the price of 50ppm up to R30.29 at the coast and R31.85 inland, close to its all-time highs of R30.62 and R31.38, seen earlier this year.

This warning does come with a disclaimer, as the predictions are based on early-month data, which is a moving target, as much can still transpire in the markets between now and the end of this month.

However, with no signs of the Middle East war de-escalating any time soon, leaving uncertainty around the critical Strait of Hormuz oil passage, the risk is currently skewed towards higher oil prices for the foreseeable future.

October’s predicted increases come in the wake of steep price hikes in September, when petrol rose by R1.34 per litre and diesel by between R2.94 and R3.15.

Higher fuel prices can push up inflation and squeeze household spending. Transport, food and other goods become more expensive as fuel costs feed through supply chains, while motorists have less disposable income to spend elsewhere. That can weigh on economic growth. The Reserve Bank has warned that higher fuel prices can raise inflation while weakening consumption and growth.

First published by IOL

Washington could help bring the Ukraine conflict to an end sooner by stopping all assistance to Kiev, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said, commenting on the latest phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump.

The two leaders spoke by phone on Tuesday in the wake of a new round of shuttle diplomacy that saw Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner visit Moscow and Kiev over the weekend.

The issue came up as the two presidents discussed ways to reach a settlement of the conflict, Ushakov told journalist Pavel Zarubin on Wednesday. Asked what Washington could do to bring the hostilities to an end sooner, the Kremlin aide said that “first and foremost, [it could] probably stop providing any assistance to Kiev.”

The official acknowledged that US assistance to Ukraine had already “declined significantly” since Trump returned to the White House, compared with the previous administration, when military aid “was provided on a massive scale.”

The two presidents also discussed resuming talks with the Ukrainian side, including in trilateral format that would include the US mediators, Ushakov added.

Trump said he had a “great” conversation with Putin, adding that the Russian president did want “to make a deal.” If Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky “is wanting to make ⁠a deal, that’d be very nice,” he told reporters on Wednesday before boarding Air Force One en route to Dallas for the GOP National Convention.

Moscow has repeatedly said it is ready to settle the Ukraine conflict as long as its root causes are addressed and the realities on the ground are taken into account. 

Russia’s demands include Ukraine abandoning its plans to join NATO and adopting neutral status, accepting restrictions on its armed forces, and formally recognizing Crimea and four other former Ukrainian regions as Russian territory. Crimea voted to join Russia shortly after the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions held similar referendums in September 2022.

Kiev has consistently rejected Moscow’s demands on territorial and security issues, insisting on restoring control over all territories it lays claim to and joining NATO.

Moscow has repeatedly cited Kiev’s aggressive posture, as well as the position of its European backers as major obstacles to a peace settlement.

On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the several European leaders calling for a ceasefire were actually seeking to preserve an “openly Russophobic and aggressive neo-Nazi regime” in Kiev, adding that the Russian people would never accept this outcome.

There is a more than 10% chance that artificial intelligence could wipe out humanity within the next ten years, a senior Anthropic researcher has warned amid mounting concerns over increasingly powerful systems slipping beyond human control.

Evan Hubinger, who works on aligning advanced AI systems with human interests, made the assessment after fellow Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned over fears that leading tech companies are racing toward systems they may not be able to keep in check.

“We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans,” Hubinger wrote on X on Wednesday. “I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.” He added that Anthropic is “trying its best” but still does not have a plan for safely controlling superintelligence and is “not clearly on track” to find one.

Hubinger noted that while current AI models pose a low risk, there is concern that future systems could begin improving themselves recursively, rapidly becoming more capable than humans before adequate safeguards are developed.

Coxon, who previously worked at OpenAI, announced his departure from Anthropic on Tuesday, accusing both companies of ignoring the “civilizational stakes” and “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.”

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” he wrote, insisting the warnings were “not a marketing stunt.”

Coxon told the Wall Street Journal that the most aggressive scenarios could see things become “out of control” as early as the end of 2027. He argued that even companies with strong safety programs remain trapped in a race, fearing competitors will push ahead if they slow down.

Both Anthropic and OpenAI publicly say they take the risks seriously and are heavily investing in safety measures. Their leaders have also backed calls for greater government coordination and mechanisms to slow development if necessary, but have nevertheless continued to develop increasingly powerful models.

The latest warnings come amid growing reports of AI agents, such as those developed by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, repeatedly breaking out of testing environments, hacking external systems and taking unauthorized actions against real people and organizations. OpenAI temporarily slowed some development last month after its model compromised the Hugging Face platform.

Britain’s AI Security Institute has also reported agents creating fake identities, writing malicious code, and attempting to manipulate people during evaluations. Researchers have meanwhile demonstrated that AI can design entire functional viral genomes, adding to concerns over how increasingly capable systems could be misused.

The first edition of the International Industrial Trade Fair INNOPROM. India opened on September 9 at the Bharat Mandapam exhibition complex in New Delhi, bringing together more than 130 Russian and Indian companies.

The event, taking place in Pavilion No. 1, is being held ahead of the 18th BRICS Summit. It is organized by the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade and India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The operators are Formika Event LLC on the Russian side and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) on the Indian side.

Organizers said the Russian and Indian national sections were given equal exhibition space. The Russian side features some of the country’s largest state corporations and industrial firms, including Rostec, Rosatom, Roscosmos, United Aircraft Corporation, United Engine Corporation, Sber, Natsproektstroy, Transmashholding, RUSAL, PhosAgro, the Center for Research and Development in Advanced Technologies, A7, and Arnest.

Regional group stands from Moscow, Tatarstan, Krasnodar Krai, and the Chelyabinsk Region are also part of the exhibition, along with companies taking part in a business mission organized by the Russian Export Center. The Russia National Centre has a separate stand displaying traditional Russian folk arts and crafts.

India’s section includes major companies and institutions from sectors such as metallurgy, mining, digital technology, transport engineering, textiles, energy, and oil and gas. Among the participants are MECON, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), NMDC, MOIL, Central Electronics Ltd., RVNL, Titagarh Rail Systems, Tata Power, ITC Group, KABIL, Shatei Engineering, and Bansal Spinning Mills.

A notable part of the fair is the focus on cultural showcases. Organizers have set aside special demonstration areas for traditional Russian and Indian arts and crafts, where local producers are holding master classes for visitors.

Business matchmaking is also a major theme of the fair. The Russian Export Center and the Confederation of Indian Industry have created networking zones at the venue to help companies identify suppliers and customers and to discuss potential joint projects.

“INNOPROM provides an important platform for bringing together representatives of industry, technology providers, investors, and government institutions from India and Russia to explore new opportunities for cooperation,” said Vishnu Sharma, Deputy Director General for Corporate Affairs and Marketing at the National Industrial Corridor Development Corporation (NICDC).

He added that India is developing “world-class industrial smart cities” and said platforms such as INNOPROM support direct engagement with Russian and other international firms, while helping them enter the Indian market and expand their presence there.

According to Sharma, such cooperation could help turn the growing economic relationship between the two countries into “tangible investments, manufacturing localization, technology partnerships, and the creation of new industrial ecosystems in India.”

The trade fair’s business program is running on September 9 and 10, with discussions focused on expanding Russian-Indian trade, economic and industrial ties. Participants are expected to address potential cooperation in industry and high-tech fields, as well as new business opportunities.

The central event will be the main plenary session on September 10, titled “Enhancing Russian-Indian Trade and Industrial Partnership: Towards Greater Self-Reliance.” It is set to feature Russian Industry and Trade Minister Anton Alikhanov and Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal.

Officials from both delegations are also expected to tour the exhibition on the second and third days of the fair.

Leading Russian aviation, space, and engineering companies are showcasing their technology at the first INNOPROM. India industrial fair in New Delhi, as the two countries seek to expand trade and industrial cooperation.

The three-day fair features Russian products and technologies across sectors including aviation, space, advanced manufacturing, and industrial engineering.

Aviation is a big area of focus as India, the world’s third-largest aviation market, is looking for planes to increase connectivity between its regional hubs and fast-growing tier-2 and tier-3 cities.

India’s state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has a cooperation agreement with Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) for the SJ-100 program in India. UAC will also supply six Ilyushin Il-114-300 aircraft to Indian regional carrier Flamingo Aerospace.

The UAC booth features models of the SJ-100, Il-114-300, and MC-21-310 aircraft, alongside a model of the PD-8 turbofan engine used on the SJ-100. UAC head Vadim Badekha said in June that Indian carriers have expressed interest in the planes. Multiple agreements are expected to be signed, RT India reported.

Russian Aircraft Take Centre Stage at INNOPROM.India

The IL-114-300, SJ-100 and MC-21-310 - Russia’s flagship next-generation, fully import-substituted commercial aircraft - highlight the growing 🇮🇳-🇷🇺 collaboration in aviation.

Partnerships involving UAC, HAL and Flamingo… pic.twitter.com/f4KfXDFFs9

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) September 9, 2026

Russia’s state space corporation (Roscosmos) is also represented at the fair. India’s space program has longstanding ties to the Soviet and Russian space programs, with cooperation continuing in areas including India’s planned crewed spaceflight program.

Other exhibits include industrial robots, detector technology used in nuclear power plants, and smart devices, reflecting cooperation extending beyond aviation and space into industrial technology and automation.

India and Russia are accelerating efforts to reach the bilateral trade target of $100 billion, which was set during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to New Delhi in December. Putin is set to return to the Indian capital this week for the BRICS summit.

Tooling Up! RT India's @aditi_mishra19 At INNOPROM.India Takes A Look At How 🇷🇺's DOKA Robots Can Lend A Hand - Literally - To 🇮🇳's Pharma & Food Industries pic.twitter.com/xZpM7TlL7U

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) September 9, 2026

INNOPROM.India: How Sound Waves Are Helping Keep Kudankulam NPP Safer

Echoplus’ ultrasonic flaw detector uses sound waves to identify defects deep inside materials without damaging them – the tech is deployed at 🇮🇳’s Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant to support safer, more reliable… pic.twitter.com/iCiO2w69bQ

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) September 9, 2026

The two countries are also seeking to expand industrial cooperation beyond trade. Russia is ready to expand technology-sharing and industrial cooperation with India, Deputy Industry and Trade Minister Roman Chekushov said last week.

“We will be present in those sectors where we are strong... in key areas such as transport infrastructure, communication, space, and the fuel and energy complex, chemicals, including both organic and inorganic,” the vice president of Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Vladimir Padalko, told RT India. “Everything related to food security in India, and of course, digital transformations, artificial intelligence.”

The fair has brought together more than 120 Russian and Indian companies. The plenary session on Thursday will be attended by Russian Industry and Trade Minister Anton Alikhanov and Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal.

INNOPROM. India is organized by the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade and India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry, with support from Formika Events and the Confederation of Indian Industry. The Russian Trade Representation in India is also supporting the event.

Russia has begun training Ugandan health specialists in infection-control measures, Russia’s public health watchdog announced on Tuesday. The program comes as the East African nation remains on alert for Ebola, which continues to spread in neighboring DR Congo and has killed more than 3,200 people.

Ten specialists from Uganda’s Health Ministry and leading research institutions are taking part in the two-week course at the Erisman Institute of Disinfectology, according to Rospotrebnadzor.

The training covers Russia’s regulatory framework, methods, and equipment for disinfection, insect, and rodent control, as well as zoological and entomological surveillance. Participants will also conduct practical exercises and fieldwork. The initiative is part of its broader program to help African countries prevent infectious diseases and strengthen epidemiological preparedness.

Uganda was declared free of Ebola on August 27 after recording no new infections for 42 days. The outbreak, which began in May, caused 20 confirmed cases and two deaths in the country. Fifteen infections were imported from DR Congo, while five occurred among contacts and health workers linked to those cases, the authorities said.

Surveillance has continued due to the risk of further cross-border transmission. DR Congo has recorded 6,686 confirmed cases and 3,226 deaths, according to official figures reported on September 7.

The epidemic has reached 61 health zones across six provinces. The World Health Organization (WHO) has assessed the risk within DR Congo as ‘very high’, citing sustained transmission, armed conflict, displacement, and weaknesses in the healthcare system. It has identified Uganda, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan as particularly vulnerable to cross-border cases.

No vaccine or specific treatment has been approved for the Bundibugyo strain driving the outbreak, which the WHO has classified as a public health emergency of international concern.

Russia sent epidemiologists to Uganda in May to assist with outbreak investigations. Rospotrebnadzor said in July that Russia also delivered thousands of Ebola diagnostic test kits to DR Congo, Uganda, and the Republic of the Congo.

Moscow donated a mobile anti-epidemic laboratory to Uganda in 2024 and has supplied similar facilities to several other African countries, including Burundi, Ethiopia, Namibia, and the Republic of the Congo. More than 80 Ugandan specialists have received training in pathogen monitoring, disinfectology, laboratory diagnostics, and biosafety from Rospotrebnadzor’s scientific institutions, the agency said in May.

European leaders calling for a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict are seeking to preserve the government in Kiev in its current aggressive anti-Russian form, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Even politicians who acknowledge that Kiev cannot militarily retake the former Ukrainian regions that have joined Russia since 2014 and now advocate a truce are pursuing an agenda that threatens Russia and its citizens, the top diplomat said. Speaking in an interview on Tuesday, Lavrov named Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as examples.

The proposed ceasefire “is also just a way to buy time, as everyone knows,” Lavrov said, adding that Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “makes no secret of that” as he seeks additional weapons supplies.

According to the Russian minister, the goal of this ploy is to preserve and keep in power “the regime currently ruling in Kiev,” whose defining traits he described as “Nazism, aggressive Russophobia, violations of human rights, language rights and religious freedom.”

As for Europe, it wants to preserve that openly Russophobic and aggressive neo-Nazi regime. It is the European plan. I don’t see how the Russian people can accept this outcome.

Moscow’s objections to freezing the conflict remain unchanged, as does its opposition to proposals to deploy troops from NATO member states in Ukraine following a potential peace deal, Lavrov said.

“Any people in military uniforms and any military facilities will be legitimate [targets] for us, and no scenario under which Ukraine will acquire NATO membership in all but name is acceptable to us,” he stressed.

Lavrov was interviewed in Moscow by Russian-American television host Dimitri Simes and visiting US political commentator Andrew Napolitano, better known as Judge Napolitano, after his former role on the New Jersey Superior Court.

Global oil prices have surpassed $100 per barrel as escalating fighting between the US and Iran, and Houthi attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure, raised fears of further supply disruptions. Brent crude broke the threshold for the first time in nearly two months.

Brent futures climbed 2.2% to $100.07 per barrel in Asian trading, their highest level since July 24. US benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) rose 1.83% to $94.73, while Brent has gained around 25% since early August as hopes of a lasting settlement to the US-Iran conflict have faded.

“Recent developments only reinforce the view that we’re still some way from a restart in talks. In the meantime, the market is likely to continue to price in a sizeable risk premium,” ING commodities strategists Warren Patterson and Ewa Manthey wrote in a note early Wednesday.

The latest price surge followed a sharp escalation at sea. US forces struck five Iranian crude carriers on Tuesday, and Iran later claimed that it hit two US vessels and eight oil tankers in the Persian Gulf in retaliation, inflicting “significant damage.”

The attacks came after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued an “urgent warning” to tanker crews near Bahrain and Kuwait to abandon their ships, saying vessels in the area would be targeted. Ballistic missiles were subsequently launched from Iran toward US military facilities across the region, including those in Jordan, where air defenses intercepted 18 of 20 incoming missiles, according to the military.

The maritime confrontation has become an increasingly prominent front in the conflict. The US has restricted traffic to and from Iranian ports, while Tehran has imposed controls on passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital energy route that handled around a fifth of global oil supplies before the war.

Supply concerns have also intensified after Yemen’s Houthis launched missile and drone attacks on energy facilities in southern Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. The strikes reportedly forced temporary shutdowns and sparked a fire at the Jazan refinery, a major Saudi Aramco facility capable of processing 400,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

Ukraine wants its Western donors to supply highly sought-after Patriot interceptors from their own stockpiles, which would be replenished later with 1,000 missiles that Kiev plans to purchase with EU money.

The unorthodox proposal was outlined on Tuesday by Ukrainian Defense Minister Evgeny Khmara during a video call with Western arms donors. It comes amid a global shortage of US-made weapons, with Ukraine competing for supplies against numerous other countries while arguing that its need to intercept Russian ballistic missiles should take priority.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky previously sought to secure 300 Patriot interceptors for the upcoming winter. His reported effort to impress US President Donald Trump with long-range strikes on Russian refineries and e-commerce warehouses has produced no clear results.

The attacks were allegedly intended to persuade Trump to approve additional Patriot supplies. Kiev also overspent Western donor funds while pursuing the strategy and has a $27 billion military budget deficit.

Speaking to members of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, Khmara said his country is contracting 1,000 Patriot missiles “through the EU loan,” but acknowledged that the purchase does not resolve the immediate shortage.

“The majority of these missiles will only start to be shipped in the coming years, which is why we ask that you supply us the missiles from your stockpiles today in exchange for future improved missiles from our contracts,” he said.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said at the same meeting that Berlin is working to provide additional Patriot interceptors of the older PAC-2 model from its own stocks, along with air-to-air missiles that Ukraine uses against Russian drones and cruise missiles, including from Western-donated F-16 fighter jets.

Western Europe’s purse remains open for Kiev

The meeting, co-chaired by Pistorius and British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting, coincided with announcements from both the EU and the UK regarding their respective aid programs.

Together with @SecGenNATO Rutte, I welcome the agreement by Member States on the derogation for Ukraine to purchase crucial products for Patriot air defence systems.

The next disbursement of €3.2 billion will enable Ukraine to better protect its skies from Russia’s…

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) September 8, 2026

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the disbursement of €3.2 billion ($3.7 billion) under the Ukraine Support Loan mechanism, saying the funds “will enable Ukraine to better protect its skies.”

The British government pledged a £100 million ($136 million) “winter air defense package,” with the money slated to be spent on US-made weapons through NATO’s Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) program.

Trump’s mediation efforts renewed

Trump has sought to distance the US from the Ukraine conflict, arguing that European NATO members should bear more of the burden of the prolonged hostilities with Russia. Last week, his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner visited Moscow and Kiev as part of an effort to revive US-mediated peace talks.

The latest US proposal contains “worse” terms for Ukraine than those previously on the table, according to Ukrainian MP Anna Skorokhod. Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August 2025 to discuss a possible off-ramp in the conflict, but Zelensky rejected key terms sought by Moscow.

In June, Zelensky announced a 40-day “pressure campaign” involving an escalation of long-range attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure and trade. Moscow retaliated with strikes that left Ukrainian ports effectively cut off from maritime routes.

Western intervention in Libya worsened the security crises facing Nigeria and the Sahel by creating a vacuum that allowed armed groups to spread across the region, Nigerian Senator Yahaya Abubakar Abdullahi told RT.

Abdullahi, who chairs the Senate Committee on National Intelligence and National Security, said that although the West African nation faced security challenges before the 2011 NATO-backed overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, it was able to contain them.

He argued that Western governments removed Gaddafi “without any proper arrangement to maintain the security and unity of the Libyan state,” opening a major security gap across the Sahel.

“Several groups, armed groups, emerged. Some of them with religious agendas, some of them with ethnic agendas, some of them with separatist positions.”

Nigeria has experienced an upsurge in militant attacks, village raids, and mass abductions in recent months, driven by Boko Haram, the Islamic State West Africa Province, and armed gangs known locally as bandits. Officials have also linked the Lakurawa group operating near the borders with Niger and Benin to Islamic State networks in the Sahel. The Nigerian military said its forces killed more than 324 “terrorists and other criminals,” arrested 373 suspects, and rescued 610 abductees in August alone.

Some attacks have specifically targeted Christian communities, including coordinated raids on three churches in Kaduna State in January in which more than 150 worshipers were abducted.

The violence drew criticism from US President Donald Trump, who designated Nigeria a “country of particular concern” last October over alleged violations of religious freedom, and claimed that Christianity faces an “existential threat” in the country. Trump threatened to halt US aid if Abuja fails to stop what he described as the killing of Christians.

Abuja rejected the characterization, saying it does not reflect the country’s reality or government efforts to protect religious freedom.

On Monday, Senator Abdullahi similarly dismissed claims of a Christian genocide, arguing that Muslims and Christians are both victims and that the violence is primarily rooted in economic problems.

“The issue of Christian genocide is more or less a whitewash, and it’s promoted by people who want action in the United States, not to protect Christians, but to protect those Christians in the diaspora who want asylum in the United States,” he said.

The senator insisted that Abuja is willing to work with the US but will not accept “dictatorship or mentorship.” 
“Nigeria is free to choose who its friends are,” he said, adding that it can work with any country that understands its security needs.

He also praised Russia’s longstanding support for Africa’s most populous nation. Soviet assistance during the 1967-1970 civil war helped preserve Nigeria’s unity after some international partners abandoned the government or backed separatist forces, he said.

The senator was visiting Moscow as part of a delegation seeking cooperation with Russian Railways on rehabilitating infrastructure in northwestern Nigeria. He said the proposed long-term partnership could help transform the region into a transport hub serving Nigeria and the wider West African region.

India saw record defense production of around $18.6 billion, with defense exports jumping by 63% to $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2025-26. Exports were driven by expanding from basic protective gear and ammunition to high-tech systems like BrahMos and Akash missiles, aero-structures, radars, and platforms. Agile private companies and start-ups contributed nearly half of all export value through components, sub-systems, and drones.

India’s major exported hardware includes the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, co-developed by India and Russia, Akash air defence systems, Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launchers, Dornier-228 utility aircraft, Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH Dhruv), Swati weapon-locating radars, Advanced Towed Artillery Gun Systems (ATAGS), naval offshore patrol vessels, fast interceptor boats, lightweight torpedoes, radar systems, avionics, and electronic subsystems.

The Philippines was the first importer of Indo-Russian BrahMos. Indonesia has moved forward with procurement interests following progressive regional agreements, and Vietnam remains in advanced discussions as a key buyer. Over a dozen nations including Malaysia, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Chile, and South Africa have evaluated or expressed formal interest in the BrahMos missile system.

Bulletproof jackets, specialized helmets, and various calibers of conventional ammunition and fuses are exported. Armenia is a major buyer of finished weapon systems, artillery, and multi-barrel rocket launchers. The US and France are major importers of Indian-made raw materials, aerospace sub-systems, electronics, and defense software.

It was recently reported that India is marketing its Russian-origin, battle-tested T-90 Bhishma tank upgrade package to international operators. The offering provides a cost-effective alternative to full fleet replacements, featuring advanced thermal sights, digital fire-control systems, and enhanced protection and mobility packages developed through extensive local operational experience.

T-90 manufacturing hub

The T-90 is a third-generation Russian main battle tank developed from and designed to replace the legendary T-72. The T-90 was designed and built by Uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil, Russia and entered service with the Russian Army in 1992. The tank has been relied upon in major conflicts, including in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia operates hundreds of active T-90, T-90A, and modern T-90M variants within its ground forces. Algeria has around 570 T-90SA tanks, and Azerbaijan has around 200 T-90S units. Iraq, Turkmenistan, Uganda, and Vietnam maintain small fleets.

India is the largest operator of the T-90 main battle tank. The country has so far procured an estimated 2,100 T-90s, making it likely the world’s largest T-90 fleet despite Russia’s wartime procurement surge. Over 1,300 of India’s T-90s are heavily localized T-90S Bhisma units that serve as the core backbone of the Indian Army’s heavy armored mechanized divisions.

The Indian Defense Ministry aims to scale the total fleet up to 1,805 T-90 tanks through ongoing local production and upgrades. India is inducting 464 upgraded T-90 Mk-III (T-90MS) variants featuring advanced digital fire control and thermal imaging sights. While initially imported or assembled via Russian kits, current Indian-produced T-90s feature around 80% domestic components. The tanks have been upgraded with advanced Mid Wave Thermal Image (MWIR) commander sight. On February 3, 2025, the Army released a Request for Information to identify prospective vendors for the development of an active protection system for the T-90S/SK tank fleet important for protection from tandem warheads in top-attack mode. A Counter Unmanned Aerial System (C-UAS) will add to the existing capabilities. Protection from anti-tank guided missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and chemical and kinetic energy munitions is planned. All this without compromising mobility. The new variant tanks will feature new generation ammunition and cannon-launched missiles. Reports also suggest the use of a more efficient and powerful engine.

The Indian Army Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers completed the first complete overhaul of the T-90 Bhishma. This significantly extends the series life in service with the army. Last year, the Indian government also initiated the procurement of 1350 HP engines for T-90 tanks to improve the power-to-weight ratio and increase mobility in high-altitude regions. Among the lessons from the Ukraine conflict, upgrading became important.

The upgrade positions India as an affordable, combat-proven tech and modernization provider rather than just a buyer and allows global T-90 users to modernize vintage hardware without buying new tanks, and India’s broader defense export targets.

Aerospace components

India is also quickly emerging as a major global hub for aerospace manufacturing, exporting around $2 billion worth of aircraft components each year. US aerospace giants such as Boeing already source more than $1.25 billion in parts annually from a wide network of Indian suppliers. This shift is being driven not only by production backlogs in the West, but also by India’s growing engineering capabilities. With factories in the US and Europe under strain, major manufacturers are being forced to diversify their supply chains.

India already manufactures major aero-structures for American aircraft, including wings for the F-16, complete fuselages for the AH-64 Apache, and crown and tail-cone structures for the CH-47 Chinook. Indian companies also produce vertical fin structures, fan cowls, and other subcomponents for the Boeing 737, as well as complex composite floor beams for the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner. For the P-8I Neptune, they supply composite panels for power and mission equipment cabinets, along with auxiliary power unit door fairings. An Indian company also makes transport aircraft parts and structural assemblies for the global C-130 supply chain.

Sikorsky S-92 helicopter cabins are manufactured in India through a joint venture between Tata Advanced Systems Limited and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. Located in Hyderabad, this facility produces fully indigenous cabins and over 5,000 precision components, which are then shipped to the US for final aircraft assembly. Key domestic players like Tata Group, Dynamatic Technologies, Azad Engineering, Mahindra Aerostructures, and Jeh Aerospace build core structural components and sub-assemblies.

Manufacturing has shifted from small, simple parts to complex, multi-meter aero-structures and sub-systems processed from super-alloys and high-grade aluminum. Overall, India’s aerospace components market is expected to grow from $1.5 billion to $4 billion by fiscal year 2029, at an annual rate of 28%.

The role of the private sector

In fiscal year 2025-26, India’s private sector accounted for 24% of total defense production, which reached a record high of about $5 billion. Total defense exports also hit a record $4.6 billion. Of that, the private sector contributed 45%, with the remainder from well-established state-run defense manufacturers.

This growth has been driven by government policies favoring local manufacturing, larger domestic procurement budgets, and restricted import lists.

India’s private defense sector includes units of major industrial conglomerates such as Tata Advanced Systems, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Mahindra Defence Systems, Bharat Forge (Kalyani Group), and Adani Defense & Aerospace. Recently, Reliance Industries – one of India’s largest private conglomerates – announced a tie-up with the UK’s Rolls-Royce to manufacture aero-engines in India.

Companies such as Data Patterns and Astra Microwave produce avionics, electronic-warfare systems, and radar components, while Zen Technologies focuses on anti-drone systems and combat simulation. Solar Industries manufactures precision ammunition and military explosives, and MKU is a major supplier of ballistic protection and military electro-optical equipment, including night-vision and thermal systems.

Growth has been driven by policies that reserve 75% of the military modernization capital budget for domestic firms and by six Positive Indigenization Lists restricting imports of more than 5,500 defense items and sub-assemblies. Notably, India allows up to 74% foreign direct investment through the automatic route to encourage technology transfer.

From licensed production to Indian intellectual property

For decades, India has manufactured Russian defense equipment under license. Much of what is still produced in India is in the ‘build-to-print’ category, where the design – and often the raw materials – are supplied by the foreign original equipment manufacturer (OEM). In effect, India performs the manufacturing work, but control over the end use remains with the OEM. Licensed production grants only a temporary and limited right to make or sell a product; the core technology, source codes, design data, and patents remain with the foreign licensor. This means India cannot freely modify or export the product without permission.

Even in the case of BrahMos, the original design is Russian, though Indian-led improvements are now being incorporated. Because it is an independent joint venture, it offers greater flexibility, especially for exports. Similarly, the T-90 upgrades offered by India are largely based on systems developed domestically. This makes the Indo-Russian model a practical win-win. But defense technology is at the cutting edge: It takes years of research to develop, becomes obsolete quickly, and is rarely shared freely. Countries guard these types of capabilities closely. If India wants to become a genuine defense manufacturer and exporter in its own right, it must build its own design base.

This means investing far more in research and development. India currently spends just 0.6% of GDP on research and development, compared with 2.7% in China and 3.6% in the US. To build real intellectual property at home, India must move beyond assembly-line production and toward original design, software development, and domestic ownership of patents and know-how. Future contracts, joint ventures, and employment arrangements should ensure that intellectual property generated in India remains with Indian entities, rather than defaulting to foreign partners.

Four people, including a child, were killed overnight in Ukrainian drone attacks on the Russian Black Sea port city of Novorossiysk, Krasnodar Region Governor Veniamin Kondratyev has said.

Another 29 people were injured across the city, the official said on Wednesday morning. Three of the victims are in a serious condition, he added.

Novorossiysk is a key hub for Russian maritime trade, which Kiev has been trying to disrupt with regular long-range attacks on ships and port infrastructure.

Kondratyev stressed that only civilian sites were targeted by Ukrainian forces. A church and a kindergarten were damaged, as well as three private homes and five apartment blocks, he reported. Ukrainian strikes also damaged homes in the resort town of Anapa, located some 40 km northwest of Novorossiysk.

Gelendzhik, another resort town in Krasnodar Region to the southeast of Novorossiysk, came under what Mayor Aleksey Bogodistov described as a “most massive and lengthy” drone raid. He did not report any casualties.

Russian air defenses intercepted 596 Ukrainian drones in 12 hours overnight into Wednesday, the Defense Ministry said.

In June, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky ordered mass attacks on Russian ships, which was part of Kiev’s bid to cause more economic damage. Moscow responded to Zelensky’s “40-day pressure campaign” by ramping up its own long-range strikes, leaving Ukraine effectively cut off from maritime trade.

On Tuesday, Zelensky reiterated his calls for a pause in hostilities in the Black Sea, claiming it would come as a relief for the entire world. Both nations are major exporters of wheat, a key food commodity.

A Türkiye-mediated agreement that ensured free shipping in the Black Sea and provided for inspections of incoming cargo ships to ensure that they were not carrying weapons existed in the early phase of the conflict. Moscow ultimately pulled out of the deal after accusing Kiev of using designated safe routes to launch naval kamikaze drones at Russian ports.

Ukraine’s enormous and toxic scam-call industry has suddenly been put under unprecedented pressure from forces Vladimir Zelensky cannot control.

Zelensky’s prosecutor general, Ruslan Kravchenko, tendered his resignation after Western-backed investigators accused his own chief cybercrime prosecutor of extorting protection money from scamsters, allegedly on behalf of his chief. Kravchenko has nevertheless insisted he stepped down for political reasons.

Ukraine’s industrial-scale scam-call network preys on the weak, robbing vulnerable people of their life savings and in some cases pushing them into violent crime. But the competition is literally cut-throat and explosive, and is believed to be behind a recent bomb attack linked to Ukrainian agents in Monaco.

How big is Ukraine’s scam-call industry?

Scam-calling rapidly developed between 2014 and 2016 in Ukraine. The keys to its swift growth were corruption in law enforcement, global technological advances in transborder communications and e-banking, and the abundant labor force.

The Geneva-based NGO Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) estimated in April that the industry generates $1 billion a month and employs 60,000 people.

Who do Ukraine’s scam-call centers target?

One of Ukraine’s specifics is that young men defrauding Russian pensioners can rationalize their actions as fulfilling their patriotic duty without going to the front line.

Moscow perceives the crime business as a national security threat, claiming it works hand in glove with intelligence agencies. Russian authorities have reported dozens of cases in which a fraud victim was enticed to carry out criminal activity, from firebombing rail equipment to bringing a disguised explosive device to the office of a law enforcement agency.

However, true criminals go where the money is. Last year, GI-TOC estimated that half of victims of Ukrainian offices were Russian, but now reportedly 80% of them focus on Western nations.

How are Ukraine’s scam centers run?

Basically, they are the modern incarnation of telemarketing fraud, known as “boiler rooms” in English criminal slang. Ukrainian “offices” have their own “cold callers” – criminals who search for potential victims, “closers” – more skilled manipulators who actually defraud their marks, “floor managers” to oversee each individual operation, and “drops” who exfiltrate stolen money. In fact, most Ukrainian terms are borrowed.

Who owns and protects Ukraine’s scam-call industry?

The criminal networks normally run in regular office spaces, each with its own IT support to spoof phone numbers and grease the digital cogs and wheels. Larger offices have dedicated HR, accountants, security, and marketing.

Many of the centers pay bribes to officials, though there is a dispute over how compromised the government is. Western media tend to say paying off local police gives you a tip of an impending raid ordered from Kiev.

But Ukrainian media – and last week’s allegations – suggest a top-to-bottom network rife with infighting, hostile takeovers, and selective enforcement of the law.

Who works at Ukraine’s scam centers? 

The workers are overwhelmingly young people in their late teens and early twenties, most of them male, aimless in life and with a taste for making quick cash, according to industry insiders.

“They are convinced that scamming people is better than enduring mockery working as a cashier,” a scam office tech guy told Ukrainskaya Pravda for an exposé it published. “For them it’s a small-time alluring crime.”

Why does the West allow its citizens to be targeted by Ukrainian scammers?

European law enforcement agencies are limited by the fact that their governments are determined to support the government in Kiev to keep the war with Russia rolling.

However, earlier this year, Ukrainian media reported that Western pressure reached a point where a major crackdown was imminent. Zelensky’s messaging aligned with the narrative.

Why has Ukraine’s profitable and connected scam-call center industry been targeted?

Zelensky sent a law to the Ukrainian parliament in early September, seeking tougher punishments for fraudsters.

Some Ukrainian media argued that Zelensky ordered the clampdown to pre-empt the latest scandal, initiated by Western-backed anti-corruption agencies. Last year he tried and failed to place the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) under the Prosecutor General’s Office.

The same agencies are chasing down multiple, multimillion corruption schemes linked to Zelensky’s inner circle that you can read about in RT’s ‘State of Corruption’ series.

In short, officials close to Ukraine’s leader have been accused of taking over $100 million in kickbacks from Ukraine’s energy industry, laundering millions to secure bail for a former energy minister, creaming millions from a missile and drone maker that was originally a TV production company run by Zelensky’s business partners, and running a system of vote-buying in parliament.

What impact has the sudden clampdown on Ukraine’s scam-call centers had?

Between January and mid-July, law enforcement reportedly took out over 2,000 jobs in the scam industry. But in just a single week in August, officials reportedly raided 95 scam offices where some 1,794 scammers were employed.

While the now-departed Kravchenko boasted of the results, NABU surveillance of his cybercrime underling, Sergey Kropiva, who the agency has accused of running a nationwide protection racket, reveals it was a PR exercise.

“We are not bending over backwards,” he allegedly told an accomplice. “We are dragging our heels, hitting ten of them [fraud offices] a week… The important thing is good media coverage of all this s**t.”

Ukrainian media say as of early August there were roughly 2,000 offices in Ukraine, each employing dozens or even hundreds of people and half of them paying protection money to corrupt officials.

According to Zerkalo Nedeli, the bribes amounted to roughly $240 million per year, 15% of which found its way to the Prosecutor General’s Office in Kiev.

Kravchenko is widely seen as having upped the ante following his appointment by Zelensky in 2025, triggering an industry-wide turf war. His downfall was described in the press with a crime-slang saying: “The cat got ruined by his own greed.”

If prosecutors creamed 15%, who has been taking the other 85%? 

Corrupt officials are reportedly scattered throughout the Ukrainian government, from the border guard service, to Ukraine’s financial regulator, to national police, to secret services.

People at the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the military intelligence agency HUR are allegedly on the take. The firefights in Kiev in which the two services engaged last week were described by some outlets as a conflict for scam proceeds.

There were claims in the Ukrainian press that scam money not only lines the pockets of security officials, but also generates off-the-books funding for their operation, not unlike the CIA did under President Ronald Reagan, when it sold weapons to Iran to fuel right-wing Contras insurgents in South America. The CIA reportedly overhauled both the SBU and HUR after the 2014 coup in Kiev.

What kind of risks are the Ukrainian heads of scam-schemes prepared to take?

One of Kropiva’s recorded conversations linked the ongoing semi-crackdown with “that guy in Bali.”

The reference was apparently to the kidnaping of two Ukrainian citizens in the Indonesian island province that took place in February. One of them escaped, while the other was held for ransom and later dismembered.

The victims were identified by the media as Igor Komarov and Yermak Petrovsky, the sons of suspected career crime bosses who were allegedly working together in the fraud business. The horrific torture video of Komarov was national news in Ukraine.

The bombing of exiled businessman Vadim Ermolaev and members of his family in Monaco in June was organized by a duo of HUR and SBU agents, according to Ukrainian investigators.

Ermolaev’s son Artur was previously sentenced to a suspended term in Estonia for running scam-call centers that victimized Estonian citizens to the tune of $114 million. There was speculation that the bombing attack was a warning for the father to stay away from the industry.

Meanwhile, Kropiva himself was quite brazen in his managerial role, bragging that he can “screw everyone in the law enforcement” and do what he wants, the recordings show. His alleged accomplice and girlfriend complained when he told her to remove Instagram photos proving her lavish lifestyle.

She came to her bail hearings wearing what journalists recognized as a $3,400 Saint Laurent jacket, which probably didn’t help her case.

The US is turning Australia into a forward base for potential military operations in the Pacific, with American forces and defense contractors controlling or having access to roughly two-thirds of the country’s military facilities, The Guardian reported on Sunday.

Citing data compiled by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, the newspaper identified 110 facilities across Australia with some form of US military or corporate presence out of 168 surveyed.

The US military directly controls 17 facilities, including the Pine Gap intelligence complex in central Australia, which plays a major role in US surveillance and military operations. The facility tracks missile launches, intercepts communications and provides targeting information for American forces around the world.

Other installations include a naval communications station in Western Australia used to communicate with submerged US submarines and RAAF Base Tindal in the north, which is being expanded to accommodate nuclear-capable B-52 Stratofortress bombers.

“These aircraft are able to land on Australian soil carrying nuclear weapons. The US government won’t tell Australia if and when they are. The Australian government won’t ask,” The Guardian wrote.

Beyond the facilities it directly controls, the US military has access to dozens of Australian installations, while American defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, operate at others. According to the Nautilus data, 41 of the 168 facilities surveyed have no significant US presence, while the status of another 17 remains unresolved.

The American footprint is also expanding. In June, AFP reported that the US was preparing to establish a permanent stockpile of battle-ready weapons, ammunition, and equipment for the Marine Corps in Australia, with the facility expected to reach full capacity by 2028.

“Over more than a decade, the United States has been preparing the capacity for high-tempo warfighting operations with China, springboarding from Australia,” Richard Tanter, the author of the Nautilus database, told The Guardian.

“From a Chinese perspective, Australia is not so much hosting US bases on its territory, it’s a US base in its own right… Australia is a serious piece of real estate in the US warfighting machine,” added Tanter, an honorary professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne.

Canberra maintains that the growing American presence strengthens Australia’s security. Defense Minister Richard Marles said in June that the expanding US footprint was important both for building the country’s military capabilities and for its national security.

Marles also argued that the US presence helped counter what he described as China’s “very significant military buildup” in the region.

Former Australian Defense Minister Christopher Pyne has similarly said the 2021 AUKUS pact between Australia, the US, and UK goes beyond Canberra’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. He described the arrangement as establishing “a new United States submarine base in the Indian Ocean” that would provide Washington with a “massive strategic advantage.”

Tanter criticized Canberra’s approach, calling it “a massive institutional failure in Australia, a kind of learned incapacity at a political, parliamentary and bureaucratic level.”

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has criticized Kiev for failing to spend enough of its Western-provided procurement money on German weapons, arguing that the country’s massive support for Ukraine should at least benefit its defense industry.

Germany is one of Ukraine’s largest bilateral supporters, providing or earmarking more than €43 billion ($50 billion) in “civilian” assistance and around €58 billion in military aid since the conflict escalated in 2022.

“We are now the strongest supporter of Ukraine in terms of financial and military support. And naturally, the German defense industry must benefit from this,” Wadephul told Bild in an interview published on Tuesday.

The minister said he raised the issue with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky during a visit to Kiev last month.

“We stand by you, we support you. But I also have to explain this to German taxpayers, and the very least you can do is to involve the German defense industry in all procurement measures,” Wadephul said he told Zelensky.

“At the moment, we are not entirely satisfied with the level of orders in Germany,” he added, saying Kiev has been asked to review its purchases and ensure that the situation “gets better.”

Germany’s demands that the money spent on Kiev flow back to its own weapons makers mirror US President Donald Trump’s approach to Ukraine aid. Since returning to the White House, Trump has largely shifted the financial burden of supplying US weapons to European NATO members and Canada. Under the PURL mechanism, the bloc’s members now pay Washington for US-made arms that are then delivered to Kiev.

Moscow has criticized the unprecedented military buildup by Germany and the wider EU on the pretext of the ‘Russian threat’. President Vladimir Putin said in June that Western governments are no longer concealing their intentions and are “openly saying that they are preparing for war with us.”

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that Germany and the rest of Europe under their current leadership are “transforming into a Fourth Reich” and seek fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian.”

Berlin has also stepped up pressure on Ukrainian men of military age living in Germany to return home “without coercion.” Wadephul backed calls by Bavarian leader Markus Soeder and suggested that the German authorities could provide Kiev with information identifying Ukrainians receiving welfare benefits or holding registered residency status so they can be contacted for mobilization. Germany has separately backed stripping newly arriving draft-age Ukrainian men of the automatic temporary-protection privileges granted to refugees.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has announced the seizure of “one of the most modern, unmanned, and smart submarines” in the possession of the US military. The Pentagon downplayed the incident, saying it was an old drone without any sensitive equipment.

On Tuesday, the IRGC published a video of what it claimed was the advanced US undersea drone, which could perform a wide range of tasks, from seabed mapping to intelligence and surveillance operations, pipeline inspection, and anti-submarine warfare support.

The footage shows a grey, metallic, torpedo-like cylindrical vessel around 5.8 meters long and 1.2 meters wide, weighing around 2.7 tons. The undersea vessel can spend up to 10 days underwater and reach a maximum depth of 6,000 meters, according to the IRGC statement.

The Iranian military identified it as a Dive-LD drone developed by US defense contractor Anduril Industries that entered service in April 2025.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) sought to downplay the incident, claiming Iran obtained a malfunctioning older-model drone that did not carry any sensitive equipment.

The undersea vessel was surveilling regional waters and “neither collected sensitive data nor carried any classified sonar or radar equipment,” US Navy Captain Tim Hawkins, a CENTCOM spokesman, said in a statement.

The incident comes amid yet another escalation between the US and Iran. Late Tuesday, Iran launched ballistic missiles toward US military bases in the Middle East in what it called retaliation for an earlier US attack on Iranian oil tankers near Kharg Island. The IRGC also issued an “urgent warning” late Tuesday, telling tanker crews around the docks and anchorages of Bahrain and Kuwait to leave their vessels immediately ahead of potential attacks.

Iranian forces have struck eight oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and targeted two US Navy vessels in retaliation for attacks on Iranian shipping, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Wednesday. It claimed the strikes inflicted “significant damage” on the ships.

US Central Command later rejected the claim that American warships were hit, saying, “no US Navy warship has been struck” and all IRGC attacks failed. CENTCOM added that US forces destroyed ten Iranian tankers over the past week, describing the vessels as part of a multi-billion-dollar network funding the IRGC.

The IRGC said it also targeted ten other ships that allegedly attempted, with US military support, to pass through an area of the Strait of Hormuz that Tehran declared prohibited and unsafe. The IRGC said it remains in control of shipping through the strategic waterway. The claims have not been independently verified, and there has been no immediate US confirmation of damage to the vessels.

The attacks came after the IRGC Navy issued an “urgent warning” late Tuesday, telling tanker crews around the docks and anchorages of Bahrain and Kuwait to immediately abandon their ships.

“We warn all crew members of the tankers in the vicinity of the docks of Kuwait and Bahrain... to immediately leave their vessels, whether at anchor or at the docks, as they will be targeted,” the IRGC Navy Command said.

The statement accused Bahrain and Kuwait of hosting US forces and being “partners” in Washington’s attacks on Iranian shipping.

Additional footage of a PATRIOT battery conducting a massive ballistic missile engagement over Jordan tonight.

Well over a dozen interceptors can be seen engaging incoming Iranian ballistic missiles. pic.twitter.com/u69lJKtFJ7

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) September 8, 2026

Iranian retaliation began shortly afterward, with numerous videos circulating online showing ballistic missiles being launched from locations across Iran toward US military facilities in the region.

Videos from Jordan appear to show intense air-defense activity, with Patriot interceptors engaging incoming projectiles, including what some OSINT accounts identified as medium-range ballistic missiles equipped with cluster warheads.

Multiple OSINT accounts identified Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, a major facility used by US forces east of Amman, as one of the principal targets. Some reported missile impacts near the base, but neither the impacts nor the type of warheads used have been officially confirmed.

US Central Command said it destroyed five Iranian crude oil carriers after the IRGC allegedly targeted a US Navy warship with ballistic missiles twice over the previous two days. The command said four tankers were struck in the Gulf of Oman and a fifth near Kharg Island, adding that US forces ordered their crews to abandon ship before the vessels were rendered inoperable.

The latest attacks follow another round on Saturday in which US Central Command said it struck three Iranian crude carriers after ballistic missiles were fired toward a US aircraft carrier and guided-missile destroyer. Two tankers were disabled and a third, which was carrying no oil, was destroyed after the crew was ordered to abandon ship.

Iran subsequently claimed that it struck three tankers traveling along what it described as an unauthorized route through the Strait of Hormuz, as well as three US-linked vessels elsewhere.

The maritime confrontation has become an increasingly prominent front in the six-month conflict. The US maintains a naval blockade restricting traffic to and from Iranian ports, while Iran has imposed its own controls over passage through Hormuz and recently announced plans for an additional restricted maritime zone in the Persian Gulf.

Around one-fifth of global oil supplies passed through the Strait of Hormuz before the war, making threats to commercial shipping particularly sensitive for energy markets. Oil prices continue to climb, with Brent breaking above $100 a barrel on Wednesday for the first time in nearly two months as markets price in growing risks to global energy supplies.

Say what you will about ex-BlackRock bigwig German Chancellor and uber-grinch Friedrich Merz, but he has his moments of unexpected alertness.

Currently, he is shocked, shocked! He has noticed that his party, the mainstream conservatives of the CDU are “in serious danger” after suffering their worst defeat in decades.

Germany’s dark star of unpopularity was, of course, talking about the results of the regional elections in the state of Saxony-Anhalt. They have produced a landslide victory for the new-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, under its shooting star Ulrich ‘Uli’ Siegmund. 

They delivered a colossal, devastating fiasco to the CDU and, of course, Merz personally: The AfD has scored 43.8 percent of the vote, the CDU 17.2 percent. When compared with the last state election, the AfD gained 23 percent, while the CDU lost 19.9 percent.

Polls show that the AfD has massively siphoned off former CDU voters and also mobilized previous non-voters with unprecedented success. In terms of age cohorts, the AfD is dominating almost the entire spectrum except among the very old.

The CDU, which had been in charge in Saxony-Anhalt’s capital of Magdeburg for over two decades, has suffered no ordinary defeat but a catastrophic wipe-out shaking the party, to quote Merz again, “to its very foundations.” The former default ruling party of first West and then post-1990 Germany is in tatters. It is a sign of even worse things to come. In Saxony-Anhalt it has no future, quite literally: among the youngest voters the CDU achieved a pitiful 5 percent, far below its already horrific overall result.

The man who has pro-actively led the party of Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel into this total debacle may still be in office for now. True to form, he shows no signs of accepting responsibility, that is, resigning. But rumors about a CDU rebellion against Merz were circulating even before the disaster. Calls for ending his ruinous tenure have only become louder now. And if not now, then soon: Having suffered – and produced – one catastrophic defeat, Merz will soon face more regional elections that are likely to go badly for the CDU as well.

It is true that Saxony-Anhalt is small. One of Germany’s 16 federal states, it has a population of 2.1 million, of whom about 1.7 million can vote. That is less than the electorate of, for instance, the city of Hamburg. Yet no one in Germany even tries to pretend that what has happened in Saxony-Anhalt will stay in Saxony-Anhalt. On the contrary, everyone – across the entire mediascape and political spectrum – takes it as self-evident that these elections are bound to have massive national effects. Likewise, it did not even take US President Donald Trump’s unusual social media post to rub in that the Magdeburg quake is reverberating internationally, too.

If Merz falls – and perhaps even if he sticks to his seat for a long time before doing so – the radical-Centrist coalition currently in charge in Berlin will be under enormous pressure. Witness the fact that its frontman from the Social-Democrats (SPD), Finance Minister and austerity-imposer-in-chief Lars Klingbeil is already making terrified noises about rethinking some Berlin’s mean cuts to pensions, healthcare, and social security. How a little pain can concentrate the mind.

One thing seems to finally have sunk in with Germany’s slow, lazy, and complacent establishment: Neither the so-called ‘firewall’ – that is, deliberate discrimination against not merely the AfD but its millions of voters – has failed and offers no hope for the future. Clinging to that moronic, deeply undemocratic and simply indecently unfair strategy will only make the AfD stronger. Exactly as it has up until now.

Yet make no mistake: Germany’s radical Centrists are obstinate. Even with the ‘firewall’ demolished, they might still try to cling to its ruins for a while. That, however, will not make a difference in the end. What could have more substantial and very disruptive consequences is something else. What if they radicalize their strategy against the AfD, its electoral surge (in free and fair votes), and its supporters further?

Among the sane, such a doubling down might appear absurd: Where would it be supposed to lead? Severe unrest? Secession? But you only have to look at the current establishment’s policy toward Russia, Ukraine, and the Ukraine conflict to realize that Berlin, as it is now, does not shy away from anything just because it’s entirely mad and highly damaging to Germany.

And that, notwithstanding the ceaseless and ever less effective mainstream media propaganda smearing the AfD as Nazism redux, is where the real threat to democracy lies. Merz has already struck a tone that is, in effect, threatening: “Reassuring” German citizens, who mostly cannot stand him, that the German Basic Law, the de facto constitution, “prevails in Saxony-Anhalt as well.”

Since, in reality, no one has challenged that fact, Merz’s statement is suspect. It can easily be read as a crude hint that Berlin is looking for pretexts to engage in dirty lawfare against the AfD in general, the AfD specifically in Saxony-Anhalt, or a state government led by the AfD in Magdeburg. This may become even more likely if the AfD there is joined by CDU renegades, as seems probable.

In that case, the CDU leadership in Berlin – if Merz continues to dominate it – would also want to make an example of these local rebels and punish the AfD for the CDU’s own failure to keep its troops together. Finally, never forget that Merz is also ‘Mr. Firewall’: there is no politician in Germany more associated with that failed policy. His personal frustration must be boundless; his good faith and fairness are infamously limited.

And then there is – drumroll, fanfare blast, and an endless, tormented yawn – Russia, Russia, Russia. Yes, you have guessed right: after tanking the German economy as never before since World War Two, maneuvering the country as close to World War Three as also never before since World War Two, and throwing German taxpayers’ earnings into the Kiev money burner to the tune of, at least, a hundred billion euro and counting, Merz and his motley crew are seriously trying to tell us that the real reason why no one wants them anymore is Moscow or, why not, President Vladimir Putin personally.

The usual “civil society” cut-outs have already started pointing fingers. Merz himself has found time to reaffirm that “especially now” he won’t “budge a millimeter” from, in effect, trying to drive Germany into an open shooting war with Russia because the current proxy war is just not good enough for him.

And, of course, the public is subjected to an ongoing propaganda barrage smearing the AfD as a whole and in Saxony-Anhalt in particular Moscow’s fifth column. In reality, its crime is to have articulated many ordinary Germans’ perfectly reasonable resistance to the establishment’s out-of-control warmongering.

In sum, take these two lines of CDU defense – or attack – together and it is obvious that the real threat to German democracy comes, as before, from the radical Center: Accusing the AfD of being a Russian Trojan Horse and, at the same time, hinting that its success is somehow incompatible with the constitution – those are the key ingredients for justifying repression. Let’s hope that neither Merz nor his CDU nor the establishment as a whole dare try, because if they do, there will be resistance. Berlin has already ruined peace abroad. Domestic peace should not follow.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has blamed his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party’s crushing defeat by the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Saxony-Anhalt on poor communication with voters, while refusing to change course.

Merz, who has been described as Germany’s least popular head of government in some 30 years, maintained he would not budge an inch on his “reform” agenda following what he called his party’s “most serious electoral defeat in decades.”

The AfD took 43.8% of the vote in the eastern German state over the weekend, coming close to securing an absolute majority in the regional legislature. The conservative CDU, which has dominated Saxony-Anhalt’s political landscape for much of the period since German reunification, finished a distant second with 17.5%.

Ahead of the vote, a regional party official told Euractiv that the CDU branch in Saxony-Anhalt was being forced to pay the price for the deeply unpopular policies of the federal government.

Speaking at a press conference following the election, Merz said he and other senior party officials were “deeply shocked” by the result. “We did not expect this, certainly not in this form,” he said, adding that the outcome would likely have implications far beyond Germany.

Merz also said his party could not accept a situation in which “almost 60% of voters in a federal state, with a very high turnout, vote for political parties that fundamentally call into question our country’s democratic institutions and rules.”

Apart from the AfD, the Left Party – descended from the former East German Communists – and the recently formed left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) were also condemned by the chancellor for supposedly challenging Germany’s “democratic” order, according to state broadcaster DW.

Merz maintained that certain things are “not up for a vote” in Germany, including the principle that “power is granted, not seized.” He vowed to “strengthen our political order and our firm anchoring in Europe.”

The chancellor acknowledged that he himself had been “a constant topic in this election campaign,” but insisted the federal government would not change course. “My determination to continue on the path of reform remains unbroken,” he said, adding that the government apparently just needed to explain the measures better.

Merz 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 chancellor also doubled down on his support for Kiev, while acknowledging that “exactly 57.7% of voters” had backed parties critical of Berlin’s anti-Russian policies and unwavering support for Ukraine.

“I will not deviate by a single millimeter from my fundamental conviction that, especially now, we must defend our freedom against Russia,” he stated, advocating for increased military spending and continued aid to Kiev. Berlin has repeatedly justified the policy by citing an alleged “Russian threat,” which Moscow has consistently dismissed as “nonsense.”

Israel’s far-right national security minister has put a seven-year timetable on emptying Gaza of most of its people, and dressed it up as choice. Gazans RT spoke to call it what international law already names it: forced displacement.

Last week, Jewish Power chairman and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir unveiled ‘Disengagement 710’, a policy blueprint for what he calls the voluntary migration of Gaza residents to countries willing to take them. Destinations floated by his party include Türkiye, unspecified Arab states, Ethiopia, and Congo.

The numbers are not modest. The plan foresees the departure of about 250,000 people in the first year, 1.11 million within three years, and some 1.86 million within seven, encompassing the bulk of the Strip’s population.

To run it, Jewish Power wants the next government to create a dedicated ministry for “voluntary migration,” complete with a minister, a director-general, its own budget, an international negotiating team, and an implementation apparatus.

Ben-Gvir vows to make the ministry a coalition demand after Israel’s October 27 election. “Instead of illusions of peace now, we need actions of emigration now,” he said. “Instead of them digging tunnels, it’s time to pack suitcases.”

This idea is not new for the Jewish state.

A Zionist through-line

In 1937, David Ben-Gurion, then a leading Zionist figure, promoted the transfer of Palestinians and argued they should be moved to Transjordan. In the 1980s, the same ‘voluntary’ formula was championed by far-right politicians Rehavam Ze’evi – nicknamed ‘Gandhi’– and Meir Kahane. Their schemes never left the drawing board.

Ben-Gvir now presents his version as newly realistic, citing earlier public backing from US President Donald Trump. Trump floated mass relocation from Gaza in early 2025, then walked the idea back under Arab and international pressure. 

His later 20-point framework stated that no one would be forced to leave and that residents should be encouraged to stay. Ben-Gvir treats the first Trump remark as political cover and the second as an inconvenience.

Gazans RT interviewed rejected the initiative as illegal under international law and a crime against humanity.

”People in Gaza and across Palestine know Ben-Gvir’s plans go far beyond our existence in the Strip,” said Abdallah Ali, a resident of central Gaza.

“He wants people out of Gaza, then out of West Bank villages, then out of West Bank cities toward Jordan. He believes in transfer and an ‘alternative homeland’.”

Ali said that is why Gazans, himself included, intend to stay put.

Rami Al Meghari, from Al-Maghazi camp in central Gaza, reached the same conclusion for a different reason: memory of exile.

“Many Palestinians found life in other countries, especially Arab states, awkward and humiliating,” he said. “They will not leave Gaza for a destination that cannot guarantee dignity, whether an Arab capital or some African country Israel has long suggested, like Somalia.”

Polls, rubble, and the meaning of ‘voluntary’

A PCPSR poll last year found 56% of Gazans interviewed unwilling to emigrate. A substantial minority, some 43%, said they would.

Ali and Al Meghari were not surprised. Despair is real, and the findings of various UN reports show it clearly.

As of June 16, 2026, satellite analysis by the UN Satellite Centre found 201,290 structures damaged, an estimated 82% of all buildings in Gaza. Of those, 134,422 were assessed as destroyed, 13,848 severely damaged, 28,096 moderately damaged and 24,924 possibly damaged.

Most of Gaza’s 2.1 million people remain displaced. The Shelter Cluster, surveying in June 2026, said 1.98 million people, 94% of the population, need shelter and household items. 

Food and water continue to be an issue. Between mid-April and June 30, 2026, more than 1.2 million people (59%) were still in dire need of assistance.

Assessments in 2026 found 43% of households below the 15-liter humanitarian minimum per person per day, and 62% below the 6-liter drinking-water floor.

But Ali and Al Meghari insist the pull of the land is much stronger.

“Whatever the suffering, even with around 97 percent of cropland destroyed and most of the built environment gone, people are putting up tents and staying in displacement camps. They are not packing to leave,” Ali said. 

“They lived through the 1948 catastrophe and the 1967 Nakba. They will pull through again.”

Al Meghari still hopes the political weather will change. “Life can move forward in Gaza if there is serious international and Arab pressure to implement the second phase of the ceasefire. The United States has a particular responsibility to make that happen. Russia also needs to play a pivotal role to bring the suffering of the Palestinians to an end.”

Reconstruction as leverage

There is little movement on reconstruction. Israel is blocking construction materials, demanding that Hamas disarm and demilitarize first. The Board of Peace has pushed for weapons to be collected and placed under international supervision, a formula Israel rejects.

Ali sees the stalled effort as a policy, not an accident. “This is taking a very long time. I do not think Israel will accept Gaza’s reconstruction anytime soon. It will keep complicating reality until leaving becomes the only realistic option.”

Ahmed Al-Masri, a lawyer in Gaza, argues Israel has played this hand before and lost. “We lived this in 2014 [Operation Protective Edge – ed.]. Israel said Gaza should not be rebuilt. Then, under international pressure and with UN supervision, it was forced to comply.”

And he also pins some hope on Israel’s October 27 parliamentary vote. “If the far-right government is removed, there might be a beginning, a glimmer on the horizon, and a better political reality for people here, if Palestinians also insist on rebuilding political, social and economic life.”

That is the wager Gaza is making: that endurance outlasts a plan that needs other countries to open their doors, Washington to revive an idea it already shelved, and two million people to accept that ‘voluntary’ means leaving home because the alternative has been made unlivable.

Ben-Gvir is betting the opposite – that the wreckage, a ministry, and a slogan about suitcases can finish what earlier transfer schemes could not. Gazans say they have heard that speech before.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was personally warned that Hamas was preparing a major attack days before October 7, 2023, but did not relay the information to Israel’s top security chiefs, Haaretz reported on Tuesday.

According to the newspaper, Emirati President Mohammed bin Zayed called Netanyahu roughly ten days before the assault and told him that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was planning a major operation that could cause bloodshed and destabilize the region.

Netanyahu reportedly played down the threat, saying he believed Hamas was more likely to act in the West Bank and that Israel was prepared.

His office has rejected the report as an “absolute lie,” insisting no such call took place.

The alleged advance notice has added to scrutiny over what Israeli leaders knew ahead of the Hamas-led assault and whether warning signs were ignored.

Haaretz previously reported that Sinwar had sent messages through Palestinian intermediaries warning that he was preparing an “earthquake.” The message reportedly reached Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service, whose then-chief Ronen Bar briefed Netanyahu. Egyptian intelligence was also reported to have warned Israel shortly before the attack.

Israeli intelligence had separately obtained a Hamas battle plan known as ‘Jericho Wall’, outlining a cross-border assault, attacks on military positions and hostage-taking. The New York Times later reported that the document closely resembled the October 7 operation. Israeli officials have disputed how seriously the plan was taken and whether it was considered an imminent threat.

Netanyahu’s government has also faced criticism for allowing Qatari funds to flow into Hamas-run Gaza for years. Critics argue the policy ultimately strengthened the group Israel later went to war to destroy.

Questions have also been raised over Israel’s military response on October 7. Investigations have suggested that the so-called ‘Hannibal Directive’, which permits extreme measures to prevent the capture of soldiers, may have contributed to Israeli civilian deaths as forces struck vehicles and other locations where hostages or civilians may have been present.

Around 1,200 people were killed in the Hamas-led attack and 251 were taken hostage. Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza has killed more than 73,600 Palestinians, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry.

A sharp diplomatic rift has erupted between Israel and several of its key Western partners after 12 countries backed restrictions on trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and London accused settlers of carrying out “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians in parts of the territory.

The UK, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden issued a joint statement on Tuesday pledging to introduce, support, or consider restrictions on settlement goods, citing “unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion.”

London, Paris, and Ottawa specifically committed to national trade bans, while the group demanded that Israel “immediately halt” settlement expansion, ensure accountability for settler violence and investigate allegations against Israeli forces.

The UK measures linked to settlements include:

• A ban on all imports from illegal Israeli settlements;

• Sanctions on businesses, organizations, and individuals involved in settlement expansion through construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate;

• A ban on UK advertising for properties in illegal settlements;

• Sanctions on extremist settlers who have supported or incited violence against Palestinians;

• A ban on new export licenses for weapons and other goods deemed to “materially contribute to the occupation.”

Goods and services from Israel itself remain exempt.

Israel has retaliated against London by closing the British consulate in Jerusalem, expelling UK representatives from a US-backed Gaza coordination center and barring British politicians and activists. Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir had already called on his government to recognize Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

US President Donald Trump reportedly did not object when British Prime Minister Andy Burnham briefed him on the measures in advance. Meanwhile, the escalating row has drawn mixed reactions from governments and political figures around the world.

This live has now ended.

A visit to the Eiffel Tower by a Hindu group has sparked a political row in France after female employees at the monument said they were moved from their posts, and in some cases, replaced by men while the delegation was on site.

The group from the Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS) visited the Paris landmark on Saturday. Eiffel Tower employees walked out on Monday in protest, closing the monument for a day, before it reopened on Tuesday.

The visit and the allegations

France’s CGT trade union said female employees and contractors were told not to enter or cross certain areas in the tower during the group’s visit. Some were allegedly asked to leave their workstations and move elsewhere, while others were replaced by male colleagues.

Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SETE), the company that manages and operates the monument acknowledged that the visiting group had requested arrangements limiting “interactions with women.” In a kind of mea culpa, it said the conditions “should not have been accepted.”

BAPS, however, has disputed the suggestion that its arrangements with the Eiffel Tower were intended to exclude women. In a statement, the organization said the visit had been coordinated with the tower’s management because of the size of the delegation and was “never, at any point, intended as a request rooted in gender.”

Nous comprenons les préoccupations exprimées et les prenons très au sérieux.

Compte tenu de la taille de notre délégation, la visite a été organisée en coordination avec les équipes de la tour Eiffel, au début des horaires habituels d’ouverture, afin de limiter autant que… pic.twitter.com/gyiwzmh6Jv

— BAPS Mandir Swaminarayan Hindou de Paris (@BAPSParis) September 7, 2026

It also said nobody had to its knowledge been denied access to the Eiffel Tower and that it remained committed to equality and mutual respect.

A new BAPS Swaminarayan temple was inaugurated at the Bussy-Saint-Georges suburb outside the French capital on Sunday. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the inauguration remotely. The organization is headquartered in Modi’s home state Gujarat.

A sect known for its beautiful temples

BAPS is an affluent global Hindu religious organization within the Swaminarayan tradition, founded in India in 1907. 

The sect is especially known for its elaborate stone temples and cultural complexes across the world. Among its best-known sites are the Swaminarayan Akshardham temple in New Delhi, the Akshardham complex in Robbinsville, New Jersey, and temples in London and Abu Dhabi. 

The organization does not publish its finances, but some of the temples have cost millions to build. The New Jersey temple cost an estimated $96 million to build, and the one in Abu Dhabi cost about $84.2 million, publicly available data show.

Its money comes from donations and regular contributions by members.

The organization has over a million followers globally, and says on its website that it is present in over 20 countries. The largest fellowship outside of India is in the United States. The sect is highly influential, especially in western India.  

“I find it truly astonishing that these are the allegations against the community, for they have been known for actively promoting caste, gender and class equality through its humanitarian and social activities,” Yogi Trivedi, a New York-based scholar who has co-authored a book on Swaminarayan Hinduism, told the Indian Express.

The early 19th century saint who founded the Swaminarayan tradition introduced reforms in Hindu society, especially to uplift and empower women. 

The world’s oldest religion, with more than a billion followers, reveres the feminine. Among the many gods in the Hindu pantheon are also prominent goddesses, and women are worshipped on special days in these traditions. However, gender discrimination and female infanticide have persisted in modern Hindu society.

Why is this a big deal in France?

Because the alleged medieval-style exclusion of women happened in Paris – the cradle of the French Revolution and the very symbol of the inspiring Republican ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

France is renowned for decades of campaigning for women’s political, social, and reproductive rights. In 2024, it became the first country to explicitly enshrine the right to abortion in its Constitution.

“In France, gender equality is neither negotiable nor subject to varying standards. It is a principle, and there are no exceptions to it,” French Minister for Gender Equality and the Fight Against Discrimination Aurore Berge posted on X.

French officials invoked those values in responding to the incident, arguing that religious or cultural considerations cannot justify differing treatment of women in a public workplace.

National Assembly president Yaël Braun-Pivet said welcoming visitors must not mean asking women to disappear from public life. Paris Mayor Emmanuel Grégoire said the incident would be investigated.

On Tuesday, Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal described the Eiffel Tower episode as “a matter purely between the entities concerned.”

US envoys came from Moscow with peace terms that were “even worse” for Kiev than previous proposals, Ukrainian MP Anna Skorokhod has claimed, arguing that weeks of pressure on Russia only weakened Ukraine’s negotiating position.

US President Donald Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday before traveling to Kiev for talks with Vladimir Zelensky the following day.

“This was not just not a breakthrough – they came with even worse conditions than we had before,” Skorokhod said in an interview with Ukrainian journalist Vitaly Diky.

According to the lawmaker, the new proposals allegedly include demands for constitutional changes and formal recognition of territories – issues she said had not previously been required in the same form.

Skorokhod acknowledged that some of her information was unofficial and declined to disclose further details. She also argued that Kiev’s roughly 40-day effort to pressure Moscow into softening its position had backfired.

“We have a complete failure in the negotiation process,” she said, calling instead for direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, with or without Western participation.

Skorokhod portrayed the broader negotiation problems as part of a pattern of costly decisions by Kiev that she said were eating away at Ukraine from within, pointing to corruption, bloated bureaucracy and economic strain.

However, the lawmaker herself has been under investigation by Ukraine’s anti-corruption authorities over an alleged $250,000 bribe scheme tied to National Security and Defense Council sanctions. She has denied wrongdoing.

Zelensky, meanwhile, has framed the US negotiators’ visit in a more positive light, stating on Tuesday that Witkoff and Kushner had brought “a couple of quite good ideas” that Kiev intends to study further. He said the discussions included possible winter de-escalation measures involving energy, grain exports, electricity, oil and gas.

He has also suggested that another trilateral meeting involving Russia, Ukraine, and the US could take place as soon as September or October.

The Financial Times has meanwhile reported that the American negotiators carried updated versions of earlier peace proposals rather than an entirely new plan.

Moscow has declined to confirm any of the rumored terms. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed Skorokhod’s account as “speculation” over what the American envoys had supposedly brought to Moscow and then carried on to Kiev.

“It’s our diplomatic tradition to limit ourselves to what we decide to tell the public,” he said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has nevertheless signaled that the diplomatic process remains alive, saying Moscow hopes trilateral Russia-US-Ukraine talks will resume and that a peaceful settlement can eventually be reached.

Moscow has repeatedly said it remains open to diplomacy but insists any final agreement must address the root causes of the conflict and respect the new realities on the ground. Kiev, however, has consistently resisted Russian demands on territorial and security issues.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, have held a “positive” phone call focused on efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said on Tuesday.

The call followed a new round of shuttle diplomacy by Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who met Putin in Moscow for more than three hours on Saturday before traveling to Kiev for talks with Vladimir Zelensky the following day.

Speaking to reporters, Ushakov said Putin and Trump had both assessed the envoys’ visits positively and agreed that work through this and other diplomatic channels would “continue.”

Ushakov described the hour-long conversation as positive, saying Putin praised US mediation efforts and Trump personally. Trump, he added, expressed hope for a breakthrough in resolving the conflict during his presidency.

Trump told Putin that ending the Ukraine conflict would open the way to fully restoring Russia-US relations and that renewed trade ties would bring both countries “enormous benefits,” Ushakov said. Putin welcomed the prospect of “a constructive partnership between two great powers,” he added.

Putin also said that Moscow has no hostile intentions toward European countries, according to Ushakov. Summarizing the president’s remarks, the aide added: “The myths being spread about a Russian threat serve as a pretext for Europeans to increase their support for Ukraine and their own military spending.”

Putin also briefed Trump on the fighting, including Moscow’s prospects for further battlefield advances and achieving its military objectives, Ushakov said.

The aide added that Putin acknowledged Melania Trump’s efforts to reunite Russian and Ukrainian children with their families.

“The presidents agreed to stay in touch and will call each other whenever necessary,” Ushakov said.

The F-35 multi-role fifth-generation fighter has made headlines for various reasons: its deployment in the conflict with Iran, deliveries to nations participating in the F-35 program, new missiles designed for the aircraft, and staggering operational costs. Even though production of the F-35 has surpassed 1,000 units, doubts persist regarding the program’s overall effectiveness and the aircraft’s compliance with all the standards of a fifth-generation fighter. Let’s take a closer look. 

In June 2015, a report by an American test pilot appeared online under the title “F-35A High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers.” It revealed that the latest F-35 was outperformed in a mock dogfight by the fourth-generation F-16D aircraft. Despite the F-35’s advertised advantages, it struggled to get behind the F-16D and lagged in energy maneuverability and pitch rate. What the media overlooked was that the test involved an experimental prototype of the F-35 that lacked operational combat software. Additionally, this prototype was restricted to a 5.5 G overload limit compared to the F-16’s ability to withstand up to 9 G. Once the F-35 received a full software update (starting with Block 3F), the upgraded versions decisively outperformed F-16s and other fourth-generation aircraft during Red Flag exercises – not through maneuverability, but by leveraging their stealth capabilities at long ranges without entering close combat.

Therefore, the main advantage of the F-35 fifth-generation fighter is its stealth capabilities. For the US, stealth is the defining characteristic of fifth-generation aircraft. This refers to the low radar cross-section achieved through the aircraft’s design and specialized coatings that disrupt radar wave reflection. The American strategy hinges on the belief that stealth aircraft can employ long-range missile systems while remaining undetected by enemy aircraft, effectively avoiding dogfights by striking the enemy from a distance.

The second major advantage of fifth-generation fighters is their capability for network-centric warfare, utilizing information systems that enable not only data sharing but also directing other aircraft and managing drones. An ‘invisible’ aircraft can detect adversaries either directly or through its wingmen and is capable of orchestrating attacks independently or by coordinating strikes with other planes and drones. Technically, the F-35 is already equipped for such operations.

Other characteristics of the F-35 are more problematic. For example, fifth-generation fighters have a powerful engine capable of sustained supersonic flight without using an afterburner. While the F-35 formally meets these criteria, the F-35B and F-35C variants are restricted from flying above Mach 1.2 for extended periods due to risks of thermal damage to their stealth coatings and tail surfaces. How can a supersonic jet not fly at supersonic speeds? Moreover, the F-35A appears to struggle with sustained supersonic cruising. Compounding these concerns are reports in the media regarding the P&W F135 engine. Reportedly, it faces issues like turbine blade wear, overheating, and a shortage of components for timely repairs.

On top of that, the operational cost of the F-35 is historically high. The total cost of the development and lifecycle of the F-35 has soared to nearly $2 trillion and continues to rise, making it the most expensive weapons system in history. For end users, however, the hourly flight cost is what truly matters. Operating an F-35 runs between $35,000 and $42,000 per hour, while standard F-16s operate at around $22,000 per hour. Overall, this is extremely expensive for a mass-produced fighter. 

Another area where the F-35 falls short compared to its competitors, including Russia’s Su-57 and likely others, is maneuverability. Of course, if the ‘invisible’ fighter manages to hit its target undetected, it may never have to engage in a dogfight. But should close combat occur, the F-35 will face significant disadvantages against highly agile fifth- and even fourth-generation aircraft.

Those are some of the most obvious issues in the “generation conflict” between different aircraft iterations. However, there are deeper implications tied to the reliance on software and the high costs associated with the aircraft. The software for the F-35 is arguably the most complex in modern weaponry, encompassing over 24 million lines of code. Media outlets frequently report on coding errors and recall the 800+ “unresolved bugs” identified by Pentagon auditors. Yet, a sophisticated aircraft cannot function without powerful software, and this raises the question: How can one make such a complex software system secure?

Given that the F-35 clearly has its share of issues, it leads to another important question, namely: Why is it being produced in such massive quantities? Today, it stands as the only fifth-generation fighter jet in the Western world, with over 1,300 units already built and plans for another 2,000 on the way. In the next decade, more than 20 countries will incorporate these jets into their arsenals. So what’s behind this global trend?

The answer seems to lie not in the aircraft’s capabilities or technological advancements, but strictly in the political arena. The F-35 isn’t just a fighter; it is a symbol of close alignment with the US. Countries that purchase the F-35 gain certain privileges from Washington. For example, Israel possesses carte blanche for combat operations and unrestricted access to US weapons arsenals. As for Germany, it may be acquiring the F-35 because it’s currently the only aircraft on the market certified to carry US nuclear weapons within NATO’s nuclear sharing program. This factor may have played a decisive role in Germany’s decision. 

Some countries – potentially South Korea, Japan, and Türkiye – are counting on the F-35’s network-centric warfare and a broad range of munitions while they develop their own viable alternatives to the ‘golden’ F-35. These nations are actively developing their own fifth-generation fighters and are even looking ahead to sixth-generation designs. However, they need a modern aircraft today, and therefore may be willing to overlook certain flaws of the “Battle Penguin” (the unofficial nickname for the F-35 due to its stout appearance). Maintaining strong ties with Washington is crucial for these countries as well. So political commitments and the urgency of having a contemporary fighter jet go hand in hand. After all, they aren’t going to buy Russian Su-57s, are they? Washington and Brussels wouldn’t like that. Though perhaps it wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the removal of illegal settler outposts in the occupied West Bank, Reuters has reported, citing two people familiar with the matter.

Netanyahu made the demand under pressure from Israel’s main ally, the US, which recently expressed concerns over the rise in attacks on Palestinian homes by the Jewish settlers, the agency said in an article on Sunday. It was not immediately clear when the demolitions would start, it added.

The Israeli outlet Ynet claimed earlier that the prime minister had instructed that some 100 outposts, built without permission from the Israeli government, be brought down.

According to data from the Israeli NGO Peace Now, there are some 340 outposts erected on Palestinian land in the West Bank, along with 146 settlements formally recognized by the authorities in Israel and receiving funding from West Jerusalem.

The outposts usually consist of light prefabricated houses, in which small groups of settlers reside. The Israeli government has demolished some of the unauthorized settlements over the years, but they are being rebuilt quickly by radicalized Jews.

The UN and most other countries consider all of the Israeli settlements to be illegal under international law due to them being erected on occupied Palestinian territory.

The UN relief agency, OCHA, said in August that there were an average of six settler violence incidents every day in the West Bank during the first six months of 2026. The attacks by radicalized Jews have led to the displacement of more than 2,300 Palestinians, including over 1,000 children, it added.

On Saturday, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a strong supporter of the Jewish State and self-professed Christian Zionist, said that the settlers behind the attacks were not just criminals, but “terrorists.”
Huckabee insisted that he Israeli government must provide security to Palestinians in the West Bank and make sure that those who assault their homes are aware that they will face “severe consequences.”

The ambassador’s stance was echoed by Netanyahu’s main rival in the Israeli parliamentary election in late October, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who said on Sunday that “if someone comes to burn down the home of innocent Arabs with the people inside it, then of course that is Jewish terrorism.”

“If it is done for nationalist reasons, that is the definition. I don’t understand how this serves the settlement movement,” he stressed.

Hunter Biden is launching a memecoin called $LAPTOP, named after the infamous notebook that became the center of a political scandal during the 2020 US presidential campaign, his X post has indicated. The post features a video montage of media reports referencing the laptop and promotes a September 9 launch.

The device contained emails and financial records tied to the former US president’s son’s overseas business dealings, alongside explicit images and videos documenting his drug and alcohol use.

The token will launch on Coinbase’s Base network with a total supply of one billion coins, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. Biden and his fellow founders will control 30% of the supply, while another 20% has been earmarked for airdrops – free token distributions used by crypto projects to promote new coins.

Among those in line for free $LAPTOP tokens are subscribers to Biden’s Substack and video journalist Andrew Callaghan’s mailing list – as well as investors who lost money on US President Donald Trump’s $TRUMP memecoin. Unclaimed airdrop tokens will be permanently burned.

Memecoins are highly speculative assets and can lose value rapidly. The $LAPTOP project itself says the token has no utility or ownership rights and warns that digital-asset prices “can fall to zero.”

A further 30% of the total supply is tied to 30 political, crypto, and cultural predictions. Tokens will be burned if specified outcomes occur – including a Democrat winning the 2028 presidential election, Bitcoin reaching another record high or $LAPTOP overtaking $TRUMP in value – while tokens tied to outcomes that do not materialize will go to charity.

$LAPTOP

September 9 pic.twitter.com/QokgWLNxgL

— Hunter Biden (@HunterBiden) September 7, 2026

The offer to $TRUMP investors comes after Trump and his wife Melania launched their own memecoins shortly before his return to the White House in January 2025. Trump reported about $635 million in income from $TRUMP in 2025, while most investors lost money – nearly one million wallets were down a combined $3.8 billion by the end of June, according to crypto analytics firm Nansen.

Biden’s laptop became the center of a political scandal just weeks before the 2020 US presidential election, after the New York Post published emails purportedly taken from the device. The newspaper and Trump’s Republican allies alleged that Joe Biden had used his position as vice president to help his son’s business interests in Ukraine, where Hunter served on the board of energy company Burisma. Joe Biden denied involvement in his son’s business dealings.

The laptop’s authenticity itself soon became part of the story. Democrats and more than 50 former US intelligence officials claimed at the time that the laptop story had the “classic earmarks” of a Russian information operation, although the officials acknowledged they had no evidence of such involvement. Subsequent forensic reviews found no evidence of Russian interference and authenticated thousands of emails from the laptop data.

The laptop also contained explicit images and videos documenting Biden’s drug and alcohol use, some of which later featured in his federal gun trial. He was convicted on three felony gun charges in 2024 and pleaded guilty to separate tax offenses before his father granted him a sweeping federal pardon shortly before leaving office.

“We’re excited about the breadth and depth of talent amongst South Asia’s young media professionals and are committed to helping them advance their careers. That’s why we’re launching an online intensive program that combines expert training, hands-on practice, and mentorship from our seasoned international journalists,” Anna Kovtunova, head of RT’s Educational Projects, said.

The new program, titled “Uniting South Asia: Bring Your Voice to Shape the Future Media Landscape,” will commence on October 5, 2026 and run for three weeks. Applications are open until September 27, 2026. The course is free of charge and conducted in English; places are limited and will be filled through a competitive selection process. Exceptional participants may be considered for positions within the RT team.

Apply here — https://rtacademy.study/south-asia/

The course features dozens of pre-recorded video lessons paired with live webinars led by RT’s top correspondents, anchors, producers, and newsroom specialists. The curriculum encompasses the entire media production cycle and practical skills essential for modern journalism.

RT Academy’s first online intensive course available to the entire South Asian region follows a successful 2025 initiative aimed at top media faculty students from India, further expanding RT Academy’s reach and reaffirming its commitment to nurturing journalistic talent across South Asia.

RT Academy, launched in 2024, has previously offered online courses for journalists from Southeast Asian countries (ASEAN), India, China, and Africa. The academy provides free online courses, in-person workshops, and in-house training for both aspiring and professional journalists. To date, over 10,000 students and professionals from more than 80 countries have completed RT Academy programs, many of whom have gone on to work with RT.

The international RT television network includes news channels in English, Arabic, Spanish, German, Serbian, and French, alongside the RTD documentary channel in Russian and English. RT also operates online portals in ten languages and the global multimedia agency RUPTLY, which supplies exclusive content to broadcasters worldwide. RT is available 24/7 to more than 950 million viewers in over 100 countries.

BRICS is seeking practical ways to make trade between its members cheaper and faster, including through the greater use of national currencies and digital payment systems, ahead of the group's summit in New Delhi this week.

Discussions are ongoing on local-currency settlements and platforms involving central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), aimed at cutting transaction costs in bilateral trade and encouraging investment within the group, TASS reported, citing an Indian government source.

The proposed mechanisms would supplement, rather than replace, existing global payment and settlement systems, the report said, adding that the talks are “not aimed against any specific country or group of countries.”

The approach offers an alternative to creating a single BRICS currency, allowing businesses and banks to settle more transactions directly in national currencies and through interconnected payment networks, reducing reliance on the US dollar and multiple correspondent banks.

Indian Trade Minister Piyush Goyal has said New Delhi favors trade settlements in national currencies over a unified BRICS monetary system.

India’s central bank has been pushing the discussion forward. Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Sanjay Malhotra said last month that BRICS members were considering linking their fast-payment systems as well as their CBDCs.

”Cross-border payments is an area of interest for all of us, including the BRICS, because we feel there is a lot of scope for reducing cost,” Malhotra said. He added that several options remained under discussion, including CBDCs and links between fast-payment systems.

Malhotra pointed to India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI), a real-time domestic payment network, as an example of how quickly transactions can move. The RBI has also proposed that linking BRICS countries’ digital currencies be considered at this year’s summit.

The BRICS members already operate several robust domestic payment systems that could potentially be connected. India has UPI, RuPay, and its Structured Financial Messaging System; China operates the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) for yuan transactions; Russia uses its System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) and Mir card network; while Brazil runs the Pix instant-payment system.

A separate BRICS Business Council-backed initiative, BRICS Pay, has also explored ways to connect payment channels across member economies rather than build an entirely new financial system.

For India, the effort also fits into a broader push to internationalize the rupee. The RBI already has arrangements to promote local-currency trade with the UAE, Mauritius, the Maldives, and Indonesia, although Malhotra has said volumes remain relatively small.

The Indian government source cited by TASS said the work ahead of the summit remains focused on practical mechanisms to lower trade costs and deepen investment cooperation within BRICS, rather than replacing the existing international financial architecture.

Hafidh Ameir Hassan, the husband of Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan, has died while undergoing treatment for a heart condition in the country’s semi-autonomous Zanzibar archipelago, the government has announced.

Vice President Deogratius Ndejembi said Ameir died at around 8 AM local time on Monday at Emilio Mzena Memorial Hospital. He extended condolences to the president, the bereaved family and the Tanzanian people.

The 80-year-old was buried later that day in Kizimkazi, South Unguja, in accordance with Islamic tradition. The funeral was attended by senior government and religious officials, including Ndejembi, Prime Minister Mwigulu Nchemba and Zanzibar President Hussein Ali Mwinyi.

On Tuesday, President Hassan received a delegation that delivered a message of condolence from Kenyan President William Ruto. Ruto said the Tanzanian leader had lost “a lifelong companion,” her children a beloved father, and the country “a distinguished son.” Rwanda’s Paul Kagame, Zambia’s Hakainde Hichilema, Burundi’s Evariste Ndayishimiye, Somalia’s Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed also expressed solidarity with the president, her family and Tanzanians.

African Union Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf described Ameir’s death as a “difficult period” for President Samia and her family and wished them “strength, courage and solace.”

“For almost five decades he stood quietly beside her, through every season of her service to Tanzania. A companionship of that depth becomes part of who a person is. To lose it is to lose a portion of oneself, and I feel for her deeply,” Nigerian President Bola Tinubu also wrote on X.

Born in Zanzibar in 1946, Ameir married Samia in 1978 and largely remained outside the political spotlight. They had four children, including Wanu Hafidh Ameir, a member of Zanzibar’s House of Representatives. Ameir worked as a teacher before becoming an agricultural specialist. He studied agricultural machinery engineering in Britain and worked for Zanzibar’s Agriculture Ministry until retiring in 2005. He later taught at Kizimbani Agricultural College.

He became Tanzania’s first gentleman when Samia assumed office in 2021 following the death of then-President John Magufuli. Samia became the country’s first female president and secured a second term in a disputed election last year.

Moscow will deliver a “harsh and painful” response to Hungary’s expulsion of ten Russian diplomats, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has warned.

The remarks were in response to Budapest’s decision to expel ten members of Russia’s diplomatic mission over alleged activities deemed “unacceptable for diplomats” under the Vienna Convention.

“The response to the Russophobic lobby in Budapest will be harsh and painful,” Zakharova said on Tuesday.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Anita Orban announced the decision on Tuesday. She said the Russian ambassador had been informed that, “according to the assessment of the Hungarian authorities,” the diplomats had engaged in activities incompatible with their status.

Orban did not specify the alleged activities or say how long the diplomats had been given to leave. She said the decision was intended to protect Hungary’s “security and sovereignty,” while stressing that Budapest was not severing diplomatic ties with Moscow and intended to maintain dialogue.

The expulsions come as Prime Minister Peter Magyar’s government has sharply reversed Hungary’s policy toward Russia since taking office in May. In a new foreign policy directive, Budapest designated Russia a “threat to Hungary, Europe, and the global order,” marking a dramatic break with the pragmatic relations pursued under former Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Hungary had not formally designated Russia as a “threat” at any point since 1945. Under Orban, Budapest repeatedly opposed what the former prime minister called the West’s “war policies,” refused to supply weapons to Kiev, and argued that the conflict could not be settled through a Ukrainian military victory.

Orban also repeatedly delayed or watered down EU sanctions on Moscow and resisted major financial packages for Kiev, while seeking exemptions that allowed Hungary to continue importing Russian oil, gas, and nuclear fuel. He maintained that cutting Europe off from comparatively cheap Russian energy would damage the bloc’s industrial competitiveness.

Magyar’s new position closely mirrors that of the EU, which also advocates “sustainable peace and long-term security guarantees,” but only on terms that recognize Kiev’s maximalist demands – a return to Ukraine’s 1991 borders, freedom to pursue NATO and EU membership, and NATO-like security guarantees provided by European and American forces.

His government has also backed new sanctions on Russia and dropped Budapest’s objections to a €90 billion ($105 billion) EU package for Kiev, reversing policies that had previously set Hungary apart from most other EU members.

Moscow appreciates efforts to resume direct negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, and the US as Washington has stepped up efforts to settle the conflict, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Speaking to Indian media on Tuesday, ahead of the BRICS summit in New Delhi, Peskov said intensive diplomatic work is underway, with American negotiators carrying messages between Moscow and Kiev.

“We hope for a restart of negotiations between three parties – Russia, Ukraine, and America. We do hope for the best. We do hope that sooner or later we will pursue a peaceful solution,” he said.

Peskov added that Russia welcomes mediation efforts by both Washington and New Delhi, and emphasized that Moscow never wanted the Ukraine conflict to happen and launched its offensive in order to end the war started by Kiev in 2014 following the Western-backed Maidan coup.

The spokesman also said Kiev does not appear to be “flexible” or “really willing” to actually end the hostilities, adding that it appears to be “provoked to a great extent by some European countries who cannot get rid of the idea of strategically defeating Russia.”

His comments follow a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy by US President Donald Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The pair met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Saturday for more than three hours before traveling to Kiev for talks with Vladimir Zelensky the following day.

The Kremlin described the Moscow meeting as constructive and “extremely candid,” saying the Americans presented several ideas for ending the conflict while Putin reiterated Russia’s conditions for a lasting settlement.

Witkoff later said progress had been made toward scheduling another three-way meeting, while expressing optimism that diplomacy could produce an agreement.

Zelensky suggested on Tuesday that the next trilateral talks could be held in the UAE, Türkiye, Switzerland, or another country as early as September or October. Moscow and Washington have yet to comment on specific venues or time frames.

The trilateral format was last used in Geneva in February, following two earlier rounds in Abu Dhabi. However, the talks ended without any significant breakthroughs, although Washington said there had been “meaningful progress.”

The negotiations have since stalled as the US shifted its focus to its war against Iran while hostilities between Russia and Ukraine have continued.

Moscow has repeatedly said it remains open to diplomacy but insists any final agreement must address the root causes of the conflict and respect the new realities on the ground. Kiev, however, has resisted Russian demands on territorial and security issues.

Dozen of civilians were killed in Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon over the weekend, RT’s Steve Sweeney has reported.

Attacks by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on the neighboring country are continuing despite a US-mediated ceasefire, which has been in force starting late June. More than 4,000 people have been killed and over 12,000 wounded by the IDF in Lebanon since March, according to the authorities in Beirut.

In his report from Lebanon’s Nabatieh area on Tuesday, Sweeney said a baby and two teenagers were among the 22 people who lost their lives in a “bloody aggression” by Israeli forces between Friday evening and the early hours of Monday. The Lebanese Heath Ministry later released updated figures, saying that 27 civilians were killed and 69 others wounded during the period.

Despite Israel saying that it was hitting targets linked to armed group Hezbollah across the region, what they actually struck was a children’s amusement park, a hospital, and a residential building, which was completely razed to the ground, Sweeney said.

He added that the owner of the destroyed home told him that “an evacuation order was issued for this building [by IDF] in the very early hours of Monday morning... he was called by relatives and he evacuated at about 3 AM. And then just minutes later, the Israelis struck.”

The intensification of IDF strikes comes ahead of another round of peace talks between West Jerusalem and Beirut, scheduled to take place on September 15 and 16.

Watch the full report by Steve Sweeney below:

Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune has ordered amendments to the North African nation’s penal code allowing the execution of people convicted of abducting or severely abusing children.

The proposed directive came during a Council of Ministers meeting on Sunday, amid public outrage over the killing of a five-year-old in Blida Province last month. The boy disappeared in August and his body was later found burned in a forest near Bouinan. The National Gendarmerie said four suspects, including a woman, have been arrested, while a fifth remains at large.

Meriem Cherfi, head of Algeria’s National Body for the Protection and Promotion of Children, welcomed the measure, saying it would strengthen deterrence against crimes targeting minors.

Algeria ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993 and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child in 2003, both of which require states to protect minors from violence, exploitation and abduction. However, the country is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

According to figures that the NADA Network for the Defense of Children’s Rights cited in a 2026 academic study, 1,000 children fall prey to abductions and attempted abductions in Algeria every year. The country’s 2019 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey also found that 84.1% of children aged one to 14 had experienced psychological aggression or physical punishment by caregivers in the previous month.

Resuming executions would end a moratorium which has held in Algeria for more than three decades. The country retains capital punishment, and its courts continue to impose death sentences, but no execution has been carried out there since 1993.

The latest measure follows an earlier order seeking the death penalty for people convicted of deliberately starting or commissioning fires. Tebboune issued the arson measure after wildfires swept northern Algeria in late August, killing at least 12 people and causing widespread destruction.

Similar penalties exist elsewhere in Africa. Uganda permits death sentences for the aggravated sexual abuse of minors, including offenses against children under 14. Nigeria’s Kaduna State introduced the death penalty and surgical castration for adults convicted of raping children under 14 in 2020.

In the dim interior of Moscow’s Cathedral of the Archangel, a candle softly flickered. Russian President Vladimir Putin stood by an open white stone sarcophagus, made the Sign of the Cross, and bowed his head. Only a few inches remained between the Kremlin of the 21st century and an ancient Russian ruler who died more than 600 years ago. The Russian president called the uncovering of the relics a “miraculous discovery.”

Several weeks earlier, restorers had removed the sagging floor near the cathedral’s southern wall. The old stone lid, which was in danger of collapsing inward, was carefully lifted. Beneath the burial cloth lay the remains of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, a warrior prince canonized by the Orthodox Church and venerated in Russia as the holy savior of Rus’.

On August 18, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ Kirill held a prayer service at the sarcophagus. Particles of the relics were placed in reliquaries for veneration by the faithful; one of them may be delivered to Russian troops at the front. Thus, the warrior prince who once led a united Russian army against the nation’s fiercest enemy will once again stand alongside the nation’s army, in a completely different era and war.

On September 6, one of those reliquaries was carried at the head of a major religious procession through Moscow. Led by Patriarch Kirill, the procession drew around 100,000 people and followed a 6.5-kilometer route from the Cathedral of Christ the Savior to Novodevichy Convent. More than six centuries after his death, Dmitry Donskoy once again led a procession through the Russian capital.

Grand Prince Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow, better known as Dmitry Donskoy, is a fairly common example of a historical figure remembered by virtually all his compatriots, but known only to specialists outside his country. This 14th-century prince played a huge role in the history of Russia, which was then still known as Rus’. His contributions to the fate of Russia as a warrior and statesman were recognized during his lifetime, but after his death, Dmitry gradually became a symbolic figure of the struggle for independence.

The uncovering of his relics could hardly have remained only an ecclesiastical or archaeological event. Modern Russia once again speaks the language of sovereignty, unity, and resistance to an external adversary – the same concepts which national memory associates Dmitry Donskoy.

To understand why Dmitry Donskoy is venerated by Russians centuries later, we must return to where his name became history – the field between the Don and Nepryadva rivers on the morning of September 8, 1380.

An existential enemy

Despite Russia’s long and dramatic military history, it didn’t have many long-standing adversaries with whom it was forced to fight again and again. The list of Russia’s historical adversaries isn’t topped by Poland, Germany, or Türkiye, as one might expect from a brief look at Russian history. The most formidable enemy, one that called into question the very existence of the Russian people, was a state that no longer exists on the world map – the Golden Horde, one of the major powers into which Genghis Khan’s empire was divided after his death.

In 1237, the still formally united Mongol state began its great march westward. Rus’ was one of the countries that fell prey to the Mongols. From this moment on, an epic struggle began, encompassing several dozen wars, not to mention isolated raids and minor border conflicts. Until the second half of the 15th century, Rus’ remained a vassal state to the steppe kingdom.

Regular and heavy tribute payments served as the basis of this dependence. If the people of Rus’ attempted to avoid them, a punitive expedition would arrive, destroying everything in its path, after which the survivors would go back to paying tribute. Horde officials known as the ‘baskaks’ were responsible for its collection. As is usually the case, the baskaks abused their power and engaged in extortion. Whenever they overstepped the boundaries, another rebellion would break out, followed by a new punitive campaign.

The Mongols also skillfully manipulated the Russian princes. There was no single leader in Rus’ at the time, so the princes traveled to the khan’s headquarters to intrigue against each other, turning to the Mongols as arbiters. The winners of this vile contest received a ‘yarlyk’ or charter to rule, along with the obligation to pay tribute and support the Mongols against those attempting to shake off their rule. This period in Russia is still called “the yoke,” calling to mind the yoke meant for draft animals. It aptly describes the severity and humiliation of the situation in which Rus’ found itself for many years. 

Everything comes to an end, however; and by the 14th century, the Golden Horde had plunged into a protracted crisis. The khans were more likely to slaughter one another due to intrigues than to wage war on their neighbors. The nomadic empire was weakening.

The rise of Moscow

Some Russian principalities freed themselves from the yoke, falling under the control of other states, primarily the young and dynamic Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Lithuania’s time as a great Eastern European power was short but brilliant. The western principalities of Rus’ gravitated toward the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; this is how the future country of Belarus began to take shape. In the eastern part of Rus’, however, the control of the Horde was more strict, and events took a different course.

In 1325, Ivan Kalita became Prince of Moscow. ‘Kalita’ is a nickname meaning ‘money bag’ as he was indeed a sort of bagman, an unscrupulous schemer who based his power on the flow of money. He managed to ‘sell’ himself to the Horde as the most loyal of the princes and, most importantly, persuaded the khans to entrust him with collecting tribute from all of Rus’.

Baskaks and other options involving Horde officials were not very convenient for the khan: firstly, baskaks sought to pocket the money for themselves; secondly, dealing with one prince was easier: tribute collection proceeded more smoothly, a specific person could be held accountable, and naturally, the Russian prince had a better understanding of the country’s inner workings than the Mongols.  

Ivan Kalita’s position as a go-between was disreputable but highly lucrative. He profited from the cash flow but managed to strike a fine balance, avoiding further rebellions within Rus’ while satisfying the khan’s demands. His accounting tricks still allowed him to keep some of the money for himself. He also used his position to quietly undermine his rivals, particularly the powerful prince of Tver. Now a smaller city northwest of the modern capital, at the time Tver was a serious rival of Moscow. 

By 1340, when Ivan Kalita died, Moscow had become the richest and most powerful principality in Rus’.

Kalita’s successors – his elder son Simeon and later his younger son Ivan –  were not as cunning as he, but managed to preserve their father’s gains. The principality was supposed to be headed by Simeon’s heirs, but both Simeon and his sons fell victim to the plague. The cause of death of his younger son Ivan is unknown, but he was 33 years old at the time and may have fallen victim to the same disease. Be that as it may, in 1359 rule over the principality was formally passed on to a nine-year-old boy named Dmitry Ivanovich.

The birth of a legend

Dmitry Donskoy’s personality is almost buried beneath the legend surrounding him. Generations of chroniclers and writers have described the prince as a chivalrous man and a patriot with deep convictions. Such a person was of course supposed to be ideal, and Dmitry was characterized as exceptionally virtuous and wise beyond his years.

More specifically, we may add the following about his character: Dmitry was certainly a religious man, and his faith was sincere. His guardian was Metropolitan Alexei, an authoritative figure and a shrewd politician who played a huge role in Dmitry’s development and the preservation of the principality. Dmitry always had a warm relationship with the Orthodox Church, not least because of the positive influence of Metropolitan Alexei, the most important Orthodox hierarch of his time.

The second important factor was that, after his father’s death, Dmitry was thrown headlong into the brutal maelstrom of politics. He had to learn self-control and military skills literally from childhood. Lithuania pressed in from the west, vying with Moscow as a rallying point for the Russian principalities; the Horde pressed from the south; and the independent principalities were in a state of constant feudal competition. In short, it was the ‘normal’ reality of medieval life. Thus, from childhood, Dmitry was exposed to the harsh school of politics, intrigue, and war. Young Dmitry had to endure short but intense wars with Lithuania. Moreover, Regent Alexei could not protect Dmitry forever, and the latter was forced to negotiate with the Horde and participate in campaigns against other princes. Dmitry besieged Tver, which had long been a thorn in Moscow’s side, and forced Prince Mikhail of Tver to pledge his loyalty to him. 

In 1375, Prince Dmitry, who was then 25 years of age, concluded a treaty with Tver. Prince Mikhail of Tver called himself Dmitry’s “younger brother” (behind this elegant formula was actually a vassal treaty) but from a historical perspective, the key to the treaty was the phrase “If God changes the Horde”: if Moscow fought the Horde, Tver was obliged to join the fight. Apparently, Dmitry earnestly hated the Horde and wanted to fight it. Such an opportunity soon presented itself.  

The rebellious prince

The Horde was rocked by coups. Its de facto ruler was the military commander Mamai. In Russian tradition, Mamai is often referred to as a khan, but this is incorrect. He was a ‘beklarbek’, i.e., one of the top-ranking officials. However, this position afforded him powers almost equal to those of a khan. Mamai ruled the Horde like an ‘eminence grise’, outliving a dozen khans while hiding behind the back of the nominal ruler Muhammad Bulak. Mamai maintained his rule by means of poison, dagger, and intrigue. In 1363, it was Mamai who granted the charter to young Dmitry. However, in the 1370s, Dmitry, feeling powerful enough, refused to pay tribute to the Horde.

This was a bold challenge. At that time, the Horde seemed almost invincible to the Russians. Psychologically, someone had to finally stand up and say “No”, and the most powerful prince of eastern Rus’ did so. Dmitry convened a congress of princes who expressed their support for him.

This certainly meant war, but this was no longer a rebellion of isolated outcasts. Dmitry spoke on behalf of all Rus’. Not everyone was ready to support him, but Moscow was not alone; it could count on the support of different corners of a country which, though humiliated, was still alive.

The war began dismally: a Horde detachment managed to surprise and defeat a small Russian force on the Pyana River. The river’s name in Russian sounds similar to the word ‘drunk’ [pianaya] and alas, in this case, “nomen est omen”: the Mongols took the Russians by surprise when they were relaxing in their camp. After the defeat in the field battle, Nizhny Novgorod, a large city approximately 400 km east of Moscow was devastated. However, during the very next skirmish, on the Vozha River, things took a different turn. This time, Dmitry, who personally led the army, surprised the Mongols at the crossing and pushed their detachment into the water.

Mamai faced a serious problem. Rus’, which was seemingly subjugated long ago, now rebelled. Moreover, Mamai was in serious trouble: Khan Tokhtamysh, a protégé of the mighty Tamerlane, rose up against him. Mamai needed to act quickly and brutally.

Another punitive expedition was organized against Rus’. This time, Mamai, a contender for power in the Horde, led it himself. It was late summer 1380.

Preparing for battle

Mamai saw that this time, he would meet with significant resistance and focused on the political preparations for the campaign. He negotiated with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jagiello. As a rival of Moscow, Jagiello saw advantage in weakening Dmitry. Prince Oleg, the leader of Ryazan, which bordered the Horde, took an ambiguous stance. A century and a half earlier, in 1237, Ryazan had fiercely resisted the invasion, but the city had been completely devastated, and its inhabitants had almost entirely perished. Now, the descendants of the few survivors did not want to get involved. 

Prince Oleg demonstrated exceptional political flexibility, expressing loyalty to both sides but refusing to lend troops to either. Meanwhile, Dmitry was gathering troops – his own and those of his allies – in Kolomna, a city southeast of Moscow. He did not have the full might of Rus’ at his disposal, but commanded a considerably large force assembled from various principalities: his own domain, which included the cities of Moscow and Vladimir; detachments from Novgorod and Pskov; and his cousin’s forces from Serpukhov. Moreover, individual detachments arrived from Ryazan, despite Prince Oleg’s ambiguous stance, and there were also troops from the Rostov Principality, Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Bryansk, and Starodub. Small groups even came from the Lithuanian Principality – these were the detachments of the exiled princes, Jagiello’s half-brothers. 

Admittedly, these troops likely numbered about 10,000 men – which is not a staggering number. However, we should remember that we’re talking about the 14th century, and at the time, Rus’, though large, was a sparsely populated country and could not assemble huge armies.

To dispel the fog of war, watchmen – i.e., reconnaissance detachments – were sent ahead to the steppe border. The first detachment went into the steppe and disappeared; a second detachment had already been dispatched from Moscow to search for it when a scout from the first group emerged from the steppe. This was Vasily Tupik, whose group managed to kidnap Mamai’s confidant. The scouts forced him to provide information about the enemy’s whereabouts and plans. This information was so vital that the name of the soldier who obtained it was written down in the chronicles, and thus remained in history. 

Dmitry did not march directly towards Mamai. Instead, he first made a surprise dash west. This was done to accomplish two goals. Firstly, along the way, he ‘picked up’ several units that hadn’t made it to the general assembly. Secondly, he created a convincing illusion that he was busy attacking Jagiello’s Lithuanian army. Jagiello, unwilling to engage in a pitched battle with the strong Russian army, slowed his march. So, by the time Dmitry turned back and embarked on  the campaign against Mamai, it was hard for the Lithuanian prince to catch up. By the morning of September 8, Dmitry had crossed the Don River which separated him from the army of the Horde.

This was a very risky maneuver. The Don is a large river. In case of defeat, the Russian army would have been pushed towards the river and easily annihilated. However, Dmitry wanted to avoid lengthy maneuvers. Time wasn’t on his side: the threat of Jagiello’s Lithuanians in the rear was still present, and no one knew what Oleg of Ryazan was up to. Therefore, he had to defeat Mamai in open battle, and do it quickly.

Dmitry employed a good deal of imagination in planning the battle. Historically, the Mongols possessed highly maneuverable cavalry. Dmitry occupied a battlefield bordered by forests, rivers, and ravines on the flanks; this protected his army from encirclement. But the Horde didn’t yet know the biggest surprise. The weakest link in the Russian position was the left flank, positioned next to a large oak forest. But it was precisely here that Dmitry had an ace up his sleeve – a powerful detachment of heavy cavalry led by the experienced commander Bobrok. Bobrok was an old, experienced warrior with strong nerves, and his task was to carry out a surprise attack when the situation became critical.

Before the battle began, Dmitry exchanged armor with boyar Mikhail Brenk. It was a cruel decision: both Dmitry and Mikhail Brenk knew that the enemy would try to kill the man wearing the prince’s armor. But Dmitry needed freedom to move around the battlefield and issue commands. However, he also took care to issue detailed instructions to the commanders.

The battle began on the morning of September 8. 

Kulikovo Field

The chronicle states that the battle began with a duel between two fighters. A warrior monk, Alexander Peresvet, rode out from the Russian side. A former warrior from Bryansk, he had retired to a monastery some time earlier, but left for the campaign against Mamai, with the full understanding and approval of the abbot. Peresvet encountered a steppe warrior, known as Chelubey in the chronicles. The name sounds Turkic, which is logical: Mamai’s main forces were composed of various Turkic peoples. According to the chronicle, both warriors struck each other with spears and died. Apparently, they engaged in a head-on clash, and neither turned away.

Mamai seized the initiative in the battle. Apparently, the steppe army had a numerical advantage, as the Russians spent almost the entire battle on the defensive.

The Horde launched a series of attacks in various areas. They persistently sought out weak points and fought in waves for several hours. Of course, we’re not talking about hours of nonstop fighting. Cavalry armies fought on both sides and the battle resembled a series of skirmishes. The detachments charged at each other, fought for several minutes, then dispersed, making way for fresh reserves. 

The Advance Regiment was positioned ahead of the main body of the Russian army. Under the Horde’s attacks, it retreated toward the Grand Regiment, the main line of the Russian army. The right flank repelled all attacks and was in least danger. The center fought very hard, but stood firm and did not crumble. The battle raged past midday. Mikhail Brenk, who had exchanged armor with Dmitry, was killed in battle. The prince himself not only commanded the battle, but actively participated in it and was wounded. This had no effect on morale; everyone knew Prince Dmitry was somewhere among the fighting ranks, but his simple, unadorned armor made it difficult to know his exact whereabouts.

The left flank of the Russian army was in danger, however. This regiment was retreating and the princes that commanded it had perished in battle. A small reserve detachment came to its aid, but stabilized the situation only briefly. The Horde forded the narrow Smolka River and pushed the Russians further and further back. The battle had reached its climax; both armies suffered heavy losses and were terribly tired. However, the Horde army had inflicted serious damage on the Russians’ left flank and was about to move into the rear of their center. 

That’s when Bobrok’s Ambush Regiment struck the Horde army.

The old commander had calculated the moment with perfect precision. He arrived when the enemy was already exhausted by the long, hard battle, but the Russian line of defense had not yet crumbled.

Fresh cavalry reserves are a terrifying force at the end of a major battle. After several hours of heavy fighting, the Horde army was hit from the flank as if struck by a train. The balance of power didn’t just shift: the Horde panicked. Now, instead of the Russian left flank, the Horde’s right flank began to crumble. Mamai had no reinforcements left, as he had thrown all his forces into battle.

Some time after the attack by the Ambush Regiment, the enemy wavered and began to scatter.

The pursuit of the Horde was led by Dmitry’s cousin, Prince Vladimir of Serpukhov. Mamai fled, and most of his army followed on exhausted horses. The Russians relentlessly pursued the enemy for about 30 kilometers.

The Russians suffered heavy losses. For several more days, the army stood “on the bones,” picking up the dead, nursing the wounded, and gathering all the weapons and equipment they could find. 

Prince Dmitry was found among a pile of corpses. He was alive, but gravely wounded; his armor was mangled, and he was unconscious. He fought the most important battle of his life at the forefront of his warriors, with a war club in hand, and nearly paid for the victory with his life. Unfortunately, the chroniclers did not specify in what circumstances he was wounded, but the location where he was found speaks for itself: it was, of course, the left flank.

From that moment on, Prince Dmitry of Moscow would be known by the name that would become part of history: Dmitry Donskoy, i.e., Dmitry of the Don.

On September 14, the army turned back.

Afterword

The Battle of Kulikovo had a huge psychological impact. The Russian army routed the Horde in a proper pitched battle – it didn’t hide behind fortified walls, and didn’t just defeat a single detachment; it utterly destroyed the enemy’s main field army. This was not accomplished by any single principality but by a broad alliance. Men who had seen the backs of the fleeing Horde army with their own eyes returned to Nizhny Novgorod, Pskov, Novgorod, and Yaroslavl. 

After the battle, the Lithuanian army quietly retreated home.

The struggle for independence did not end there, of course. After this defeat, Mamai lost the internal struggle in the Golden Horde to Khan Tokhtamysh, fled to Crimea, and was killed there. Tokhtamysh set about restoring the Horde’s former glory. In 1382, he launched a new campaign against Rus’, and this time succeeded in taking Moscow while Dmitry was gathering a field army. Dmitry, through gritted teeth, paid tribute for the previous two years (but not for the earlier years). However, the Battle of Kulikovo marked a new style of relations between Rus’ and the Horde. Tokhtamysh made no attempt to install anyone else as ruler of Moscow. The idea of ​​independence and political unity took hold in Rus’, and Moscow clearly headed this process. The Russians were still paying tribute, but they already saw that they could seize the opportunity to avoid it. The gaps between payments grew wider and successful battles with the Horde became more frequent. 

In 1395, Khan Tokhtamysh suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of Tamerlane, with whom he had fallen out. The Horde was falling apart and the Russians accelerated this process as best they could.

In 1389, Dmitry Donskoy died before reaching the age of 40. The cause of his early death is unknown. However, he left behind a powerful legacy: a large principality that became the leader in the unification of Rus’; a son who continued his policies; and, finally, the idea of ​​a unified state that would never again lose its independence.

At the end of the 14th century, ‘Zadonshchina’ – a literary monument about the Battle of Kulikovo – was published.

In 1480, Ivan III formalized the complete political independence of Rus’; By this point, its dependence was more of a formality and Ivan III sealed the recognition of the new reality. 

In 1783, Empress Catherine II annexed Crimea – the last fragment of the Golden Horde to be incorporated into Russia. The great conflict thus ended, and all debts were settled. 

European leaders were “scared to death” by US President Donald Trump’s proposals for resolving the Ukraine conflict and worked relentlessly to sabotage Washington’s compromise efforts, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

In an interview published on Tuesday, Lavrov accused European NATO members of seeking to prevent Trump from returning to the ideas he had discussed with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last year. He also pointed to a phone call between the two leaders on July 4 this year.

“Europe understands that if the Americans suddenly return to their original proposals... as was the case in Anchorage, Europe was simply scared to death,” Lavrov said. According to him, European leaders “immediately rushed” to coax Trump into abandoning his own initiatives.

Lavrov recalled French President Emmanuel Macron’s remarks at a NATO summit in June, at which the French leader had effectively boasted that the Anchorage initiative had been “buried” and that Washington was once again aligned with Europe in a united front against Russia.

“If Western diplomacy comes down to restraining countries that put forward reasonable, balanced, compromise initiatives, then so be it,” Lavrov said. Moscow would then pursue its objectives “not at the negotiating table,” which he said Russia would prefer, “but on the battlefield.”

Lavrov’s remarks come as the Trump administration makes a renewed push to revive stalled diplomacy. US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner met Putin in Moscow on Saturday for more than three hours before traveling on to Kiev the following day.

The White House said the sides discussed “substantive plans for next steps” toward ending the conflict, while Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov described the meeting as “extremely frank” and said the American envoys had presented a number of ideas on possible avenues toward a settlement.

Lavrov, however, argued that most of the public talk about diplomacy coming from Kiev and its Western sponsors is intended to secure another pause in the fighting and give their Ukrainian proxies time to rearm and regroup. Despite the renewed US effort, Lavrov insisted that no constructive peace negotiations are currently under way.

“Nothing is happening on the diplomatic front,” he said, adding that developments are instead unfolding “on the real front,” where Russian forces are advancing.

The foreign minister also warned that Moscow intends to follow through on threats of retaliation for Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure. Russia had warned that such strikes would trigger a response “much heavier for Ukraine,” he said, adding: “This is happening now.”

The top Russian diplomat also took aim at London, which has vowed to remain with Kiev to the end. “I feel sorry for Britain,” he said, since that end “will not be a happy one.”

Addressing European preparations for a possible future conflict with Moscow, Lavrov reiterated Putin’s position that Russia has no intention of attacking Europe. If European countries were to attack Russia, however, he warned that it would be “a fundamentally different war” and “very short.”

Russian forces have struck drone and missile production facilities and logistics centers in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said.  

The raid comes as a three-day break in attacks on military-related targets in the Ukrainian capital, announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of trips to Moscow and Kiev by US President Donald Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, expired.

The large-scale overnight strike involved ground-, air-, and sea-based precision weapons as well as long-range attack drones, the ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

Ukrainian defense industry facilities involved in the production and storage of drones and cruise missiles were hit during the attack, the statement read.

They included the Kiev Radio Plant where components for reconnaissance and strike UAVs were produced, including long-range models used to attack civilian targets within Russia, it said.

An industrial facility belonging to weapons maker Fire Point was also hit during the bombardment, the ministry said, adding that the site had made warheads for attack drones and Flamingo cruise missiles.

Russian forces launched another large-scale overnight attack across Ukraine, using a combination of ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles and jet-powered Shahed drones.

The attack hit multiple parts of the country, with the heaviest damage reported in and around… pic.twitter.com/dcDfYH3PeG

— GeoInsider (@InsiderGeo) September 8, 2026

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky actively promotes Fire Point and its products internationally, despite the firm being linked to his longtime business associate Timur Mindich, who fled Ukraine after becoming a key figure in a $100 million corruption scandal last year.

The Russian military also targeted another plant engaged in the manufacture of parts for US-designed AI-assisted Hornet medium-range strike UAVs, according to the statement.

🇺🇦 In the Kiev region, several facilities, warehouses, residential buildings, and cars were damaged as a result of last night's attack, according to Timur Tkachenko, head of the Kiev Regional State Administration.

In the Borispol district, a warehouse, an enterprise, and seven… pic.twitter.com/tFggFMkNpX

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) September 8, 2026

Missiles and drones struck transport, logistics, and distribution centers for military cargo in the Ukrainian capital and Kiev Region, the ministry said.

The Vaslikov airbase of the Ukrainian armed forces and a radio-electronic surveillance facility of the country’s security service, the SBU, in Markhalyovka outside Kiev were also hit as part of the raid.

According to the ministry, Russian forces also destroyed several targets in Odessa Region, including facilities in the port of Chenomorsk, used for unloading military cargo.

Earlier, Ukrainian Telegram channels reported air raid sirens and explosions in and outside Kiev as well as in other parts of the country, including in Odessa and Sumy regions.

Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitschko announced that the Ukrainian capital was under a ballistic missile attack, urging residents to remain in shelters. According to Klitschko, six people were wounded in the city, with three of them requiring hospitalization.

Putin had ordered the Russian military to pause strikes on targets in the Ukrainian capital until Tuesday ahead of Saturday’s talks with Witkoff and Kushner in Moscow.

The meeting at the Kremlin dedicated to the settlement of the Ukraine conflict lasted over three hours. Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later said it was indicative of an “atmosphere of trust” between Moscow and Washington.

Trump’s envoys later met with Vladimir Zelensky in Kiev on Sunday, with the Ukrainian leader joking about the hiatus in Russian strikes that Witkoff and Kushner “worked even better than the Patriot systems” and asked them to visit more often.

Witkoff said he “felt good” about the discussions in Moscow and Kiev, expressing hope that trilateral talks between the sides could be announced “in short order.”

Moscow maintains that its long-range missile and drone strikes against Ukraine are a response to Kiev’s daily drone incursions targeting civilian infrastructure and residential areas inside Russia. According to Russian officials, Zelensky’s government is resorting to terrorist attacks in an attempt to compensate for setbacks on the battlefield, where Russian forces continue their steady advance.

The Defense Ministry in Moscow maintains that it does not attack civilians, with its strikes being directed solely at military targets and infrastructure supporting Ukrainian forces.

US-based LGBTQ dating app Grindr has agreed to a multi million-pound settlement in a UK lawsuit alleging it shared users’ private information, including their HIV status, with advertising companies without consent.

The £26 million ($35 million) settlement covers claims brought by around 12,000 users over the company’s handling of personal information before early 2020. Grindr disputes the allegations.

“The settlement includes no findings or admission of liability,” Grindr said in a US regulatory filing submitted late last week. It nevertheless acknowledged the “distress and loss of trust” expressed by some users.

The legal action was launched in April 2024 by law firm Austen Hays at the High Court of England and Wales. Information allegedly disclosed also included HIV test dates and whether users took medication to prevent infection, according to the firm. Anonymity orders were granted to protect those bringing the case.

Under the settlement, reached on September 2, Grindr will pay £13 million by the end of this year and another £13 million by March 31, 2027. Individual awards have not been specified, and legal and insurance costs will be deducted under the terms published by Austen Hays.

Founded in 2009, Grindr was owned by Chinese gaming group Beijing Kunlun Tech during the period covered by the UK claims. It was sold in 2020 after the US authorities raised concerns that American users’ personal information could be accessed by China’s government. The company said it had since overhauled its privacy program.

In 2018, Norwegian researchers found that Grindr had shared users’ HIV status with two analytics providers. Grindr subsequently announced that it would stop the practice.

In a separate case, Norway’s data protection authority fined Grindr 65 million Norwegian krone ($7 million) in 2021 for sharing personal information for advertising without valid consent. An appeals court upheld the penalty in October 2025.

The court also found that Grindr’s assurance that it did not sell users’ personal information to third parties for advertising was misleading, according to the Norwegian Consumer Council.