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

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

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

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

Kallas attempted to defuse the situation, vaguely stating that the “EU is always committed to a constructive relationship with Israel” as well as “dialogue and engagement.” At the same time, she reaffirmed the bloc’s commitment to a two-state solution and condemned illegal Israeli settlements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right-wing French MEP Francois-Xavier Bellamy hailed the vote as a “historic step for Europe and proof that change is possible.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Union is no longer the only benchmark for regional integration, according to Aleksandr Bobrov, associate professor at MGIMO, Russia’s leading international affairs university.

Speaking to RT on Thursday as Russia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) marked 35 years of partnership at a summit in Kazan, he said the bloc has demonstrated that integration can succeed without the supranational institutions that characterize Brussels while still delivering economic growth and geopolitical influence.

“We are used to believing that the European Union is the main model of integration,” Bobrov said. “But ASEAN demonstrates that it is possible to build a successful regional organization without creating supranational institutions and transferring key powers to them.”

According to Bobrov, Russia sees cooperation with ASEAN as a gateway to one of the world’s most dynamic economic regions. He said the partnership gives Russian investors access to fast-growing markets, opportunities to join regional value chains, and new ways to enhance the competitiveness of Russian businesses.

Bobrov noted that ASEAN maintains strategic partnerships with major global powers, including the US, Russia, China, and Australia. He described the bloc as “one of the most successful and effective” regional organizations, providing a platform for cooperation in trade, politics, security and responses to emerging challenges.

The academic also highlighted ASEAN’s role as a neutral and balanced actor in international affairs.

“This is a very important geopolitical player,” he said, adding that Moscow supports the principle of Asian-centered cooperation and values the bloc’s approach to regional and global issues.

Russia and ASEAN are approaching “a very important milestone” in their relationship as they prepare new projects and cooperation initiatives, Bobrov said. He noted that ASEAN leaders regularly attend major Russian events, including the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, and stressed that all eleven member states are interested in expanding ties with Moscow.

Negotiations in Kazan, both bilaterally and within the broader summit framework, create “good opportunities” for launching new joint projects and strengthening long-term cooperation, he added.

ASEAN summit shows demand for Russia ties 

The ASEAN-Russia summit in Kazan has shown that Moscow remains an increasingly important partner for the Global South, Ladislav Zemanek, a non-resident research fellow at the China-CEE Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Budapest, has told RT.

The gathering demonstrated that many countries continue to see Russia as a reliable and predictable partner, despite Western efforts to limit Moscow’s international engagement after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022

“The summit once again demonstrated that Russia is not isolated internationally and remains an increasingly sought-after partner in an evolving multipolar world”.

Zemanek noted that after an initial downturn in relations in 2022, Moscow has continued to strengthen ties with many countries across the Global South, including key ASEAN members such as Indonesia, Singapore, and Vietnam. For these states, he said, cooperation with Russia remains valuable in areas ranging from energy to security.

The summit also showed strong interest among ASEAN countries in expanding ties with Moscow in strategic sectors such as nuclear energy, infrastructure, and regional security, Zemanek added.

More broadly, he argued, the meeting highlighted a significant degree of convergence between Russia and its ASEAN partners on major international issues. These include the need to protect national sovereignty, adapt to ongoing geopolitical shifts, and deepen economic interconnectedness.

Zemanek pointed in particular to Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who co-chaired the summit despite being widely seen as maintaining close ties with Washington.

His participation, the expert said, suggests that many Southeast Asian countries do not view engagement with Moscow and Washington as mutually exclusive. Instead, they see it as part of a balanced and pragmatic foreign policy aimed at preserving room for maneuver in a changing international environment.

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

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

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

Economics and energy

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

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

In this context, the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant deserves special attention. The project has become one of the most visible symbols of the strategic partnership between Russia and Türkiye. It is far more than an energy facility; it represents a long-term infrastructure partnership designed to last for decades. In effect, Russia is helping shape an entirely new segment of Türkiye’s energy system. It is therefore unsurprising that Ankara is exploring additional opportunities for cooperation with Moscow on future nuclear projects. For Türkiye, such cooperation is closely tied to energy sovereignty, technological modernization, and reduced dependence on volatile global markets.

Ukraine is not the only issue

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

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

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

The Middle East takes center stage

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

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

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

Strategic coordination at the highest level

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

The meeting, held on the sidelines of the Russia–ASEAN summit in Kazan, reinforced the notion that Moscow views Türkiye as one of its key foreign policy priorities. Addressing Putin, Fidan noted that Russia and Türkiye have a wide range of issues requiring ongoing discussion. Rather than signaling an overloaded agenda, the remark reflected the strategic density of the relationship. Moscow and Ankara now find themselves coordinating on nearly every major regional issue – from Ukraine and the South Caucasus to Syria, Iran, Israel, and energy security.

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

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

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

A relationship built on pragmatism

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

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

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

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

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

What is in the US-Iran memorandum?

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

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

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

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

The final US taxpayer bill for the conflict has come out to an estimated $113.3 billion, according to the tracker. The evaluation is based on the Pentagon’s March statement that the first six days of the war cost $11.3 billion, followed by an additional $1 billion per day for continuing operations.

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

What were US military losses during the war on Iran?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iranian media and rights groups have put the death toll at up to 155 people, nearly all of them young children.

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

Trump’s repeated promises

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

He later repeatedly said it would end “soon” or “very soon,” even as fighting dragged on. By April, US media were compiling timelines of Trump’s shifting statements, repeated declarations of victory, and changing estimates for when the war would end.

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

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

Brent crude prices went from $75 a barrel to a peak of $130 a barrel, while in the US, the national average gasoline price reached a peak of $4.11 per gallon, up from $2.96 before the conflict.

What happens next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same disturbing pattern repeated across Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, and dozens of other towns. The ‘Rape Gang Report’, published on Tuesday by Restore Britain MP Rupert Lowe, estimates that at least 250,000 mainly White British girls had been victimized nationwide since the 1950s. Time and again, authorities across the country turned a blind eye, paralyzed by their fear of offending immigrant communities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations (1996) further illuminates the deeper dynamics at work. He argued that in the post-Cold War era, conflicts would increasingly stem from cultural and civilizational differences rather than ideology or economics. Western universalism, the belief that liberal values would naturally triumph everywhere, was dangerously naive. Large-scale immigration from Islamic civilization into the West would breed friction, parallel societies, and clashes, because fundamental values concerning religion, authority, rights, and loyalty remain profoundly incompatible.

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

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

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

Democratizing artificial intelligence (AI) should be India’s priority as the world’s most populous country, a top minister and ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has told RT India.

Nara Lokesh, the information and technology minister of the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, said India’s AI mission has a clear mandate: the technology’s effective use at the grassroots level.

“We don’t look at AI as a profit-making machine,” he said in the latest episode of ‘India, Russia and The World’ podcast. “But we look at AI at the scale of 1.4 billion people using it, using it effectively and enhancing their livelihoods.” 

The AI mission aims to bring in the physical infrastructure and build local models, while exploring how to use the technology to effectively improve outcomes for citizens, he said.

Lokesh argued AI should not remain a product for the elite or create a greater digital divide.

“It should help the farmer… it should help the street vendor… it should help the taxi driver, or the auto driver. And that’s when you would have really unlocked the value of AI,” he said.

“Some countries look at profiting from it, some countries look at regulating it. I believe India, given its scale, should democratize AI.” 

“Every family should either actively use AI or create a use case for AI,” he said.

Lokesh was in Russia earlier this month to attend the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).

“We looked at how AI on cameras was used effectively to prevent crime and even collaboration in urban transportation” in Moscow, he said. A delegation would visit the Russian capital in August to study the city transportation system, he added.

Lokesh said his state is looking at how it can attract shipbuilding industries, noting India’s exploration of opportunities linked to the Arctic shipping route.

“We are very strategically based on the eastern seaboard.” 

Indian shipyards are building four non-nuclear icebreaker ships to navigate the harsh waters of the Arctic route.

RT has launched a Hindi-language version of its Gateway to Russia project, expanding access for audiences in India and Hindi speakers around the world.

The new platform offers content on Russian culture, history, travel, education, and everyday life, along with practical guidance tailored for Hindi-speaking users. 

The Hindi version is designed to help users better understand Russia and explore opportunities related to study, travel, and relocation. The site includes information for those interested in learning Russian, pursuing higher education in the country, navigating visa and citizenship procedures, and understanding what it is like to move to and live in Russia.

The launch comes as Russia and India continue to expand people-to-people, educational, and economic ties, with growing interest among Indian students, workers, and tourists in opportunities in Russia.

RT has also encouraged users to follow the Hindi-language Gateway to Russia Telegram channel, (@russiaandindia), which will provide daily updates and additional content for the audience.

The Gateway to Russia project has been developed by RT since 2024 and serves as an informational platform for foreign audiences interested in the country. With the addition of Hindi, the portal is now available in 11 languages: Russian, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, Serbian, Arabic, German, and Hindi.

The Hindi launch marks RT’s latest effort to broaden its outreach in South Asia and make Russian-focused content more accessible to one of the world’s largest language communities.

Last year, RT launched a new India-dedicated channel – RT India. It was inaugurated in-person by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his state visit to the country. Putin hailed the RT India launch as an “important milestone” that will allow millions of Indians to receive information about Russia’s realities today, its perspectives, and its aspirations.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has welcomed the US-Iran memorandum of understanding and expressed its readiness to help facilitate further diplomatic efforts toward establishing peace in the Middle East.

The 14-point document was signed remotely by US President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian late on Wednesday, with immediate effect, according to Pakistani mediators.

In a statement on Thursday, the Foreign Ministry in Moscow stressed that during the upcoming 60-day negotiation period, which is expected to culminate in the signing of a final peace agreement, “it is highly important that all parties involved in the armed conflict… not allow a renewed dangerous escalation [to happen] in the region, including in Lebanon.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry also expressed hope that maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz would return to its pre-war levels, thus decreasing the volatility of global oil and food markets. Moscow also noted that it had unequivocally condemned the “unprovoked US-Israeli aggression against Iran” since the very beginning of the conflict in late February.

The Foreign Ministry stated that Russia is willing to continue facilitating the diplomatic process in the Middle East with the aim of establishing a lasting peace in the region.

According to the statement, late last month, Moscow handed over an updated version of its Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf to unspecified Arab nations and Iran for consideration.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian similarly welcomed the signing of the peace roadmap by Washington and Tehran.

Meanwhile, Iranian officials have hailed the signing of the memorandum as a major diplomatic victory for the Islamic Republic.

Tehran has noted that the document envisages a series of concessions by Washington, including the lifting of the US naval blockade on Iran, sanctions waivers for Iranian oil exports, access to frozen Iranian funds, and a US-backed economic reconstruction plan to the tune of at least $300 billion.

Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani is planning an ambitious project to launch a large constellation of satellites into low-earth orbit. 

The move would propel Ambani’s Reliance Jio, a dominant player in India’s telecom sector, into a global market currently dominated by Elon Musk’s Starlink and Jeff Bezos’ Amazon Leo. Ambani is the richest man in India and has an estimated net worth of about $100 billion.

Jio plans to launch around 1,600 satellites into a low-earth-orbit altitude of about 650 km, the Economic Times reported. This would enable the company to extend its dominance in the Indian telecom and fiber internet markets to space, and would critically enable India to reduce reliance on foreign infrastructure in the strategic sector.

Reliance Jio’s plan is being evaluated by the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Center, the report said.

The role that Starlink has played in the Ukraine conflict has spurred national security concerns in India, especially because the US-based company could turn connectivity on and off remotely.

Starlink’s commercial launch in India is on hold, though it has received preliminary licenses. New Delhi is reportedly wary of constellations that use laser links to beam data directly between satellites outside of its control and even potentially through “surveillance hubs and hostile jurisdictions.”

Starlink has about 10,000 satellites in orbit, while Amazon Leo has about 370, with plans for up to 3,200.

The report said the Indian government is likely to back Jio in its filings with the International Telecommunication Union to secure orbital slots – scarce real estate in an already crowded chunk of space.

The Indian government sees Jio’s plan as a geopolitical play, not purely a commercial one, and in sync with New Delhi’s broader initiative to cut reliance on foreign-controlled infrastructure for critical communications.

The constellation could cost Reliance Jio $10 billion-$15 billion and would take about three years to execute. It would enable Reliance Jio to offer services that are no longer dependent on towers, fiber, or geography, and even offer direct-to-device connectivity.

In March, Russia launched 16 communication satellites for its Rassvet (Sunrise) high-speed internet project, Moscow’s alternative to SpaceX’s Starlink.

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

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

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

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

Yes

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 16, 2026

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

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

Lowe’s report was ignored by the British media and the country’s main political parties. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Labour Party colleagues voted down an attempt to launch an official inquiry into the gangs last year, but eventually relented under public pressure and established a probe.

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

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

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

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have delivered a joint address at the Russia-ASEAN summit in Kazan. The Philippines holds the rotating chairmanship of the group this year. 

The two presidents delivered the address at the conclusion of the second day of the summit, which was also attended by the leaders of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, East Timor, and Vietnam.

The summit has “clearly demonstrated the genuine interest of both Russia and the states of Southeast Asia in further developing mutually beneficial cooperation, building upon time-tested traditions of friendship and the accumulated experience of a multifaceted and fruitful partnership,” Putin stated.

Marcos expressed his gratitude to Putin on behalf of all the ASEAN nations for a warm welcome at the summit, stating the group hopes to “strengthen cooperation in security, politics, economics, and culture” with Russia.

“We exchanged views on promoting peace, stability, sustainable development, strengthening food and energy security, facilitating trade and investment, advancing scientific and technological progress, and deepening people-to-people ties,” the president said.

Earlier in the day, the participants of the summit, which marks the 35th anniversary of the establishment of ties between Russia and ASEAN, adopted a joint declaration hailing the event as a “significant milestone” in their partnership.

The declaration also affirmed “a common aspiration, amid increasingly complex global challenges arising from geopolitical and geo-economic shifts, towards a just multipolar world as guided by international law and the principles of the UN Charter to promote mutual benefit and respect for all states.” The signees vowed to continue strengthening ties in various fields, including trade and investment, energy and food, maritime cooperation, security, combatting transnational crime and other areas.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the summit, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Putin discussed the Ukraine conflict with the ASEAN leaders, among other issues. “There was a detailed discussion about Ukraine, he briefed everyone in detail on how the situation is developing and our assessment of the actions of the Kiev regime,” the top diplomat said.

Gunmen attacked Niger’s main airport in the capital Niamey early Thursday, exchanging heavy fire with security forces in an assault that briefly disrupted operations, multiple outlets reported, citing local residents.

Residents near Diori Hamani International Airport reported explosions and sustained gunfire before dawn, with attackers attempting to breach the perimeter before being pushed back by soldiers deployed around the complex, which also hosts Air Base 101.

The identities of the assailants were not immediately known, and no group has claimed responsibility. No casualties have been reported so far, and Nigerien military authorities have not yet issued an official statement.

Footage purportedly from the scene and shared on social media shows a man believed to be one of the attackers being beaten by local residents before soldiers intervene and take him into custody in a military vehicle.

📍#Niger | Attaque terroriste contre l’aéroport de Niamey ⏳

Tôt ce matin, l’aéroport de Niamey a été la cible d’une attaque complexe menée par des groupes armés terroristes.

Selon les premières informations des autorités nigériennes, la situation est désormais sous contrôle… pic.twitter.com/6yvmhqwdi0

— 𝕮𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖈𝖐 𝕿𝖎𝖉𝖎𝖆𝖓𝖊 𝕯𝕴𝕬𝕽𝕽𝕬 (@CheickIbtidiani) June 18, 2026

The latest incident comes months after a major offensive on the same airport in January, claimed by fighters linked to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). The assault was repelled by Nigerien forces with support from Russian personnel, according to officials. Four Nigerien soldiers were injured in the attack, while military facilities and civilian aircraft on the tarmac were damaged, the West African nation’s Defense Ministry confirmed. The authorities said 20 militants were killed in the exchange of fire and 11 others were arrested.

Niger and its neighbors, Mali and Burkina Faso, have been grappling with violence for more than a decade, with armed groups linked to IS and al-Qaeda-affiliated Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM).

In April, coordinated strikes hit multiple locations in Mali, including military sites and infrastructure in Bamako and Kati. Defense Minister Sadio Camara was killed in an attack on his residence, prompting Mali’s transitional leader Assimi Goita to assume direct control of the defense portfolio.

Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, within the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), have sought new partnerships, including with Russia, to address the region’s deepening security crisis after severing defense ties with France. The bloc has repeatedly accused France of supporting terrorist groups and militant networks in an effort to destabilize the Sahel.

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

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

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

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

The nuclear issue, on which so much emphasis was placed at the start of this war, has evaporated, replaced by token references to common sense.

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

Because it’s the economy, stupid.

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

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

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

Left unspoken will be the real economic costs of this war – the depletion of the US arsenal of precision-guided munitions, and the excessive replacement costs the US taxpayer will be called upon to bear. The billions of dollars in destroyed and damaged infrastructure throughout the Middle East.

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

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

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

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

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

Instead, the American population will be sold a non-existent victory while being unable to pick out the Strait of Hormuz on a map, let alone Minab. As long as the terms of the MOU hold, the American people may yet forget about the costs they have collectively paid for this Middle East debacle, and instead focus on the trickle of dollars diverted their way, as if this temporary thickening of the American wallet symbolizes the victory of a nation.

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

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

Because it’s the economy, stupid.

Russia and the nations of Southeast Asia should conduct more trade in their national currencies, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Speaking after the second day of the Russia-ASEAN summit in Kazan on Thursday, which was attended by the leaders of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, East Timor, and Vietnam, Putin said his country would continue supplying the ASEAN members with food and energy products and expand exports of higher value-added goods, including fertilizer and pharmaceuticals.

“The participants expressed their support for the qualitative and quantitative increase in the counter-trade indicators, to improve its structure and expand mutual investment. To do this, it is important to switch from financial transactions [in dollars] to national currencies,” Putin said.

Moscow has accelerated efforts to move away from the Western-dominated financial system by trading with international partners in their national currencies, a trend increasingly embraced by ASEAN members. By the end of 2025, 85% of Russia’s international transactions were conducted in currencies other than the dollar and euro, according to Maksim Oreshkin, deputy head of the presidential administration.

Putin also called for the removal of trade barriers and the expansion of maritime and rail transport links, saying summit participants backed stronger trade and a more multipolar world order.

The Russian leader made the remarks alongside Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., whose country will chair ASEAN in 2026.

He said Russia and ASEAN had agreed upon a joint statement and a concept paper on energy cooperation that would serve as a roadmap for practical cooperation between the two sides in the sector.

Putin also noted that ASEAN countries shared Russia’s position on a number of global issues, including the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran to end hostilities.

“We unanimously welcomed the agreements reached by the Iranian and American sides to end the military conflict and work on the parameters of a future peace agreement,” he said, adding that he expected the situation in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf to stabilize, with a positive impact on global markets.

The summit also approved a new action plan for 2026-2030 which sets out ways to increase cooperation in areas such as politics, security, trade, investment, energy, transport, agriculture, the digital economy, and science and technology.

The June 17-19 summit in Kazan marks 35 years of relations between Russia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

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

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

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

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

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

The job can’t be performed by US servicemen due to an Australian ban on hosting foreign military bases.

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

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

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

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

In late May, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu warned that South Korea and Japan are preparing to host American nuclear arms. “Such weapons could also end up on the territory of Australia because of its participation in the AUKUS partnership,” Shoigu stressed. The AUKUS pact was signed between the US, UK, and Australia in 2021 to facilitate the production of nuclear-powered submarines by Canberra.

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

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

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

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

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

Bulgaria opposes EU on military aid for Ukraine

The election in April of Bulgarian President Rumen Radev, a former fighter pilot, reportedly alarmed officials in Brussels, as Radev has openly questioned whether Ukraine can defeat Russia militarily and has called for dialogue with Moscow to be restored.

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

Sanctions on Russian church leader called ‘pinnacle of absurdity’

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

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

The EU’s attempts to target the patriarch since 2022 were blocked by former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. With Orban now out of office, Brussels has renewed the attempt.

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

Most public servants in South Africa are women, the minister of public service and administration, Inkosi Mzamo Buthelezi, has said in a parliamentary reply which provides a snapshot of the country’s public service workforce as of April 30 this year.

According to the figures, the public service employs more than 1.2 million people. Of these, 779,481 are women, accounting for 63.5% of the workforce. Buthelezi said the representation of women exceeds government’s employment equity target of 50%, particularly at senior management level.

The data also shows that young people make up a significant portion of the public service, with 293,930 employees classified as youth. Buthelezi said this forms part of government’s broader efforts to strengthen youth participation in state institutions.

However, the picture is less encouraging when it comes to employees with disabilities. While 14,626 public servants are persons with disabilities, they account for just 1.2% of the workforce. This remains well below the current employment equity target of 3% and far short of the newly announced goal of 7% representation by 2030.

”In the 2026 State of the Nation Address, particular emphasis was placed on ensuring that no one is left behind, including the decision to increase the employment equity target for persons with disabilities in the Public Service to 7% by 2030. This provides a clear national mandate for accelerated inclusion and measurable progress across departments,” Buthelezi said.

To drive the transformation agenda, Buthelezi’s department has issued Circular 19 of 2026, requiring departments to actively improve the representation of women, youth and persons with disabilities. Departments must identify gaps, implement targeted interventions and demonstrate measurable progress each year.

The department has also strengthened accountability by requiring transformation goals to be included in human resource plans, annual performance plans and the performance agreements of directors-general and senior managers.

Buthelezi added that several policies were introduced to support these efforts, including measures aimed at improving recruitment and retention of employees with disabilities, advancing gender equality and promoting women’s empowerment across the public service.

First published by IOL

A deadly drone strike on a bus in Russia carrying a children’s soccer team from Belarus was a “provocation” intended to push Minsk to directly involve itself in the Ukraine conflict, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has said.

The attack in Russia’s Bryansk Region killed the wife of a Belarusian school soccer team coach, who was accompanying the young athletes to a Russian seaside resort. Eight others were injured, including six minors.

Speaking to senior military officials on Thursday, Lukashenko warned that “the war is at our borders,” pointing to “various provocations” and “direct breaches of agreements.”

He condemned “the behavior of certain states,” citing a Ukrainian drone strike on a vocational college dormitory in Starobelsk, Russia that killed 21 people during a nighttime raid. Anyone attempting to drag Belarus “into war,” he warned, “will have to pay dearly for that.”

Kiev has denied responsibility for both incidents. Lukashenko stated that he knew for certain that the drone that hit the bus was of Ukrainian origin. He dismissed suggestions that the aircraft may have been acquired by another party, possibly Russia, calling such claims “conspiratorial.”

“The [Ukrainian military] say they did not strike Bryansk Region at the time. But the driver says he personally – and other witnesses will probably confirm this to investigators – saw not one drone, but several, which he said were circling and buzzing over the bus,” the Belarusian leader said.

“We need the truth. And we expect Ukrainian civilian and military officials to provide this truth, a real fair response,” Lukashenko added.

Later in the day, the Belarusian Foreign Ministry reported issuing a formal protest to Kiev over what it described as a “monstrous crime” and an “inhumane act of terrorism that can have no justification.” Minsk demanded a thorough investigation and accountability for people responsible for the attack.

Russian officials have described the Bryansk Region drone strike as the latest in a long series of “terrorist attacks” carried out by the Ukrainian government. Moscow has accused Western countries that fund Kiev’s war effort and provide components for long-range drones of ignoring Ukrainian strikes that kill civilians and cannot be mere accidents.

India and Russia are jointly developing smaller hypersonic versions of the BrahMos missile, whose lethal precision was on display against Pakistani targets last year.

BrahMos is “an emblematic example” of bilateral defense cooperation between Russia and India, Moscow’s envoy to New Delhi, Denis Alipov, said while marking the 25th anniversary of the missile’s first test launch.

Named after the Brahmaputra and Moskva rivers, the BrahMos is among the fastest supersonic cruise missiles in the world.

“Today, work is underway to develop smaller and hypersonic variants, which will further enhance the Indian Armed Forces’ multi-domain strike capabilities,” he said Wednesday.

BrahMos is a supersonic missile with speeds reaching up to Mach 3, or three times the speed of sound. It is now available in land-, sea-, and air-launched variants.

BrahMos Goes Hypersonic: 🇮🇳 & 🇷🇺 Working On Next-Gen Missile Variants - Russian Ambassador To India

India and Russia are jointly developing smaller and hypersonic versions of the BrahMos missile, Denis Alipov has said.

"Today, work is underway to develop smaller and hypersonic… pic.twitter.com/4nPh10IsLA

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) June 18, 2026

Alipov recalled the use of the missile in Operation Sindoor, India’s brief military clash with Pakistan last year. Some 15-20 BrahMos missiles were fired by India in the clash, damaging several major Pakistani air bases.

The BrahMos joint venture, established in 1995, transformed bilateral ties from a “traditional buyer-seller framework” into one based on “technology sharing, co-development, and co-production,” Alipov said.

After a decade and a half, New Delhi has institutionalized this approach under its Make-in-India program, he said.

The envoy added that the joint development of fifth-generation fighter aircraft based on Russia’s Su-57 platform and the production of S-400 air defense systems would strengthen the trajectory of bilateral defense collaboration.

“The project also marked a turning point in our bilateral cooperation, paving the way for other landmark initiatives such as the licensed and localized production of Su-30MKI fighter aircraft and T-90 main battle tanks in India,” he noted.

Alipov also cited the AK-203 rifles produced by the Indo-Russia Rifles joint venture recently.

BrahMos Aerospace Managing Director Alexander Maksichev said last week the company is ready to supply missiles to the Russian Navy and land forces.

Originally capped at a range of 180 miles (290 km), the weapon has since been upgraded for greater reach. The Philippines was its first foreign customer, signing a $375 million contract in 2022. The first batch of BrahMos missiles was delivered to Manila in April 2024 and the second in April 2025.

India confirmed it earlier this month it had also made a deal with Vietnam to supply the missiles.

BrahMos Aerospace reported a record revenue growth of 48.6% in 2025-26.

Egypt and Islamic countries have condemned Somaliland’s diplomatic mission in Jerusalem, calling it a violation of international law and a challenge to Somalia’s territorial integrity. 

The criticism came after Somaliland officially opened the embassy in Israel on Monday. Israel remains the only country to recognize the self-declared breakaway region of Somalia as a sovereign state. 

Egypt on Tuesday denounced the inauguration of the embassy in Jerusalem, warning that it contradicts UN resolutions. 

In a statement, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry said it rejects “any unilateral measures aimed at entrenching an illegal reality in occupied Jerusalem” and reiterated that Jerusalem remains occupied Palestinian territory under international law. Cairo stressed that attempts to alter the city’s legal or historical status are “null and void.” 

The ministry also reaffirmed Egypt’s support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Somalia, rejecting any actions that could weaken the authority of the government in Mogadishu. 

The criticism was echoed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which condemned the opening of the mission and described it as an illegal act that violates the UN Charter and international resolutions. 

“The Occupying Power has no sovereignty over Occupied Jerusalem,” the OIC said in a statement referring to Israel. The organization argued that any measures aimed at changing the political, legal, or demographic character of the city are invalid under international law. 

The 57-member bloc also expressed solidarity with Somalia and urged the international community to oppose what it called an “illegal move.” 

In May, Somalia condemned the act as illegal and a violation of its sovereignty, while the African Union also opposed Israel’s appointment of an envoy to Somaliland, reaffirming its support for Somalia’s territorial integrity. 

In addition, Somaliland’s Defense Minister, Mohamed Yusuf Ali, said on Wednesday that Israel is helping to train the territory’s police and military forces, while dismissing reports that Tel Aviv plans to establish a military base there.

Somaliland, a self-governing region in northwestern Somalia, declared independence from Somalia in 1991 but has not been recognized as a sovereign state by the UN or any major international organization.

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is that many parents are unaware of what their children are doing, both online and offline. In such cases, any restrictions will be ineffective, especially if the adults themselves struggle to grasp concepts like online hygiene, safeguarding personal data and finances, and maintaining control over accounts. When the approach to online safety is incorrect, children learn to hide their activities and evade detection by deleting search histories, creating anonymous accounts, or using other devices.

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

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

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

Former Nigerian Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke has been cleared of all six bribery charges by a UK court, ending a long-running prosecution on allegations she received luxury benefits in exchange for preferential treatment in obtaining oil contracts during her time in office.

The verdict, delivered on Wednesday at Southwark Crown Court, found Alison-Madueke not guilty of five counts of accepting bribes and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery. The jury concluded that the charges had not been proved.

Prosecutors had alleged that between 2011 and 2015, while serving under former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, she accepted cash payments and high-end perks including private jet travel, chauffeur services, luxury London properties and expensive shopping sprees from oil traders and intermediaries seeking favorable access to Nigeria’s petroleum contracts.

The UK National Crime Agency brought the case following a years-long investigation into suspected corruption linked to Nigeria’s oil sector, one of the country’s most politically sensitive industries.

Alison-Madueke, who was the first female president of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), denied all allegations throughout the proceedings, maintaining that she did not receive bribes and that her ministerial role was policy-focused rather than operational in terms of awarding contracts.

The trial also involved allegations against two co-defendants – oil executive Olatimbo Ayinde and Alison-Madueke’s brother, Doye Agama – both of whom were also acquitted.

Nigeria has consistently ranked among countries perceived as highly corrupt in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, placing 142nd out of 182 countries in the latest ranking, amid a series of high-profile cases involving senior political and business figures.

In May, Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arrested former Power Minister Saleh Mamman, who had earlier been sentenced in absentia to 75 years in prison for fraud and money laundering linked to major state-backed electricity projects.

The anti-graft agency has also declared Sadiya Umar Farouq, former Humanitarian Affairs Minister, wanted over allegations that she failed to account for 746.7 million naira ($549,000) paid to contractors. The country’s Ex-Accountant-General Ahmed Idris is also facing trial over an alleged 109-billion-naira fraud, which he denies.

On Wednesday, the EFCC said proceedings in the case against former Kwara State Governor Abdulfatah Ahmed and his former finance commissioner Ademola Banu had been adjourned to July 27, 2026, for further cross-examination in relation to the alleged diversion of 5.78 billion naira in Universal Basic Education Commission funds.

At least 17 people have been wounded after the Ukrainian military launched one of its largest drone raids against Moscow, Russian officials have said.

Air defenses shot down at least 194 UAVs on the approach to the Russian capital overnight, Mayor Sergey Sobyanin wrote in a Telegram post on Thursday morning.

Some drones made it through and caused blazes, with witnesses reporting large plumes of thick black smoke in several areas in and outside the city.

Several drones reached the Moscow Oil Refinery in the southeastern Kapotnya district of the city, Sobyanin said. Firefighters have been deployed to the site.

Debris from a downed UAV delivered minor damage to a building at the Sadovod shopping center in southeastern Moscow, according to the mayor. 

Two children among civilians wounded in Moscow Region

Nine people, including a three-year-old child, suffered shrapnel wounds and other injuries in the town of Kotelniki east of the capital as a result of the Ukrainian drone raid, Moscow Region Governor Andrey Vorobyev said on Telegram.

In Ramenskoye, south-west of Moscow, three people were wounded, including a ten-year-old girl, he said.

A drone struck an apartment block in the city of Zhukovsky, located 20 km southeast of the capital, the governor said. One person was hospitalized in the city with a wound to his neck, he added.

Debris from destroyed drones fell in several locations in Lyubertsy, east of Moscow, according to Vorobyev. Two men were hospitalized there, with one sustaining a hip injury and the other fracturing his arm, he wrote.

The roof of the nearby Belaya Dacha mall on the Moscow Ring Road caught fire during the raid by Ukrainian forces, Vorobyev said. The administration later announced that it was temporarily shutting down the mall as firefighters tackled the blaze, which was extinguished after several hours.

One person was also injured in Solnechnogorsk and another in the attack on the Sadovod shopping center, the governor said.

Falling drone debris damaged private homes and vehicles in the cities of Chekhov and Elektrostal as well as other areas, he added.

Hundreds of flights delayed at Moscow airports

The drone raid prompted temporary airspace restrictions around the Russian capital, affecting all four of Moscow’s international airports, according to the federal air transport agency, Rosaviatsia.

A total of 527 flights were delayed or canceled at Sheremetyevo, Vnukovo, Domodedovo, and Zhukovsky airports, Interfax reported, citing airport timetable data.

Over 550 drones downed across Russia

The Russian Defense Ministry said more than 550 Ukrainian UAVs had been shot down across the country since Wednesday evening.

The interceptions took place in Moscow, Astrakhan, Belgorod, Bryansk, Volgograd, Voronezh, Vladimir, Kaluga, Kursk, Lipetsk, Orel, Smolensk, Tambov, Tver, Tula, Rostov, and Ryazan regions, as well as in Crimea and over the Sea of Azov, it said.

One person was killed and two others wounded in a drone attack on the town of Gukovo in Rostov Region, according to Governor Yury Slusar.

The Defense Ministry in Moscow said on Thursday that Russian forces carried out another strike overnight against Ukraine’s military-linked energy infrastructure in response to terrorist attacks by Kiev.

A fuel depot outside Kiev and an oil refinery in Poltava Region were hit with missiles and drones, it said.

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

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

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

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

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

Finnish President Alexander Stubb, a Russia hawk whose government has encouraged Kiev’s use of Finnish arms “against military targets also on Russian soil,” insists that he has no plans to permanently host nuclear weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tehran has argued that the document reflects a series of concessions by Washington, including the lifting of the US naval blockade, sanctions waivers for Iranian oil exports, access to frozen Iranian funds, and a US-backed economic reconstruction plan worth at least $300 billion. Washington has also agreed not to impose new sanctions or deploy additional forces in the region while the sides negotiate a final agreement.

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

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

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei added that a framework is being developed to manage the key waterway, with consultations already held with Oman, as outlined in the MOU.

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

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

The nuclear language in the document states that Iran “reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons” – something Tehran has been stating for years, including during both previous US-Israeli attacks. The MOU adds that the sides will work out a mechanism for the disposition of stockpiled enriched material, with the minimum methodology being down-blending on site under IAEA supervision.

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

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

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

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

“Foreign powers are attacking us with espionage, sabotage, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns,” the minister said, adding that supposed malicious actors are seeking to “sow uncertainty among the population, to poison democratic discourse, to promote polarization.”

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

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

Meanwhile, Federal Prosecutor General Jens Rommel has criticized the creation of the new center, pointing out that Germany already has the National Cyber Defense Center (NCAZ), the Joint Drone Defense Center (GDAZ), and the Joint Extremism and Terrorism Defense Center (GETZ). He predicted that the existence of various entities with overlapping tasks could lead to friction and inefficiencies.

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

The European Union as a whole also needs to develop offensive cyber capabilities, European Commission Executive Vice-President for Technological Sovereignty, Security, and Democracy Henna Virkkunen said in February.

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

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

The G7 group is considering providing Ukraine with licenses to allow domestic production of Western weaponry, including anti-aircraft and long-range missiles.

RT looks into why the West is doing this so late in the conflict and Ukraine’s ability to deliver on mass arms production.

The scheme

The G7 made the announcement in a joint statement following its summit in Geneva, stating it had agreed to “increase the delivery of air defense capacities, additional systems and interceptors, and long-range capabilities.”

“We are also ready to consider extending to Ukraine the benefit of licenses to allow for an increase in Ukraine’s military production,” the group said in a statement.

The plan also involves US manufacturers granting licenses to EU military-industrial companies in order to compensate for shortages in production of high-demand weapons, according to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

“We are all currently producing too little, and this can be offset by granting licenses to companies that have these production capabilities, including European and Ukrainian firms,” Merz told reporters.

How is the scheme supposed to work?

The US rarely grants weaponry production licenses to its partners, pressing them into buying ready-made products instead, or in some instances, creating overseas manufacturing plants without transferring technologies to the third parties. The enduring need to supply Ukraine, as well as the extensive use of assorted munitions during the US-Israeli attack on Iran, however, could have softened Washington’s stance on the outsourcing of arms manufacturing.

US President Donald Trump has confirmed the licensed production of anti-aircraft missiles for Patriot systems in Ukraine is under consideration, specifying that no decision has been made yet. “They would like to be able to do that, we’ll take a look at it. They have asked about it,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

Over the past few years, Kiev has repeatedly urged Washington to grant it licenses to manufacture such munitions. The US, however, has consistently rejected the idea, while the American arms giants have reportedly been very wary of making any investments in Ukraine due to the obvious risks connected to the ongoing conflict with Russia.

Does Ukraine have actual industrial capacities?

Setting up a full-cycle production of sophisticated weapons in Ukraine seems to be highly improbable, given the country’s shrinking industrial capacities, as well as questionable record of local arms manufacturers. While Kiev inherited a well-developed industry after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has been in decline ever since, with the process further accelerated by the civil conflict in formerly Ukrainian Donbass and the subsequent war against Russia, given that a bulk of plants were located in the east of the country.

One of the flagship Ukrainian ‘domestically built’ weapons, the Bogdana self-propelled howitzer, appears to have little to nothing Ukrainian in it. The howitzers are chambered for 155mm NATO rounds manufactured in the West, while assorted heavy-duty trucks made by European manufacturers have been used as the chassis for the systems. The origins of the barrel itself are also debatable, given Ukraine’s poor record in making even the most basic artillery pieces. For instance, the infamous mortar M120-15 Molot, a copy of a Soviet-era design manufactured by Ukraine since 2016, has repeatedly made the headlines over deadly detonations of shells in its barrel and other malfunctions.

The supposedly domestically built Ukrainian weapons, mainly assorted drones, are at best assembled locally from components supplied from abroad.

The hyped FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile also gives a glimpse of Ukraine’s real industrial capacities. The missile has emerged as a parts-bin project, with design features varying from one piece to another, a US-made free-fall bomb used as its warhead, and antique Soviet-era AI-25TL engines, believed to be recovered from scrapped trainer aircraft, used for propulsion.

Why is the West doing this now?

In mid-April, the Russian Defense Ministry published a list of Ukraine-linked military production facilities scattered across Europe and beyond. The military said it had identified such sites in the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Poland, as well as in Türkiye and Israel.

The list came with a dire warning.

“The implementation of terrorist attack scenarios against Russia… using supposedly ‘Ukrainian’ UAVs manufactured in Europe is leading to unpredictable consequences,” the ministry stated. “Instead of strengthening the security of European states, the actions of European rulers are rapidly drawing these countries into a war with Russia,” it added.

The licensing scheme could be a part of the effort to further decentralize arms production to avoid potential retaliatory strikes from Russia, as well as to disguise the supplied weaponry as a Ukrainian homegrown product.

One drone assembly site destroyed in a Russian strike was accidentally exposed this week by the Ukrainian media. A warehouse at the Dovzhenko Film Studios in Kiev, which was allegedly used to store some “unique costumes,” had multiple aircraft wings visible in its rubble, with the parts appearing to be consistent with FP-1/2 drones produced by Vladimir Zelensky’s favorite and corruption-scandal-plagued company Fire Point.

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

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

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

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

— כאן חדשות (@kann_news) June 17, 2026

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

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

— הפרגוד (@moshepargod) June 17, 2026

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

Later in the day, thousands of Haredim gathered outside the IDF’s Beit Lid military prison, where the draft evader was being held. The demonstration apparently prompted fears that protesters could break into the facility, with additional military police units and troops deployed to secure its perimeter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the end of the war in Lebanon was as important for Tehran as the provisions concerning Iran itself, which is why the first clause mentions the country “three times, including respect for its territorial integrity and sovereignty.”

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

Trump has in turn warned that Washington would “bomb the hell out of” Iran if Tehran fails to honor the agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements, using its best efforts, for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start and, considering the need for removing technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be reinstated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

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

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

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

9. Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s in the new concept?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A significant block of measures in the Russian strategy is dedicated to preventing armed incidents. In conditions of dense military presence including active aviation and naval forces, drones and military bases, the risk of accidental confrontation remains constantly high. To avoid accidental escalation, the region needs hotlines, exchanges of observers, dialogue between defense ministries and greater transparency in military activity. These measures do not require full political agreement on every disputed issue, but they reduce the risk of a catastrophic mistake.

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

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

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

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

A practical approach

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

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

The main difference between the updated version and earlier ones lies in its practicality. The strategic idea of collective security remains, but is filled with more concrete content. In the current conditions, calls for peace alone are not enough. Rules of behavior, communication channels, mutual guarantees and de-escalation mechanisms are needed. The new version tries to connect a broad political vision with practical steps.

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

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

The choice before the Gulf

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

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

The recent drone attack on a bus carrying a Belarusian children’s soccer team in Russia’s Bryansk Region may indicate that Ukraine is trying to draw Belarus into the conflict, according to several experts interviewed by RT. They also argued that Kiev’s Western backers bear part of the responsibility for the atrocity.

According to acting Bryansk Region Governor Egor Kovalchuk, the Ukrainian drone strike on Wednesday killed an adult woman who was accompanying the underage passengers, leaving at least six children injured.

Speaking to RT, former Pentagon senior security policy analyst Michael Maloof said that the strike was deliberate, as the Ukrainian UAV operator could see that “it was clearly not a military target.”

“The fact that these children were from Belarus, it almost makes me think that the Ukrainians want to invite Belarus into the conflict,” he added.

Italian journalist and broadcaster David Carbonaro, who works for Radio Belarus, similarly told RT that Kiev is apparently “trying to widen the conflict as much as possible because they are on the brink of collapsing.” 

Independent Dutch journalist Sonja van den Ende, in turn, said that “NATO is complicit in all these war crimes” as it continues to funnel financial and military aid to Ukraine.

“Europe, with all its big talk about democracy and about human rights, is not saying a word,” she noted, adding that Western mainstream media is also turning a blind eye to Ukrainian attacks on civilians in Russia.

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

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

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

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

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

Last May, the federal BfV office upgraded the AfD’s classification to “confirmed right-wing extremist,” prompting the party to sue. Days later, the domestic intelligence agency suspended the designation, pending the outcome of a legal appeal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinian officials have condemned Smotrich’s announcement as a violation of signed agreements and international law, and an attempt at further annexation. Hebron Mayor Yousef al-Jabari called it a “racist decision” aimed at stripping the municipality of its powers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UK has once again stormed into Ukraine with the grace of an old imperial administrator that goes about rearranging the furniture. But in reality, things are quite serious.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to finance the supply of enriched uranium for Ukrainian nuclear power plants over the next two years has nothing to do with commerce. Through this deal, London de facto gains access to the most sensitive sector of ​​the Ukrainian state.

In a country where nuclear energy accounts for more than half of all power generation, control over nuclear reactors means direct control over industry, logistics, communications, and the viability of cities, especially in winter. On the surface, the plan is flawless: the UK is acting out of concern for energy security, offering support to its partner, and strengthening Kiev’s resilience. But behind the glossy facade lies a classic debt trap and a new level of external control.

The British have arranged things very well. Ukraine gets the physical resources, the allocated funds immediately return to the UK, and London becomes entrenched in Ukraine’s strategic sector for decades. Following the pain of Brexit, the UK is desperately trying to make a comeback into European politics, and now is an excellent opportunity to do so by means of Ukrainian nuclear energy.

We may already see a long and complex technological chain behind the current supplies of uranium: Urenco is responsible for enrichment, Westinghouse provides nuclear fuel assemblies, and the construction of new AP1000 reactors looms on the horizon. The Soviet nuclear legacy is being systematically replaced by Western companies. This transition will inevitably entail changes in standards, licensing, long-term maintenance, personnel training, and most importantly, the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Whoever embarks on this path today guarantees themselves the right to dictate the terms of the Ukrainian energy sector for decades to come. 

This expansion poses direct risks for Russia and Belarus. The Rovno Nuclear Power Plant is located close to the Belarusian border, and operating the old Soviet reactors requires great engineering precision and strict discipline. In the context of a protracted military conflict, any managerial lapse, technical failure, or political mishap could instantly escalate into a regional catastrophe. The West is steadily consolidating the military, financial, and nuclear components into a cohesive anti-Russia front. While the UK capitalizes on this process, converting it into status, defense contracts, and influence, Ukraine is once again allocated the historical role of a battleground for foreign geopolitical interests. 

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

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

Witness testimony describes the most depraved acts of sexual violence – including preteen girls raped hundreds of times, threatened with death, and sodomized by dogs – happening in plain sight of the authorities tasked with its prevention.

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

How is the rape gangs report different?

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

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

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

How many girls were abused?

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

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

What kind of abuse did the gangs commit against girls?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Were all the perpetrators Pakistani?

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

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

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

Were the British police involved?

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

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

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

Was Keir Starmer involved?

The Jay Report accused local authorities in Rotherham of covering up the widespread sexual abuse of young girls, and successive governments have been accused of ignoring the issue and slow-walking official inquiries into the scale of the abuse. In 2025, Labour MPs voted en masse against a Conservative motion calling for a national statutory inquiry into the gangs. Starmer’s party eventually backed down and opened a probe earlier this year.

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

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

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

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

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

What role did Islam play in the abuse?

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

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

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

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

What happens next?

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

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

The Rape Gang Inquiry - what happens next.

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

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

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

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

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

The bottom line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It may not seem so from the outside because his manner of speech, his confidence and even the boldness of his behavior on the international stage may lead one to assume… that he is maybe even a harsh person… but that’s not the case,” Simonyan argued.

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

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

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

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

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

“It is surreal that those who are trying to build bridges and maintain dialogue are being put under pressure by the very same EU institutions that want to strengthen the EU’s role in future peace negotiations. This is completely unrealistic. I do not think the European Parliament is doing itself any favors by taking actions such as this,” he told RT in an exclusive interview on Wednesday.

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

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

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

The US-Iran peace deal to end the Middle East conflict is a strategic achievement for Tehran, its envoy to New Delhi has told RT India.

While its details have not been disclosed, it is clear that the agreement is “a highly significant strategic achievement” for Iran, Mohammad Fathali told RT India.

“In my view, this agreement constitutes a major victory for the Iranian nation,” he said.

Those who spoke of “regime change” and the “complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities” failed to achieve those objectives, the envoy said.

“They have also been compelled to recognize the nuclear rights of Iran,” Fathali said. He added that Iran has always emphasized the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Iranian people to benefit from nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The realities on the ground and the economic and strategic consequences of a prolonged war have also forced the United States to opt for a peace deal, he said.

“The continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz was harming not only the global economy but also the interests of the United States and its allies, imposing significant costs on international trade and global energy security,” Fathali said.

He made clear that Iran does not intend to impose transit fees on countries for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. “However, charges will be collected for services provided to passing vessels, such as navigation services, marine environmental protection, and vessel insurance,” he said.

A fifth of the global energy supplies passed through the choke point controlled by Iran, and its closure following the US-Israeli attack on Iran had sent energy prices soaring, sparking inflationary pressures across the globe.

Fathali rejected Israel’s statement that it is not a party to the deal, calling it “an attempt to justify the illegal and aggressive actions” in Lebanon and other parts of the region.

The envoy said Israel was primarily to blame for the instability, insecurity, and escalating tensions in the region.

Tehran believes that trust in US intentions could be gauged only through “practical evidence and genuine adherence to commitments.”

He also called the attacks on commercial vessels and the loss of Indian sailors’ lives “regrettable, inhumane, and contrary to all principles and norms of international law and humanitarian law.”

Three commercial ships were attacked by US forces near the Strait of Hormuz, and three Indian sailors on board one of them were killed.

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

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

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

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

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

— Aɴᴛ (@AntSpeaks) June 17, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The incident comes amid broader debates in the EU over the legacy of World War II and the public commemoration of its victims. In recent years, several Eastern European countries, particularly Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, have restricted the public display of Soviet symbols associated with Victory Day commemorations and removed numerous Soviet-era monuments. Moscow has repeatedly condemned such measures as attempts to rewrite the history of World War II.

US President Donald Trump has commented on the deaths of three Indian sailors near the Strait of Hormuz, saying he had heard about the incident.

The seamen were killed when US forces enforcing the blockade of Iran fired on their ship, the MT Settebello, last week. 

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in France on Wednesday.

Replying to a question from the press as to whether he had words of condolence for the grieving families, Trump said, “It’s [seafaring] a rough profession, and there is no question about it.”

Pointing toward Modi, he said, “we will work together on it.”

“We love all those people, they are great people,” Trump added.

⚡Trump On Indian Seafarers: "I Heard About The Indian Sailors. It’s A Rough Profession. We Love All Those People'

📹 White House pic.twitter.com/ZIv12kz7X9

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) June 17, 2026

The killings led to domestic pressure on the Modi government to raise the issue with the Trump administration. India protested the attacks on commercial ships to US Chargé d’Affaires Jason Meeks, who was summoned to the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi twice. 

In his interaction with Trump, the prime minister said he hoped the deal with Iran would help ensure the safety of sailors.

“Hundreds of thousands of Indian seafarers are performing their duties across global maritime trade routes, including the Strait of Hormuz, contributing heavily to global progress,” Modi told Trump. “Their safety is of the utmost importance to us.”

Altogether, three commercial ships with Indian crew were attacked off Oman by US forces last week. In another case, an Indian sailor aboard a vessel trapped by the blockade died following an illness. Media reports quoting seafarers’ union officials alleged that US Navy ships nearby had not responded to SOS messages from the ship’s captain.

India has more than 300,000 seamen working across global shipping fleets. Of them, over 18,000 are employed in West Asia.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has dismissed an ultimatum by anti-illegal immigration groups demanding that undocumented foreigners leave the country by June 30, warning that the government will not tolerate attempts to create instability.

Speaking on the sidelines of Youth Day commemorations at Nasrec on Tuesday, Ramaphosa said government was already implementing measures to address immigration challenges.

The deadline was set by anti-illegal immigration organisations, including the March and March movement, which has called for undocumented foreign nationals to leave South Africa by June 30 and warned of further action should its demands not be met. Government has, however, distanced itself from the ultimatum, maintaining that immigration enforcement remains the responsibility of the state.

”The so-called 30th of June, in my view, is not an event that is even necessary because we are addressing the challenges that our people are facing,” Ramaphosa said.

He said the measures announced by government had largely been welcomed by South Africans as important and immediately effective steps. Ramaphosa urged citizens not to take the law into their own hands, saying immigration enforcement was the responsibility of government officials.

”No South African must take any action against any person from any of our African sister countries. That is the responsibility of government and government officials,” he stressed.

The president warned that authorities would not tolerate any attempts to create instability under the guise of addressing concerns about illegal immigration. ”We must not allow South Africans to be duped and to be misled by those who want to foster instability in our country. We will not allow that.” Ramaphosa added that security forces would ensure there was no disruption to the lives of South Africans.

On marches linked to illegal immigration, Ramaphosa said some of those involved appeared intent on destabilizing the country. ”With regards to a number of those who are making a lot of noise about these marches that are taking place, there does seem to be an intention to destabilize the country. The clear message is that we are not going to allow that,” he said.

He added that government would not allow the concerns of citizens to be misused by people with what he described as “nefarious intentions”.

”Our people have heard the message, and we are taking action and we are implementing the interventions that are, in the end, going to address those needs,” Ramaphosa said.

The president also responded to criticism that government had only begun acting after pressure from organizations campaigning against illegal immigration. ”We have actually been doing a lot of work changing our immigration laws and also empowering our immigration officials to address these specific issues,” he said.

Ramaphosa described migration as a broader economic challenge, saying many people who entered South Africa were seeking better opportunities. ”The challenge of immigration that we’re facing is, in the end, an economic one because those who come to our country are, in the main, economic migrants or refugees,” he said.

Ramaphosa also rejected claims that South Africans were xenophobic, saying misinformation was being spread about developments in the country. “There’s a lot of disinformation that is aimed at tarnishing the image of South Africa,” he said.

”The one thing that South Africans are not is xenophobic. South Africans are not xenophobic and we are addressing their concerns.”

The president revealed that he had recently spoken to Malawi’s President, who had expressed understanding of South Africa’s challenges and pledged cooperation. He said South Africa would also send envoys to various countries on the continent to explain government’s position and counter misinformation. ”We are addressing these issues, both the concerns of those who are outside our country and those who are inside our country.”

First published by IOL

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

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

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

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

Starmer said military spending had risen from 2.3% to 2.6% of GDP, describing it as “the biggest increase since the 1980s,” and would amount to £270 billion ($360 billion) during the current parliament.

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

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

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

The Defense Investment Plan, due last week, has been delayed by the resignations, piling new pressure on Starmer at a time when he is already facing mounting calls to step down after Labour’s poor local election performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Tuesday, the Israeli Foreign Ministry denounced Lukashenko’s remarks, calling them “unacceptable and deeply disturbing.”

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

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

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

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

Much of Gaza has been reduced to rubble, nearly everyone living there has been displaced, and aid agencies have repeatedly accused Israel of using starvation, water shortages and medical collapse as weapons against civilians. Israel has denied targeting locals and says its campaign is aimed at Hamas.

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

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

India’s defense production surged in the financial year that ended in March, driven by initiatives under the Make in India program as its defense industrial base rapidly expands.

Defense Minister Rajnath Singh said defense production surged 15% in financial year 2025-26 to $21 billion – from $18 billion a year ago.

New Delhi is seeking to reduce dependence on imports while developing indigenous capabilities across land, air, naval, missile, and space domains.

It has successfully indigenized thousands of military items, reducing import dependence and simultaneously boosting its own defense exports. Domestic ammunition production, for instance, has risen from 32% in 2014 to 90% in 2026.

India, however, remains the world’s second largest importer of major arms as it seeks to plug capability gaps quickly. Russia, France, and Israel are among its top arms suppliers.

Singh noted that the production figure for FY26 is a giant leap from the $8.94 billion recorded in 2020-21, and a 110% rise from $4.62 billion in 2013-14.

“The remarkable rise in India’s defense production in recent years is the result of the collective efforts of the Department of Defence Production and all other stakeholders,” he said in an X post.

The defense ecosystem’s growth is spearheaded by nine public sector undertakings or government-backed companies, more than 430 licensed private defense companies, and thousands of medium and small enterprises.

Under the inspiring leadership of PM Shri @narendramodi, India’s defence production is reaching new heights every year. I am delighted to inform everyone that India’s annual defence production has surged to an all-time high of Rs 1.78 lakh crore in the Financial Year (FY)…

— Rajnath Singh (@rajnathsingh) June 17, 2026

India spent $92.1 billion on its military in 2025, making it the fifth largest country in terms of military expenditure, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 

The South Asian nation has earmarked $82.9 billion for defense in the federal budget for the current financial year. This accounts for 15% of the total federal spending.

Of this, $14.7 billion is for procurement from domestic defense industries, in sync with the Make in India push.

The European Union has lost its way and is transforming itself into an anti-Russian military bloc, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned.

Speaking at a press conference in Moscow on Tuesday, Lavrov commented on the EU’s enlargement and the prospect of Ukraine eventually joining. He argued that the organization has “radically changed” from the original economic project intended to improve the welfare of its citizens.

Since the EU anticipates a possible reduction in US involvement in NATO, Lavrov said, it is now “building all its security frameworks against the Russian Federation.”

“If they want to dismantle the EU’s multilateral economic nature and turn it into a military bloc, that will invite serious trouble for them,” he said. Ukraine’s hypothetical accession would be used by those seeking to further militarize the bloc, Lavrov added.

Kiev has said it is shielding the EU from Russia and therefore deserves fast-tracked membership. However, given Ukraine’s economic and political challenges, as well as divisions within the bloc itself, Lavrov suggested that Brussels should “invite Zelensky” only if it is ready to “forget about the economy,” arguing the bloc in its current form would not survive.

The Ukrainian war effort is overwhelmingly dependent on Western funding and military logistics, which Moscow says makes it a de facto NATO proxy war against Russia. Even Ukraine’s most vocal supporters in the EU say the country would need many years of economic recovery and anti-corruption efforts to meet the admission criteria on merit.

EU eyes tougher terms for newcomers

Brussels has been pushing a new wave of rapid enlargement, describing it as a “moral, political and geostrategic imperative.” This week, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos said prospective members would have to accept terms intended to ensure their long-term alignment with the EU leadership’s objectives.

Kos said the details are still being discussed. However, EU-focused media outlets have suggested that future accession treaties will include provisions limiting the voting powers of new members on key matters such as budget, security, and foreign policy.

Brussels has previously used financial penalties against dissenting member states in Eastern Europe, including Hungary and Poland, which were accused of undermining the rule of law domestically. The EU’s handling of the Ukraine crisis remains a particularly divisive issue, with some leaders describing the approach as self-harming and misguided.

Moscow received no invitation from Kiev for talks on the sidelines of the G7 summit in France, senior Russian officials have said, rejecting claims made by Vladimir Zelensky.

The Ukrainian leader told reporters on Monday that he had sought a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin during this week’s gathering in Evian-les-Bains. “Europe and the United States were agreed and Russia demonstrated again that… they are not ready to speak,” Zelensky said in English, according to Reuters.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that “of course, there were no such messages,” when asked about Ukrainian communications during a press briefing on Tuesday. He added that Moscow’s offer for Zelensky to come to the Russian capital and negotiate “in a responsible and serious way” to end the conflict remains on the table. Zelensky has repeatedly said that a visit to Moscow is “impossible” for him.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also dismissed Zelensky’s remarks, accusing him of engaging in performative, bad-faith “megaphone diplomacy” consisting only of public statements. “He is accustomed to playing for the public – and also the piano,” Lavrov added, referring to a comedy sketch from Zelensky’s acting career in which he dropped his trousers and pretended to play the instrument hands-free.

Zelensky attempting to woo Trump at G7 gathering

The G7 was created in the 1970s as a forum for leading global economies, but the rise of other major powers has since turned it into what critics describe as an outdated Western discussion club. The summit in Evian gave Zelensky an opportunity to meet US President Donald Trump in person.

During his second term, Trump has shifted the financial burden for Ukraine’s military support onto other Western states while pressing for a compromise settlement of the conflict with Russia. Several rounds of trilateral talks have failed to produce a diplomatic breakthrough, however, with Ukrainian officials admitting that Kiev’s priority was to avoid openly rejecting Trump’s mediation efforts so as not to anger him.

Zelensky has claimed that European-funded long-range drone strikes inside Russia are changing the course of the conflict in Ukraine’s favor. He is reportedly seeking an additional $20 billion from donors to expand attacks on Russian energy infrastructure.

Russia has said that a full withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donbass would lead to an immediate ceasefire, but Zelensky has refused to issue such an order.

Russian-born tech billionaire Pavel Durov blamed Indian multinational conglomerate Reliance on Tuesday, as well as WhatsApp, for what he called a “lobbying effort” to get his messenger Telegram restricted in India. 

Telegram appealed to the Delhi High Court on Wednesday against the Indian government’s temporary restrictions on the app ahead of the rescheduled national medical entrance examination, NEET-UG 2026, on June 21. The court agreed to hear the matter on “an urgent basis.” 

But it looked like in his haste to criticize WhatsApp, Telegram’s biggest rival and the dominant messaging app in India, Durov missed some crucial details and trained his guns on the wrong party. 

“Indian telecom Reliance is sabotaging access to Telegram for millions of users OUTSIDE India (including the UAE) via a rogue method called BGP hijacking,” Durov said in the post.” The sabotage seems intentional, as Reliance has ignored multiple reports.” 

He claimed that this “may be part of a competitive war, as Reliance is partially owned by Meta – the company behind WhatsApp.” 

The Telegram owner shared a screenshot containing what looked like hacking logs as proof of the alleged sabotage. But it showed Reliance Communications, or RCom, a bankrupt entity owned by the Anil Ambani group.   

Meta’s partnership is with Reliance Industries, owned by billionaire Mukesh Ambani, prompting X users to point out the distinction to Durov. Mukesh is the elder brother of Anil Ambani.   

Meta’s WhatsApp is the top messaging platform in the country of 1.4 billion, which is also Telegram’s biggest market by downloads. Meta has a stake of about 10% in Jio Platforms, a unit of Reliance Industries. 

New Delhi restricted Telegram on the recommendation of the National Testing Agency (NTA), which oversees the conduct of the exam for admission to medical courses nationwide, for which hundreds of thousands of applicants appear every year. The test held in May was cancelled following alleged question paper leaks and a retest is scheduled for Sunday. 

Indian telecom Reliance is sabotaging access to Telegram for millions of users OUTSIDE India (including the UAE) via a rogue method called BGP hijacking.

The sabotage seems intentional, as Reliance has ignored multiple reports.

This may be part of a competitive war, as…

— Pavel Durov (@durov) June 16, 2026

The app has been barred until June 22 and the platform has been directed to disable its message-editing feature until June 30. 

The NTA said the curbs would prevent “cheating rackets” from using Telegram to spread false claims about question paper leaks concerning the retest. 

Reliance Industries, Meta, and RCom have not commented on Durov’s sabotage charges. 

The ban has triggered intense discussions on social media, but students and parents appear to want the authorities to focus on preventing question paper leaks.   

Nigerian troops have rescued the wife of a retired major general who died after the couple was taken hostage by armed militants several weeks ago, the West African country’s military has said.

Amina Abubakar, the widow of Major General Rabe Abubakar, a former director of defense information, was freed during an operation which the army conducted with support from the Nigerian Air Force, military spokesman Major General Samaila Uba said in a statement on Monday.

The troops made contact with the kidnappers at Tunga village in Katsina State after “sustained offensive operations and pressure mounted on the criminal elements,” Uba said.

“The bandits shot Mrs. Abubakar before abandoning her and fleeing due to the overwhelming pressure from advancing troops,” he added.

She has been evacuated to a military hospital and is responding to treatment, the statement said, adding that the Nigerian Armed Forces will continue operations “to track down and neutralize the perpetrators.”

In a separate statement on Wednesday, the army said four other victims of hostage takers had been rescued in Katsina State during an operation targeting the network of militant leader Kachalla Muhammadu Fulani. According to the military, preliminary investigations showed that the victims were abducted on April 14 from Sabon Sara along the Matazu-Karaduwa road and were held alongside the late General Abubakar and his wife.

Abubakar’s death was confirmed by military officials on Saturday. They said they had avoided public comment on the abduction while efforts to secure his release were still underway.

Africa’s most populous nation has faced years of violence from armed gangs, especially in the northwest, where kidnappings for ransom, cattle rustling, and village raids have become frequent. Amnesty International said in a recent report that at least 1,100 people had been abducted across northern Nigeria between January and April this year.

The latest rescue comes amid a string of recent attacks. In May, the army said it rescued seven children and two women who were among dozens abducted from an Islamic orphanage in Kogi State. In April, troops rescued 31 people taken during an Easter church service in Kaduna State, while gunmen killed at least 20 people and abducted others in raids on villages in Niger State.

The security crisis has also spread across other regions. Suspected Boko Haram militants killed at least 20 people in attacks on communities in Borno and Adamawa states in April, days after militants linked to Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province killed at least seven troops in an assault on an army base near the border with Chad.

The Kremlin has condemned as terrorism a Ukrainian drone strike on a bus carrying a Belarusian youth sports team. One woman was killed and several passengers wounded, including children, in the attack in Russia’s Bryansk Region on Wednesday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has instructed Health Minister Mikhail Murashko to ensure that all those injured “in the terrorist attack by the Kiev regime” receive the necessary medical assistance, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

The attack on the bus, which was carrying 44 people, 28 of them children, was first reported by Bryansk Region’s acting governor, Egor Kovalchuk. Belarusian Deputy Health Minister Aleksandr Khodzhaev later said eight people, including six children, had been hospitalized.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also condemned the strike, accusing Kiev of targeting civilians and saying it was “hunting” children. She claimed Kiev puts minors in danger “without hesitation” and compared the latest case with a drone raid on a school dormitory in Starobelsk, which killed 21 people last month.

Commenting on the incident, Belarusian lawmaker Oleg Gaidukevich, deputy chairman of the parliament’s international affairs committee, said the attack was part of an increasing number of “extremist” actions by the Ukrainian military and regime.

“Both Russia and Belarus are capable of fighting terrorism and extremism. They... will always respond firmly and in accordance with the law,” he wrote on Telegram.

Russia’s human rights commissioner, Yana Lantratova, said the attack was a war crime under international humanitarian law, noting that “defenseless people... children” had been targeted.

Criminal investigations into the incident have been opened in both Russia and Belarus, with the authorities treating the attack as an act of terrorism.

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

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

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

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

The opposite happened and the attacking side’s superior forces were met with unexpectedly high resilience. Iran didn’t collapse after the initial decapitation strike and instead it reorganized, mobilized and, most importantly, cast aside many of the constraints that had previously limited its response.

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

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

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

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

The experience of recent years shows that the scope for achieving political objectives through military force is narrowing. The weaker side’s capacity to resist is growing, while the stronger side’s willingness to accept serious risks, especially risks to its own domestic stability, is diminishing. This applies to many conflicts, but it is particularly visible in the Middle East.

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

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

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

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

That strategy suffered a serious blow in 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel and Israel responded with massive force. Even Gaza, however, didn’t completely derail the project, but merely delayed it.

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

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

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

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

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) risks becoming the deadliest in Africa’s recent history unless authorities bring it under control quickly, the head of the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) has warned.

Speaking during a virtual meeting of African heads of state on Tuesday, Africa CDC Director-General Jean Kaseya said tens of thousands of people who may have been exposed to the virus have yet to be identified and monitored.

“If we don’t stop the outbreak very soon, it will be worse than what we had in West Africa and eastern ‌DR Congo,” he stressed.

The warning refers to the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, which killed more than 11,000 people, as well as the second-largest Ebola epidemic in history, which took place in 2018 in the DR Congo.

According to the DR Congo Health Ministry, 29 new confirmed Ebola cases and four deaths were reported on June 15. All newly detected infections were recorded in Ituri province, while North Kivu and South Kivu reported no new cases.

The country’s cumulative toll has reached 837 confirmed cases and 196 deaths, with a case fatality rate of 23.4%. Health officials said 49 patients have recovered, while 376 remain in isolation.

The outbreak has also spread beyond Congo’s borders. In its latest update published on June 14, Africa CDC reported 19 confirmed Ebola cases in neighboring Uganda linked to the current outbreak. Two deaths have been recorded among confirmed patients, while four people have recovered.

The response to the outbreak has also been complicated by an ongoing insecurity in DR Congo; the M23 rebel group continues to control parts of the region, fueling clashes and displacement.

Reuters said, citing local authorities, that armed assailants stormed a health center near the city of Butembo in North Kivu province on Monday night and abducted a woman and her six-year-old daughter, who had tested positive for Ebola. Health officials warned that the pair’s disappearance could increase the risk of further transmission if they are not under medical supervision.

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

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

“Via commercial vendors, national security agencies typically purchase access to a constantly updated stream of bulk data. That data contains information on mobile devices’ unique IDs, their precise location over time, as well as granular profile data of individual app users linked to these devices,” said Thorsten Wetzling, one of the study’s authors.

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

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

The report said the use of AdInt ranges from off-the-shelf intelligence tools purchased by smaller governments to bulk commercial datasets acquired by major intelligence agencies. Some agencies buy data directly from vendors, while others use intermediaries or front companies to conceal their interest, it said.

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

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

In the US, the FBI has acknowledged previously purchasing location data derived from online advertising, while US Customs and Border Protection ran a pilot that acquired location information from mobile app software and digital advertising systems. An internal Department of Homeland Security report also found that some agencies had violated federal law through purchases of commercial location data.

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

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

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

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

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

Beijing has what it takes to come up with solutions that will provide for the technology continuing to be “simply an assistant, thanks to which we will conquer death, conquer disease, conquer technological backwardness, conquer hunger. But we’re not obeying it – it obeys us,” Simonyan stressed.

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

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

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

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

China, which is looking to develop “human-centered AI,” has made some of its intelligence models open source so that everyone can use it to improve their lives, the professor explained.

A Ukrainian drone attack has struck a bus carrying a children’s soccer team from Belarus to a Russian seaside resort, according to acting Bryansk Region Governor Egor Kovalchuk.

The attack killed an adult woman who was accompanying the underage passengers to the resort town of Gelendzhik in Krasnodar Region and injured six others, including four children, the official said.

One young victim has been rushed to hospital in serious condition, while the injuries of the others are considered moderate, Deputy Health Minister Aleksey Kuznetsov told the media. He said seven people in total were injured. Meanwhile Belarusian Deputy Health Minister Aleksandr Khodzhaev said eight victims were being treated following the incident, including six minors.

The bus was carrying 44 passengers, including 28 young athletes from a school sports team based in the town of Rechytsa in Belarus, according to Russia’s Investigative Committee. The incident has been designated a terrorist attack, the agency added.

Images published by Russian and Belarusian media showed the attacked vehicle – a single-deck passenger bus rather than a double-decker initially reported by the Investigative Committee – with holes apparently left by shrapnel and a deflated front-right tire.

The acting governor later shared photos of what appears to be the same bus, including of the interior, showing shattered windows and seats apparently smeared with blood.

The woman who was killed was the wife of the team coach, a source in Belarusian law enforcement told RT.

Kiev has intensified its long-range drone campaign against Russia in recent months, describing the strikes as “long-range sanctions” aimed at inflicting economic damage. Moscow has accused Ukraine of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and attempting to terrorize the population.

In May, Ukrainian drones struck a dormitory at a vocational college in Starobelsk in the Lugansk People’s Republic, killing 21 people. According to local authorities, many of the victims were teenage students who were spending the night on campus.

Officials in Russian regions bordering Ukraine also regularly report strikes on vehicles used by repair crews, medics, and other community services. Earlier on Wednesday, Kovalchuk reported an attack on an ambulance in Bryansk Region that was responding to an emergency, in which the driver, a nurse and a paramedic were injured. In a separate incident, a drone hit a civilian car, injuring the driver and a female passenger, he added.

Belarus is a close military and political ally of Russia, but has not directly joined the Ukraine conflict. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has repeatedly said he would only enter the fighting if attacked first.

Since mid-May, Zelensky has issued a series of warnings to Minsk, threatening a pre-emptive strike over what he claimed were preparations for a possible attack from Belarusian territory. However, Ukrainian officials themselves have said there was no evidence of such plans.

Lukashenko has dismissed the claims as empty grandstanding, saying the Ukrainian military lacks the manpower to launch an incursion into Belarus.

Equatorial Guinea’s entire government has resigned over its failure to meet key targets, the West African nation’s vice president, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, announced on Tuesday.

Prime Minister Manuel Osa Nsue Nsua submitted the en bloc resignation of the executive during an extraordinary session of the Council of Ministers, the vice president said in a statement.

Osa, a former national bank chief, was appointed in August 2024 after the previous government stepped down following criticism from President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo over its handling of the economy, social cohesion, and corruption.

The vice president said the move came after it was established that “the level of fulfilment of the established objectives has barely reached 10%.” The statement did not specify which objectives were not met.

“The degree of execution achieved is clearly insufficient in relation to the expectations and commitments undertaken,” he said. He added that the trust placed in the executive by the head of state “demands efficacy, discipline, management capacity, accountability, and a clear orientation toward results.”

Equatorial Guinea, one of sub-Saharan Africa’s major oil producers, has struggled to translate its hydrocarbon wealth into broad-based living standards. The World Bank said in its 2025 economic update that the country’s economy grew by an estimated 0.9% in 2024, but that the expansion was not enough to protect jobs and earnings, while more than half of Equatoguineans were still living in poverty.

The lender also warned that declining oil production and exports remain a major drag on the economy, with gross domestic product projected to contract by an average of 1.2% in 2025-2027.

Obiang, 84, has ruled the country since seizing power in 1979, making him the world’s longest-serving president. Rights groups accuse his administration of suppressing dissent and concentrating oil wealth among the ruling elite – claims the authorities have rejected as foreign interference.

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

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

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

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

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez defended the amnesty, insisting that it was aimed at showing that “Spain is above all a welcoming country, and this is the path we choose: dignity, community and justice.”

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

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

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

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

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

Despite the number of arrivals subsiding since the migrant crisis of 2015, the foreign-born population in the EU reached a record 64.2 million last year, expanding by 20.2 million since 2010, according to the report.

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

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

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

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

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

The Global Sumud Flotilla has also filed a submission with the International Criminal Court alleging war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, and other violations of international law by Israeli forces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vice President J.D. Vance said the US has not released the one-and-a-half-page text because officials needed to “sequence this in the right way.”

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

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

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

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

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

4. Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States will lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore traffic within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity. The traffic of ships shall be proportional to the prewar volume of traffic on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement.

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

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

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

8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this article.

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

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

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

12. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that an implementation mechanism will be established to oversee the successful implementation of, and future commitment to, the final agreement.

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

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

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

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

Ukraine back on agenda

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

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

Trump spoke after separate calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, saying both leaders appeared open to a deal.

European reaction

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

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

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

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

Where do the talks stand?

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

The negotiations yielded several tangible results, including major prisoner exchanges, the repatriation of fallen soldiers, and the exchange of peace memorandums. However, they failed to secure a peace deal, with key disagreements persisting, particularly over Moscow’s demand that Ukrainian forces withdraw from Donbass.

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

What settlements have been proposed?

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

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

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

Russia confirmed receiving the revised proposal but declined to discuss its contents, accusing the Europeans of reshaping the framework and undermining peace efforts.

What are the next steps?

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

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

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

Europeans split

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

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

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

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

Trump’s position

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

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

After speaking with Putin and Zelensky on Sunday, Trump described both conversations as “very good” and said both leaders were “very open” to peace. According to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, he also told Putin he was prepared to “influence” Kiev and its European backers toward a settlement.

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

Zelensky’s demands

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

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

Russia’s stance

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

Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum earlier this month, Putin said Russia remained committed to a settlement based on understandings reached with Trump in Alaska, but blamed Kiev for blocking progress. He later told Trump that Ukrainian attacks on civilian infrastructure and proposals backed by Zelensky and his European backers were hindering peace efforts and prolonging the conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“MSS frontier workflows enabled US forces to deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets within 96 hours during Operation Epic Fury,” he said, adding that xAI is one of just three enterprise providers able to sustain “mission-critical operations” across Secret and Top-Secret classified networks. He warned that if xAI’s Colossus 2 facility is shut down or deprived of power, the Pentagon’s capabilities would be impaired.

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

The company’s role has drawn renewed scrutiny after reports that AI-assisted targeting contributed to a US strike in Minab that claimed the lives of nearly 160 schoolgirls. The school was reportedly selected based on outdated data processed through Palantir-linked systems incorporating Anthropic’s Claude AI. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said last week that the reported use of AI in the Minab strike did not necessarily violate the company’s “red lines,” stressing that a human made the final decision.

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

xAI, which developed Grok as a rival to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, was merged with SpaceX earlier this year. The company’s data centers have also become a major source of compute power for other AI firms, with Google and Anthropic signing multibillion-dollar agreements to rent capacity from Musk’s company.

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

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

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

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

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

In the short term, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the lifting of the US naval blockade of Iran will ease the energy situation on the global market. Yet in the long term, the case of Hormuz has sent a ringing message that in the age of world order transition, all maritime chokepoints are potentially vulnerable to hostile action. Iranian leaders have learned that their ability to close the strait, and the US unwillingness to risk losses in trying to reopen it, Washington’s Achilles’ heel, could be a more powerful deterrent for Tehran than a nuclear-weapons capability. Meanwhile, Tehran intends to regulate traffic through the waterway together with Oman.

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

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

The situation in Lebanon, however, could be a real deal-breaker. Tehran has succeeded in getting President Donald Trump’s agreement to include the Lebanon front in the deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is adamant that Israel continue its efforts to eliminate Hezbollah. Trump’s recent anger directed at Netanyahu reflects something much more important: A significant part of American society and the political class are losing patience with Israel and cooling toward it. This comes against the backdrop of Israel’s growing international isolation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Israel is fighting Hezbollah for too long, and too many people are being killed. And you don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody. Because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses, and they’re not all Hezbollah,” Trump stated while speaking to the media amid the G7 summit, which is underway in Geneva.

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

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

“If Israel can’t do the job without killing everyone else, [al-Sharaa] will do the job. Syria will do the job. Without the United States, there would be no Israel. Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did,” he claimed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigation found that Epstein had attempted to take his own life at least two additional times before a previously reported failed hanging attempt on July 22, 2019. Tartaglione said he discovered Epstein preparing for suicide on both occasions, including once while trying to tie a sheet to a grate above a cell window and another when he found a noose hidden under Epstein’s mattress.

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

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

Epstein initially told correctional officers that Tartaglione had tried to kill him, but an internal prison investigation cleared the former cop of any role in the incident. After Epstein’s death on August 10, investigators discovered his cell contained unauthorized linens, including several nooses and strips of orange fabric that could be fashioned into one.

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

The West routinely takes liberties with international law and applies double standards when dealing with countries representing the global majority, Russian ambassador-at-large Ilya Rogachev has said at a BRICS seminar on criminal law cooperation in Moscow.

Addressing the event on Tuesday, Rogachev argued that the West follows one set of legal norms in relations among its own states and another when dealing with countries outside its sphere.

“There is still international law, there is still law that so-called civilized nations living in a ‘blooming garden’ apply among themselves. And there are rules that are put in place on an ad-hoc basis when regulating relations between the inhabitants of the ‘blooming garden’ and the inhabitants of the ‘wild jungle’,” he said.

Rogachev questioned the legitimacy of such practices, asking: “Where are these rules set in writing? And who developed them?” He argued that the West frequently invokes unwritten standards and selectively interprets international law to advance its political objectives.

The garden analogy likely refers to an infamous remark made by former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in 2022. Addressing aspiring European diplomats, Borrell proclaimed that the bloc is a “garden” that has the best combination of “political freedom, economic prosperity and social cohesion” ever known to humankind – and must be protected from the outside “jungle.”

“The rest of the world… is not exactly a garden,” Borrell told students at the College of Europe in Bruges.

Following an outcry over apparent racist and colonial undertones, he had to walk back his remarks.

Another keynote speaker at the BRICS seminar in Moscow, former Russian Prime Minister Sergey Stepashin, who currently chairs the country’s Association of Lawyers, concurred that actions by Western countries over the past few decades have “dealt a serious blow” to the very concept of international law.

He cited among the most glaring examples the NATO-led 1999 war against Yugoslavia, when the US and its European allies launched their military campaign in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution.

“Not to mention Syria, Iraq, and what is currently going on in Lebanon. I’m not even talking about the annihilation of 70,000 civilians in Gaza by the regime of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” Stepashin added.

He noted that no international organization, including the International Criminal Court, had spoken out against those responsible in the West.

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

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

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

Patel confirmed the reports, saying the plot was uncovered on June 10 and that the FBI, working with partner agencies, moved quickly to prevent what he described as a planned attack on the “historic” UFC event.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palantir’s flagship product, Gotham, is an operating system that pulls together data – for example surveillance footage, archived case files, and reports from agents in the field – that would otherwise take an agency such as the DGSI days to sort through. It then uses AI to analyze this data to recommend targets for surveillance, arrest, or other law enforcement actions.

However, Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s close relationship with US President Donald Trump’s administration, and his recent ‘manifesto’ espousing American military supremacy, have panicked some European leaders. Last month, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the BfV, reportedly chose ChapsVision over Palantir to handle its data analytics.

The growing mistrust of Palantir comes amid a broader EU-wide push for what French President Emmanuel Macron terms “digital sovereignty.” Macron has taken this push further than most European leaders, with the French government ditching US videoconferencing software – including Zoom and Microsoft Teams – earlier this year, swapping Microsoft Windows for Linux, and leading prosecution efforts against Elon Musk’s X platform.

Much of this effort is aimed at shoring up domestic support. The French left has been fiercely critical of the US tech industry, and Macron is facing a likely presidential challenge from center-left MEP Raphael Glucksmann, who has made opposition to the Silicon Valley titans a centerpiece of his campaign.

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

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

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

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

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

In a heterogeneous society, this cannot produce a fair democracy. Democracy assumes a shared conception of the public interest. When ethnic groups have irreconcilable preferences – on crime and policing, welfare redistribution, immigration, family structure, time horizons, and cultural dominance – majoritarianism becomes ethnic spoils. Non-White groups act for their tribe’s advantage. Whites, crippled by individualism, appeal to abstract principles that no one else honors. Nepotism always defeats naive individualism in the long run. Look at any Western city with significant demographic change: ethnic enclaves, parallel societies, demands for Sharia accommodations, affirmative action, and reparations. The social whole dissolves.

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

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

The trajectory of the late Roman Empire offers a chilling historical parallel to the modern West. What began as a Republic rooted in ethnic particularism gradually shifted towards universalist principles under the Empire. Successive emperors promoted an expansive Romanitas, an abstract imperial citizenship, that increasingly took precedence over the ethnic identity and interests of the original Italic Roman people. Successive emperors promoted Romanitas as a civic ideal open to outsiders, extending legal privileges, emancipation of slaves, and pathways to citizenship. This mirrors today’s liberal universalism: a noble-sounding ideology that masks the erosion of the founding population.

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

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

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

The classical nation-state worked because it aligned political boundaries with a relatively homogeneous people sharing ethnicity, language, culture, and history. Mass immigration has destroyed that congruence. Liberalism’s universalist pretensions cannot paper over the resulting fractures. Multicultural “democracies” are devolving into managerial oligarchies managing ethnic conflict through bribes, censorship, and anti-majority discrimination.

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

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

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

The Bank of Japan raised its key interest rate by a quarter percentage point to 1% on Tuesday, lifting borrowing costs to their highest level since 1995 as it sought to contain inflation from soaring energy prices driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran.   

The central bank said it would continue raising rates if inflation remains elevated, citing the impact of higher oil prices on consumer costs.  

Although the US and Iran have reached a preliminary agreement to end hostilities following weeks of negotiations, BoJ officials remain wary of lingering price pressures. Japan relies heavily on imported oil, and crude prices surged during the disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. A weak yen has further increased the cost of imports.

BoJ policymakers lifted the central bank’s short-term policy rate by 25 basis points to 1% from 0.75% and said businesses were increasingly passing higher energy costs through the supply chain at a “relatively fast pace,” raising the risk of broader price increases. The move follows tightening by several other central banks this year in response to inflation concerns.  

BOJ Deputy Governor Shinichi Uchida said the agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz had reduced risks to Japan’s economy, but warned that uncertainty remained over how quickly global supply chains would normalize.  

“We don’t know what will happen next,” Uchida told reporters on Tuesday.  

Price increases were becoming more widespread across the economy, he said, raising the risk that underlying inflation could accelerate beyond the central bank’s 2% target.  

The BoJ has come under pressure to curb inflation after decades in which price growth in Japan was extremely low. Japan’s wholesale prices rose more than 6% in May from a year earlier, the fastest increase in three years.  

The rate hike comes as Japan embarks on its largest military buildup since World War II. Tokyo’s fiscal 2026 defense budget climbed to a record 9.04 trillion yen ($58 billion), equivalent to about 1.9% of GDP, as the government seeks to raise military spending to 2% of output, in line with the benchmark used by NATO members and partners.   

This has added to concerns about fiscal pressures at a time when policymakers are also grappling with higher borrowing costs and persistent inflation.

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

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

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

Is the proposed UK social media ban popular?

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

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

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

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

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

Is the ban an excuse to push digital ID?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— tobi lutke (@tobi) June 15, 2026

Who could the UK social media ban affect? 

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

Starmer favors this approach. One week before announcing the ban, he called on Apple and Google to implement such device-level checks, supposedly to “make it impossible for children to take, share or view nude images.” Implementing this law would require the tech companies to scan every photo taken or received on a device for nudity, a measure that Apple introduced in 2021, but scrapped two years later amid outcry from privacy activists.

Signal, an encrypted messaging app, threatened to leave the UK if Starmer’s phone-scanning plan went ahead. “Forcing all UK residents to prove their age and/or have all their content scanned, simply to exercise their fundamental right to communicate, is a perilous proposition,” the company said. “We know that mass surveillance and censorship capabilities…will be expanded, forming a dangerous tool that will be wielded both in the UK and abroad to censor and surveil whatever they might consider ‘threats’ or ‘harmful content.’”

How could Starmer’s social media ban be abused?

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

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

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

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

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

— Pavel Durov (@durov) June 15, 2026

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

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

Has Keir Starmer built a police state?

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

With every British social media user verified, this content would not just be removed: its creators could be easily identified, located, and prosecuted – on a scale beyond the 2024 crackdown. Furthermore, “inciting racial or religious hatred” is a vague and nebulous term, and facing the threat of prosecution and imprisonment, many social media users will likely choose not to share such content in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uruguay’s national team was also subjected to drug-sniffing dogs, metal detectors and uniformed inspections on arrival, prompting accusations online that World Cup teams were being treated more like criminal suspects than visiting athletes.

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

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

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

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

The members of the group will receive about $550 per month under the program starting in June, according to the newspaper. The plan involves allocating nearly $2 million to bankroll the program until the end of the year.

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

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

The Group of Seven countries no longer run the world, member Canada has said.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said the presence of countries such as India at the gathering of the world’s most advanced economies and democracies highlights the G7’s acknowledgement of the need for a wider global perspective.

“It’s a recognition that the G7, if it ever did run the world, no longer runs the world or pretends to,” the Canadian leader said at an interaction at Trinity College Dublin, ahead of the G7 conclave in Evian, France.   

The grouping comprises Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the US, in addition to the European Union, which participates in the meetings as a ‘non-enumerated’ member.

Carney pointed out that tackling major global challenges requires wider international cooperation and perspectives beyond the group’s traditional members.

The G7 summit is taking place shortly after Iran and the US struck a peace deal ending months-long hostilities that have paralyzed shipping in the Gulf of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical waterways. The deal is to be formally signed this coming Friday. 

The summit, which is already underway, also includes as partner countries Brazil, Egypt, Kenya and the Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates – apart from India, which holds the BRICS presidency this year.

Carney said these countries provide a “broader perspective and a broader element of the solution” to discussions on key global challenges.

🌍🇮🇳 G7 No Longer Runs The World, India's Presence Proves It: Canada PM Carney pic.twitter.com/5YkL26l78F

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) June 16, 2026

This underscores the key role of emerging and middle powers in addressing global issues, he said, adding the expanded gathering could formulate the contours of a new world order.

US President Donald Trump, who is attending the G7 meeting, is expected to hold talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi amid strained relations over trade tariffs and the killing of Indian sailors by US forces enforcing the Iran blockade. 

Carney’s comments come on the heels of Modi and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico backing comprehensive reforms of multilateral institutions, including the UN Security Council.

The structure of the UN was decided in the aftermath of World War II, but is increasingly seen as out of step with the modern world, where countries such as India have increased their economic and military clout. Russia and China have also been left out of the G7.

At the World Economic Summit in Davos in January, Carney urged “middle powers to work together in response to growing geopolitical tensions.”

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

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

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

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

The incident was first reported by the British press, which made no mention of the yacht sailing toward the warship. The British Defense Ministry did not comment on the encounter, except to tell the BBC that it was “investigating reports of an incident in the Channel.”

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

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

India has successfully flight-tested the indigenously developed Long-Range Land Attack Cruise Missile (LRLACM), boosting the country’s deep- and precision-strike capabilities.

The LRLACM can change altitudes and speeds in flight, much like the US Navy’s Tomahawk missile, leading some commentators to call it India’s Tomahawk.

India’s Defense Research & Development Organization (DRDO) conducted the test from Dr. Abdul Kalam Island off the coast of Odisha, according to an official statement.

Data from tracking instruments deployed by the Integrated Test Range in Chandipur showed that all test objectives were met.

Long Range Land Attack Cruise Missile (LRLACM) was successfully flight tested from Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Island off the coast of Odisha on 15th June 2026.https://t.co/wVYJauGjNQ pic.twitter.com/nutCCfzWEd

— DRDO (@DRDO_India) June 15, 2026

The cruise missile reportedly has a speed of up to 0.8 Mach and is capable of hitting targets in excess of 620 miles (1,000 kilometers). It can evade radar by flying low and is capable of carrying a 500-kg warhead, reports suggest.

The missile is expected to add to the strike capabilities of the Indian Navy and Air Force as New Delhi builds out its missile arsenal. A few other tests were also conducted by the DRDO last week, including interceptor missiles for India’s ballistic missile defense shield.

India used the BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles last year to strike targets inside Pakistan during a brief clash following a terrorist attack in Kashmir.

BrahMos Aerospace, a joint venture between DRDO and Russia’s NPO Mashinostroyeniya rocket design bureau, makes the BrahMos cruise missiles in land, air, and sea variants.

The LRLACM’s successful test comes after the reported failure of the similar long-range Nirbhay missile project.

The cruise missile was developed entirely with indigenous technologies. All its sub-systems were developed by DRDO-backed laboratories and domestic industry partners. The Aeronautical Development Establishment in the southern city of Bengaluru functioned as the Nodal Laboratory of the project.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, whose pro-EU Civil Contract party won a decisive victory in the June 7 parliamentary election, has branded opposition parties that entered parliament as illegal and vowed to strip them of political standing. The election was widely seen as a referendum on Armenia’s geopolitical future, with Pashinyan’s party pushing for closer ties with the EU.  

The official results announced on Sunday showed Civil Contract won 49.74% of the vote, enough to form a government on its own. The opposition Strong Armenia bloc, founded by Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, came second with 23.27%, while former President Robert Kocharyan’s Armenia Alliance won 9.92%.

Businessman Gagik Tsarukyan’s Prosperous Armenia narrowly missed the 4% threshold for parliamentary representation, receiving 3.98%. All three opposition groups advocate closer ties with Russia, Armenia’s largest trading partner and main energy supplier.   

Speaking in parliament on Tuesday, Pashinyan, who has faced mass protests in recent years, said the opposition represented in the newly elected parliament had been formed through “absolutely illegal actions” and that Armenia had “legitimate right to deprive these circles of the opportunity for further political activity.”  

He said the authorities had documented instances of what he described as foreign interference aimed at protecting a “criminal-oligarchic regime” in Armenia.  

“Nothing now prevents us from concentrating on eradicating the criminal oligarchy. This process has begun and will not stop,” he stated.  

Pashinyan’s remarks came as opposition parties continued to contest the election outcome. Hundreds of protesters rallied outside CEC, demanding the annulment of the results and alleging widespread fraud, while opposition groups said they would challenge the vote before the Constitutional Court.  

The opposition came under a crackdown before, during, and after the election. Pashinyan has accused opposition groups of vote-buying during the campaign, allegations they dismiss as fabricated.   

He has also signaled plans to target leading opposition figures financially. He previously said his party’s agenda included confiscating assets belonging to Karapetyan, Kocharyan, and Tsarukyan, arguing they had used their wealth to influence elections.

“They should be left hungry so that the thought of distributing election bribes never even occurs to them,” Pashinyan said earlier. “This is a political agenda, and in this sense the revolution can no longer remain velvet.”  

Opposition leaders say the crackdown is politically motivated. Hayk Mamijanyan, leader of the parliamentary I Have Honor bloc, told Izvestia on Monday that Pashinyan had been given a “carte blanche” by the West for repression against opposition politicians and dissenters. He accused the prime minister of “selling” anti-Russian policies and statements to Western backers in exchange for political support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lawyer reportedly warned that unless ZDF issues a declaration of discontinuance, Musk will be advised to “initiate legal proceedings immediately.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farage claims that this “two-tier state” has created a “two-tier market” in employment, social housing, education, the military, policing, and healthcare – which discriminates against white people, especially the young. Ominously, according to Farage, the situation can only get worse in the future – because while “White Brits” are a sizable majority at present, they “will become a minority in this country before the end of the century.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor is it clear how hanging up pictures of King Charles would increase literacy rates in British schools or improve the dastardly poor quality of education that they have dished out for the last 40 years or so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, both Farage and his woke opponents, just like real racists, each explain social and economic problems by means of biological categories and are, therefore, unable to properly comprehend the real causes of these problems. And, because of their shared deep-seated economic conservatism they are unable to formulate effective remedies for them. Farage, much like his woke elite opponents, has forsaken genuine analysis for biological fables.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somaliland has officially opened an embassy in Israel, the territory’s Foreign Ministry announced on Monday. Israel remains the only state to recognize the self-declared breakaway region of Somalia as a sovereign country.

The move comes after Somaliland Ambassador Mohamed Hagi visited Israel in May and revealed plans for the diplomatic mission to be based in Jerusalem. He also said Israel would open its own embassy in Hargeisa, Somaliland’s capital.

“The opening of Somaliland’s first-ever embassy in Jerusalem — a historic and long-awaited moment the people of Somaliland have waited more than 35 years to witness,” the Somaliland’s Foreign Ministry wrote on X.

Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Moshe Sa’ar attended the inauguration ceremony. Abdullahi arrived in Israel on Sunday and was received by President Isaac Herzog at the Presidential Residence in Jerusalem. It was the first state visit by a Somaliland leader to Israel.

“This historic milestone reflects Somaliland’s growing international presence and the strengthening partnership between Somaliland and Israel, founded on mutual respect, cooperation, and shared interests,” Abdullahi said in a post on X, commenting on the opening of the new embassy.

Abdullahi added that Somaliland and Israel had signed a Strategic Joint Declaration of Cooperation “marking a historic milestone in relations between our two nations”.

Somalia condemned Somaliland’s decision to open an embassy in Israel in May, calling it illegal and a violation of the country’s sovereignty. The African Union also opposed Israel’s appointment of an envoy to Somaliland, reaffirming support for Somalia’s territorial integrity.

Somalia’s current political landscape emerged after the collapse of the central government in 1991, when several regions established their own administrations. Somaliland declared independence the same year and has since operated with its own governing institutions, although remaining without international recognition.

Puntland, in northeastern Somalia, declared itself an autonomous region in 1998. Unlike Somaliland, it supports a federal Somali state and does not seek full independence.

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

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

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

The law, which comes into force on July 13, will provide authorities with “better tools to enforce deportation and expulsion decisions.”

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

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

Migration Minister Johan Forssell welcomed the law, saying that the proposal for increased information exchange could “reduce the inhumane shadow society.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

India has temporarily blocked the popular messaging app Telegram in an effort to prevent its use to defraud candidates taking a nationwide entrance examination.

The app will be barred until June 22, the Indian Education Ministry’s National Testing Agency (NTA) said. The Indian government also asked the platform to disable its message-editing feature in the country until June 30.

The agency was forced to cancel the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, or NEET, last month following widespread outrage over reported leaks of questions for the test.

For thousands of young people in a country that views an engineering or physician job as proof of having arrived in life, the undergraduate entrance exam for admission to medical colleges nationwide is a gateway to social respect and relative wealth.

A retest is scheduled on June 21.

The NTA said the curbs would prevent “cheating rackets” from using Telegram to spread false claims about question paper leaks about the retest.

It alleged that the app’s message-editing feature enabled channel admins to edit older posts and replace attachments with question papers of a recently concluded exam, while retaining the original timestamp.

Such altered posts then circulated widely, creating the impression that the question papers were leaked ahead of the exam.

Indian authorities characterized the curbs as a “last resort” as earlier attempts to remove fraudulent content from the platform – which was founded by Russian tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov – had not worked.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology invoked the provisions of its Information Technology law, which enables authorities to block access to online sites in the “interest of sovereignty and integrity of India,” for the temporary ban.

The application was still working for many in the South Asian country at 12 noon local time on Tuesday.

The ban “punishes 150M+ ordinary Telegram users in India – not the insiders who leaked the exam materials,” Durov posted on X. “And the ban hasn’t stopped anything. The leaks just moved to other apps.”

The anger over the paper leaks raised a political firestorm for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, leading to the rise of a GenZ-backed mock political party called the Cockroach Janata Party.

The party, with little on-ground presence or structure, has kept the issue alive with sporadic protests, demanding that the education minister take responsibility for the fiasco and resign.

India is Telegram’s biggest market by downloads, although Meta’s WhatsApp remains the top messaging platform in the country of 1.4 billion.

Such sweeping blocking action is rare in India. In 2020, New Delhi banned dozens of Chinese apps, including PubG and TikTok, following a brief clash between troops at their common Himalayan border.

A Nigerian court has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister a major opposition party and four others ahead of the West African nation’s 2027 general election.

Abuja Federal High Court Justice Peter Lifu issued the ruling on Monday, in a suit filed by the National Forum of Former Legislators. The court said the affected parties – the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Accord Party, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, and Zenith Labour Party – failed to meet constitutional requirements for continued registration, including electoral performance thresholds.

The judge ordered INEC to stop recognizing them, accepting their candidates, or allowing them to take part in future elections.

The ruling could affect former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who won the ADC presidential ticket in May, and Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke, who is seeking reelection on the Accord Party platform in the state’s August 15 governorship election.

In a statement on Monday, the ADC said it will challenge the ruling, accusing Justice Lifu of being a “threat to democracy” for allegedly disregarding a Court of Appeal order, which directed a stay of proceedings in the case.

The ADC said that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegations, the INEC told the court in a counter-affidavit filed in May that the party “had not violated any registration requirements, had not failed any constitutional electoral-performance threshold, and that no legally recognized basis existed for its de-registration.”

This is not the first major party deregistration dispute in Nigeria. In 2020, the INEC deregistered 74 parties after the 2019 general election, saying they failed to meet constitutional performance requirements. The Supreme Court later upheld the INEC’s power to deregister parties that fail to meet legal thresholds.

The court decision comes ahead of a tense election cycle in Africa’s most populous country, where national elections have repeatedly been marred by violence, legal disputes, and allegations of irregularities, including the 2023 election.

Incumbent President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress is expected to be among the main contenders in the January 16, 2027 election, along with Peter Obi, the former Anambra State governor and candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress.

In April, Nigeria’s broadcast regulator tightened rules for radio and TV stations ahead of the 2027 election, warning presenters against airing personal opinions, bullying guests, and broadcasting divisive political material.

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

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

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

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

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

The second danger is Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have made clear that the Israeli army will remain in “security zones” in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza for an indefinite period. Katz has already warned that if Iran attacks Israel over events in Lebanon, Israel will respond “with full force.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does the EU want new members?

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

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

What is holding expansion back?

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

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

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

Are there suitable candidates?

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

Kiev, for example, claims that Ukraine deserves full membership as a self-described defender of the EU from Russia’s ambitions. Brussels has endorsed this fearmongering narrative, but existing members have opposed fast-tracking Ukraine’s admission.

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

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

What about candidates not at war?

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

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

Yet even Moldovan officials do not expect their country to join the bloc soon. Sandu and some of her ministers have suggested that Moldova could instead be directly absorbed by EU member Romania. The Moldovan president, who holds Romanian citizenship, said earlier this year that she would vote in favor of the move in a hypothetical referendum.

What is the proposed solution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“My sister, other people, are not just numbers, they are not just protocols, they are not just a CPF (Brazil’s taxpayer ID) thrown into the system,” she said.

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

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

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

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

African media should tell Russia’s story directly instead of relying on narratives filtered through outside perspectives, CEO of Nigeria’s Afia TV, Emeka Mba has said. 

Speaking to RT, former director general of the National Broadcasting Commission said his decision to send reporting crews to Russia stemmed from dissatisfaction with what he described as “one-sided storytelling” about both Russia and Africa. 

He argued that Africans should have the freedom to explore and portray other societies firsthand, noting that audiences in Nigeria had been surprised by what they saw in reports from Moscow and other Russian cities. 

“I wanted us [Africans] to have the freedom to explore ourselves, not just through other filters, but sending a crew here [to Russia] ... It’s important that stories like that, and it comes from us, not from other people,” he said.

According to Mba, reports produced by Afia TV from Russia generated significant interest among viewers in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa. He said many people contacted the broadcaster after the channel aired its first travel documentary from Russia, asking to see more content about the country. 

The media executive stressed that African audiences have long consumed content produced by foreign broadcasters and that cooperation with Russian media should be viewed in that context.  

Addressing criticism over Afia TV’s cooperation with Russian media, Mba said the broadcaster is independently owned and reserves the right to engage with different partners. He maintained that viewers benefit from access to alternative perspectives and from seeing parts of Russia that are rarely shown to Nigerian audiences.

“There’s no law that says you cannot cooperate with Russia,” Mba noted.

He said the main obstacle is a longstanding mindset shaped by decades of news coverage filtered through external narratives, which has encouraged excessive caution among some journalists and media owners.

“One thing I can say is that there are no bears walking around the streets of Russia,” Mba stressed. 

Looking ahead, Mba called for deeper media cooperation between Nigeria and Russia. He said more Nigerian journalists, content creators, and storytellers should be given opportunities to visit different regions of Russia and share their experiences with audiences back home.  

“We need each other, definitely,” he said.

India has sought rare earth samples from a Siberian deposit owned by Russian company Rosneft, Reuters has reported.

New Delhi is pursuing a strategy to secure supplies and cut dependence on critical minerals from China, which is the world’s largest producer of rare earths.

India’s IREL, formerly known as Indian Rare Earths Limited – which spearheads the South Asian nation’s outreach to secure rare earth supplies – aims to study the mineral composition of the deposit in Tomtor, Siberia, before ⁠considering deeper engagement, the report said.

Rosneft acquired the deposit last year.

Rare earth magnets are key components in energy transformation, going into everything from electric vehicles to renewable energy production.

India sits on the world’s third-largest rare earth reserves of nearly 7.23 million metric tons, but does not produce rare earth magnets domestically. Its consumption is expected to double by 2030.

Last year, Reuters reported that IREL is in talks with Japanese and South Korean companies to manufacture rare earth magnets commercially.

Globally, nations are frantically pursuing rare earth minerals amid trade tensions between the US and China. Beijing has restricted rare earth exports in response to US tariffs, sparking supply disruptions for the automotive and other high-tech industries.

India is also exploring rare earth mining pacts with Russia, Australia, Argentina, Chile, and several African countries.

In February, India said it aims to start producing rare earth permanent magnets by the end of the year in partnership with the private sector. It allocated $802 million for a program to manufacture rare earth permanent magnets last November. New Delhi also joined the US-led Pax Silica alliance, which aims to secure a supply chain for artificial intelligence, chips, and critical minerals, the same month.

In May, JSC Giredmet, a unit of Rosatom’s scientific division, signed a memorandum of understanding with India’s Nexon Geochem for research and development of technologies for processing raw materials of rare earth magnets. Giredmet also signed a letter of intent with Technology Innovation in Exploration & Mining Foundation (TEXMiN) for research and development of technologies for producing permanent magnets.

India is also exploring options to buy coking coal assets and import more nickel from Russia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South African photojournalist Sam Nzima’s iconic black-and-white photograph of the lifeless body of Hector Pieterson being carried by Mbuyisa Makhuba – with Pieterson’s distraught sister, Antoinette Sithole, running alongside – exposed the world to the sheer brutality of the apartheid regime.

Hector, just 12 years old, was among more than 10,000 schoolchildren participating in the Soweto Uprising on June 16, 1976. The march was a mass protest against a government mandate requiring key school subjects to be taught in Afrikaans – a language largely foreign to black students and deeply associated with the oppressive ruling class.

By the end of that violent day, official state reports indicated that 176 people had been killed in Soweto, 1,139 wounded, and 1,298 arrested. Meanwhile, in New York, the United Nations Committee on Apartheid estimated that the true death toll of black South Africans exceeded 1,000.

Eyewitness accounts placed the actual death toll in Soweto between 200 and 500, with Hector Pieterson among them. Although he was rushed to a nearby clinic, he was pronounced dead on arrival.

The rise of apartheid

Apartheid was a highly organized system of legalized racial segregation and white supremacy. For nearly three centuries, indigenous Africans had been dispossessed and exploited by British and Dutch colonizers. In 1948, apartheid (meaning ‘apartness’ in Afrikaans) became official state policy when the National Party, voted into power by an all-white electorate, formalized discrimination into a rigid legal structure.

The regime utilized hundreds of laws to enforce strict segregation. The most devastating of these measures stripped black South Africans of their citizenship, tightly controlled their daily movements through notorious ‘pass laws’, and dictated where they were allowed to live.

For black South Africans, this meant being forced into inferior, neglected residential areas, barred from white-only restaurants, cinemas, and beaches, and restricted to segregated public transportation and low-wage labor.

‘Equality with whites is not for them’

Afrikaners are a Southern African ethnic group primarily descended from Dutch, German, and French Huguenot settlers who first arrived at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652.

The transition from British colonial control to total Afrikaner hegemony occurred in two phases. First, the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910 established a power-sharing agreement between British and Afrikaner elites. Second, the watershed 1948 election brought the nationalist National Party into sole power, institutionalizing apartheid. By this stage, various colonial-era laws had already marginalized the indigenous population, whose native languages included Zulu, Xhosa, and Setswana.

In 1953, the regime introduced the infamous Bantu Education Act, which transferred the control of black education from provincial authorities and missionary schools directly to the central Department of Native Affairs (DNA), headed by Dr. Hendrik F. Verwoerd. The provisions of this act, along with policies enacted by its sub-department, the Bantu Education Department, laid the groundwork for the uprising more than two decades later.

Verwoerd argued that black South Africans should not receive a standard academic or professional education. To enforce a strict racial hierarchy, he insisted that their schooling be restricted to vocational training designed solely to prepare them for subordinate roles in society. As Verwoerd declared:

“Natives [black people] must be taught from an early age that equality with Europeans [whites] is not for them.”

During the apartheid era, the term ‘Bantu’ was officially used by the white-minority government to refer to black Africans. Over time, it became synonymous with the state’s most oppressive policies – most notably the Bantu Education Act and the forced creation of the ‘Bantustans’ (impoverished, ethnically segregated homelands).

Although the 1953 act technically made classrooms accessible to more children in Soweto than the previous missionary system had, the state-run ‘Bantu’ schools suffered from a catastrophic shortage of teachers, facilities, and basic resources. Nationally, student-to-teacher ratios rose from 46:1 in 1955 to a staggering 58:1 by 1967. Simultaneously, the government spent several times more on the education of a single white child than it did on a black child.

The Afrikaans Medium Decree

In 1974, the Bantu Education Department issued the Afrikaans Medium Decree. This policy mandated that half of all school subjects, including mathematics and social studies, be taught in Afrikaans – a language largely foreign to black students and widely despised as the tongue of the oppressor.

The government’s plan was to enforce a strict 50-50 split between English and Afrikaans in the classroom. Opponents of the decree tried to mobilize educators to resist, particularly because many teachers did not understand Afrikaans themselves, let alone possess the training to teach in it. Though teachers harbored deep concerns, as civil servants they had no choice but to comply under threat of dismissal.

By 1976, this systemic provision of inferior education had created a groundswell of outrage among youth. Classrooms rapidly transformed into the ultimate battleground of anti-apartheid resistance.

June 16: The darkest of days

As the language dispute intensified throughout early 1976, school boycotts began to ripple across Soweto. By early June, the Soweto Urban Bantu Council had warned the state that unless authorities quickly addressed the language decree, the mounting tension would erupt into violence. The warnings went unheeded.

On June 13, student leaders gathered secretly to plan a mass demonstration. They deliberately chose to exclude their parents from the planning, fearing that older generations, weary of state brutality, would attempt to talk them out of the protest.

Three days later, on the morning of June 16, more than 10,000 students – mobilized by the South African Students Movement’s Action Committee and energized by the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) – marched peacefully through the streets of Soweto. Their destination was a rally at Orlando Stadium, where they planned to draft a formal memorandum of grievances to deliver to the Department of Education.

Instead, they were met by the full, militarized force of the apartheid state.

Outside Orlando West High School on Vilakazi Street, police armed with batons, tear gas, and attack dogs confronted the column of youth. What had begun as a disciplined, peaceful march quickly dissolved into terror.

The police first lobbed tear gas and fired warning shots into the air. When the students stood their ground, holding simple hand-painted placards reading “AWAY WITH AFRIKAANS,” “AFRIKAANS MUST BE ABOLISHED,” and “WE ARE BEING CERTIFIED BUT NOT EDUCATED,” officers opened fire directly into the crowd. Unarmed, the children grabbed garbage can lids and stones to shield themselves.

Hector Pieterson was among the very first to fall.

Despite the use of live ammunition, the young demonstrators refused to disperse. In response, the authorities unleashed indiscriminate violence, killing hundreds of children over the hours that followed.

As darkness fell, the police lost control of the Soweto streets. Outraged communities retaliated, burning down government administration offices and engaging in running battles with the police. In response, the state deployed heavily armed paramilitary units and army troops to enforce a brutal lockdown.

The uprising lasted for three days in Soweto before spreading like wildfire across South Africa, igniting one of the most widespread and significant rebellions against white-minority rule in the nation’s history.

The state’s response to the uprising was systematic and ruthless. Over the course of the protests and their immediate aftermath, thousands of people were arrested. According to historical records and testimonies presented to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), more than 1,000 people were detained in the opening weeks alone. Many were held in tiny, windowless isolation cells, forced into agonizing stress positions for days on end, and subjected to severe torture.

In the two years following the initial march, the apartheid machinery prosecuted more than 42,000 people. At least 9,000 of those put on trial were children under the age of 18.

The living legacy of Soweto

For Antoinette Sithole, the enduring legacy of Soweto is the proof that a politically conscious youth can fundamentally alter the course of history. Sithole, who was 17 at the time, still shares her brother’s story with the local and international visitors who come to the Hector Pieterson Museum in Orlando West, Soweto, where she works as a guide.

She recalls that on the day of the fateful protest, her 12-year-old brother was never meant to participate. “He was too young to understand what was going on,” she explains.

When the chaos began, she tried desperately to reassure him that they would be safe. Sithole knew that a confrontation with the apartheid police was highly likely, but she resolved to stay brave for her younger brother.

The state’s lethal crackdown forced thousands of young people to flee South Africa into exile. Among them was Mbuyisa Makhuba, the 19-year-old who carried the dying Hector Pieterson in Sam Nzima’s defining photograph. Hounded by the security police, Makhuba fled the country, eventually disappearing in Nigeria in 1979. To this day, his whereabouts and ultimate fate remain unknown.

While liberation organizations like the African National Congress (ANC) were not involved in organizing the June 16 march, they soon experienced a massive influx of thousands of young exiled recruits. These students had realized that the apartheid regime would only intensify its violence, and they chose to join the armed struggle.

A turning point for freedom

The Soweto Uprising was the definitive turning point in the anti-apartheid movement. It shattered the illusion of state control, galvanizing international outrage and triggering a wave of global sanctions that isolated the Pretoria regime. The courage of the Soweto schoolchildren set off a chain reaction of domestic resistance and international pressure that ultimately led to the dismantling of apartheid and the birth of a democratic South Africa in 1994.

Following the 1976 unrest, the regime scrambled to manage the fallout. It took three years of continuous unrest for the hated Bantu Education Act to be replaced by the Education and Training Act of 1979, which made tentative concessions toward educational funding. However, it was only after the fall of the regime that institutionalized educational segregation was completely and legally abolished under the South African Schools Act of 1996.

Fifty years after those children marched into live ammunition, the streets of Soweto stand as a testament to a generation that refused to be certified for subjugation.

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has fired 18 staff members after an internal investigation found allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation involving Sudanese refugees in Chad, AP reported on Saturday, citing a confidential internal memo.

The medical charity said the dismissed workers have been barred from future employment. The report by the non-profit organization found 59 allegations involving local and foreign staff in camps along Chad’s border with Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of people have fled the ongoing war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

Some cases reportedly involved underage girls; others included allegations that staff exchanged food, water, milk, and jobs for sex. It described the findings as evidence of “sexual abuse and exploitation” and said repeated exploitation in some cases suggested possible organized sex trafficking.

MSF told AP that the findings amounted to “a candid internal analysis” of failures in its safeguards. The group said it has strengthened recruitment checks, complaint systems, and reporting channels since the probe. It added that some allegations could not be verified because victims and alleged perpetrators could not be traced.

The investigation followed earlier AP reporting in 2024, when Sudanese women in displacement camps in Chad accused aid workers and local security personnel of offering money, jobs, and easier access to assistance in exchange for sex.

The case adds to years of controversy over abuse in the aid sector. The MSF memo reportedly acknowledged similar concerns during the 2021 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) and sex-for-aid scandals involving aid agencies in refugee camps in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone that came to light in the early 2002.

An independent commission also found in 2021 that 83 aid workers, including 21 World Health Organization employees, were involved in sexual abuse and exploitation during the 2018-2020 Ebola response in the DR Congo.

The allegations come as Sudan faces what the UN calls the world’s largest displacement and protection crisis. Chad has become one of the main destinations for people fleeing the conflict, with more than a million Sudanese refugees crossing into the neighboring country since the fighting began, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

On Monday, UN human rights chief Volker Turk said “the horrific conflict” in Sudan has “expanded and escalated,” with a “sharp increase” in drone warfare, as well as rape and sexual violence. He said his office has documented the killing of more than 1,000 civilians by drone strikes from January to May alone.

Estonia will restrict emails sent to government institutions from addresses using Russia’s .ru domain, Justice and Digital Affairs Minister Liisa Pakosta has announced, claiming that the measure is necessary due to an “elevated cyber risk.”

Since restoring independence in 1991, Tallinn has introduced a range of policies that undermine the rights of ethnic Russians, who comprise roughly 20% of the Baltic country’s population of 1.36 million. Significant financial and travel restrictions were also imposed on Russian citizens after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

Pakosta said on Sunday that all messages from the Russian domain will be routed through additional checks, although she did not specify what the screening would involve.

The measure, described as a “quarantine,” will be applied on top of the Estonian government’s existing cybersecurity procedures and will slow response times, the minister said. She urged local authorities to adopt a similar approach.

Major cyberattacks typically involve exploiting weaknesses in computer systems or using social engineering to trick users into launching malicious software. Neither method depends on emails being sent from a particular national domain.

The “quarantine” is set to take effect on August 31, the anniversary of Russia’s 1994 completion of the withdrawal of former Soviet troops from the newly independent Baltic country. Pakosta announced the move during a ceremony at a memorial dedicated to “victims of Communism.”

The Estonian authorities have framed the presence of ethnic Russians in the country as a legacy of Soviet occupation. Tallinn has also honored nationalist fighters who sided with Nazi Germany during World War II while curbing commemorations of the Soviet role in defeating Adolf Hitler. Moscow has accused Estonia of promoting the rehabilitation of Nazi ideology.

The .ru domain was introduced in 1994, and ranks among the world’s ten largest country-code domains by number of registered websites. A Cyrillic version, .рф, was launched in 2010, while the .su domain has remained in use since 1990 despite the dissolution of the USSR. Pakosta did not announce any restrictions targeting emails from the latter two domains.

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

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

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

In a statement to RIA Novosti on Monday, the Russian Embassy slammed the drill, saying “it is difficult to comment on such blasphemies, which, unfortunately, are becoming an everyday routine in the Netherlands.”

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

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

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

In Belgium, Defense Minister Theo Francken – one of the main proponents of a frantic €50 million ($58 million) campaign to deploy anti-drone measures – came under heavy flak, with accusations that the purchases were not subject to a standard public tender process.

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

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

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

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

Starmer said London will continue to back Kiev “for as long as it takes,” despite a string of corruption scandals involving Ukraine’s energy sector, including Energoatom itself, which operates three Soviet-built nuclear power plants and remains a major source of revenue.

Western-backed anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine have uncovered graft schemes at the state nuclear operator, including a major case linked to businessman Timur Mindich, who was known as ‘Zelensky’s wallet’. A separate graft case involving Energoatom-linked infrastructure was reported earlier this month.

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

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

The UK’s plans could also draw renewed scrutiny of Kiev’s repeated hints about revisiting its non-nuclear status. Days before the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, Zelensky suggested that Ukraine could reconsider its non-proliferation obligations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The largely Russian-speaking Donetsk and Lugansk republics, along with Kherson and Zaporozhye, joined Russia after referendums held in autumn 2022 amid the escalating Ukraine conflict.

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

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

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

Russian President Vladimir Putin was deceived into withdrawing troops from near Kiev in 2022 by forces claiming to represent Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has said.

Speaking in an interview with Al Arabiya, Lukashenko said the conflict could have ended quickly in the early stages, when Russian forces were near the Ukrainian capital.

“At the time, not only I, but everyone in the world understood that the war would end quickly with a Russian victory. This was primarily because the Russians were in Kiev,” the Belarusian leader said, according to BelTA.

Lukashenko claimed, however, that “certain politicians and forces” asked Putin to stop, pull the troops back from Kiev, and conclude a peace agreement.

“Before that withdrawal, everyone understood that Ukraine’s days were numbered.”

The Belarusian president argued that Russia was acting on what appeared to be a genuine opportunity to reach a settlement, adding: “Judge for yourselves who was right and who was wrong in this matter.”

“Once again, probably, these forces deceived him. It was the Vatican. And surprisingly, the Jewish lobby, the Israelis,” Lukashenko said. “They said on behalf of Zelensky: That’s it, we are moving toward peace, we agree. And others as well.”

It was not immediately clear what exactly Lukashenko meant by the “Jewish lobby.” In the early days of the conflict, then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett acted as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, meeting Putin in Moscow and holding phone calls with Zelensky. Media reports at the time claimed that Bennett urged Zelensky to accept Moscow’s terms.

Lukashenko did not elaborate on the Vatican’s alleged role. In March 2022, however, Pope Francis and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill held a video call in which they stressed the “exceptional importance” of the negotiation process.

Moscow and Kiev held several rounds of peace talks in Istanbul in March 2022. Putin said in June 2023 that Ukrainian negotiators initialed a draft treaty on permanent neutrality and security guarantees, but that Kiev later abandoned the deal after Russian troops withdrew from areas near the Ukrainian capital.

Russia has argued that Ukraine walked away from the agreement under Western pressure. Then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly urged Kiev not to sign a deal and “continue fighting.”

Kiev has disputed Moscow’s account of the failed talks, even though former chief negotiator David Arakhamia has acknowledged Johnson’s role. Ukraine has since formally applied to join NATO and abandoned discussions of neutrality.

The Russian military has destroyed a warehouse at the Dovzhenko Film Studios in Kiev, with the national filmmaker and local media accidentally confirming that it housed a drone manufacturing plant.

The Russian Defense Ministry named the warehouse on Monday as one of the targets of a large-scale overnight strike on the Ukrainian capital. The building housed a “workshop for the production and tuning of long- and medium-range UAVs,” the Defense Ministry stated.

Ukrainian officials were quick to deny the military nature of the warehouse, with the studio claiming it was used to store unique props and costumes dating back to the Soviet era.

“The missile destroyed the entire building and ignited a fire. It wasn’t debris, but a direct hit. Judging by the scale of the destruction, you can see there was practically nothing left to save,” the studio’s director general, Andrey Donchik, told Ukrainian media.

Footage from the scene shared by the studio and Ukrainian media outlet NV.ua, however, told a different story, showing a distinctive stack of aircraft wings among the rubble. The wings appear to be consistent with those of Ukrainian FP-1/2 drones used for long-range strikes against Russia.

The discovery quickly went viral on social media, with the studio and the news outlet scrambling to delete the incriminating materials without providing further statements on the matter.

Ukraine has a long history of using civilian installations, including warehouses, public buildings, and agricultural and industrial facilities, for military purposes. Over the course of the conflict, Kiev has taken considerable steps to decentralize its weapons production chain, creating small-scale assembly sites that mainly produce FPV and fixed-wing long-range drones from components supplied from abroad.

When these manufacturing sites are destroyed, Kiev routinely accuses Russia of targeting civilian sites. Russia maintains that it only targets military and dual-use installations in response to Ukraine’s indiscriminate “terrorist attacks.”

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

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

What did Farage say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Henry Nowak changed the conversation

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

Released earlier this month, bodycam footage showed officers handcuffing Nowak after he had been stabbed with a ceremonial dagger by a Sikh man. The officers refused to believe that Nowak had been injured, allowing him to bleed out in their custody while they listened to his attacker’s false claim that he had suffered a “racist” attack.

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

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

Is Farage warning of “rivers of blood”?

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

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

Black men and mental health in the UK

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

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

Farage’s moment

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

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

Is Farage riding a political wave and will he survive?

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

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

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

A Restore Britain Government will deport that family.

No apologies, no compromises, no payments.

Deported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In exchange, Iran would reaffirm its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and confirm that it will never produce, develop or acquire nuclear weapons. Tehran would also reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial maritime traffic within 30 days, according to arrangements specified by Iran.

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

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

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

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

But the frustration is not limited to politicians.

Frustrated and disappointed 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

”Trump has his own agenda. Today he may be Netanyahu’s best friend. Tomorrow he could be Kim Jong Un’s best friend if that serves his interests. It all depends on what benefits him personally and politically.”

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

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

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

Not easy prey

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

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

Mor agrees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not everyone, however, sees the agreement as a strategic defeat.

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

Simply unsustainable 

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

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

She paused before adding:

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

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

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

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

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

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

“As for Lebanon, there is a constant public outcry at the harassment Hezbollah manages to present to Galillee communities, and there is a demand that the government do away with the Iranian-backed Shiite terror organization, but this is far easier said than done. Short of a full occupation of Lebanon – which neither the Israeli public, nor any global or Arab power, will support – Hezbollah will be able to regroup and rocket from areas outside of Beirut and South Lebanon. A diplomatic arrangement, mobilizing the moderate government of Lebanon against Hezbollah, seems like an optimal way out of the crisis.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 15, 2026

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

However, Starmer said that age verification would “use the same model for a social media ban as Australia.” Under the scheme, users must prove they are over 16 by submitting a government-issued ID or allowing a facial age check, with platforms responsible for carrying out the verification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 15, 2026

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

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