Iran’s only operating nuclear power plant in Bushehr continues to function normally despite reports of renewed US-Iran military exchanges, Aleksey Likhachev, CEO of the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, has said.

Russian personnel have not observed any attacks near the plant in recent days, and the situation there remains “generally calm,” Likhachev said in an interview with the Strana Rosatom corporate newspaper published on Friday. Unit 1, currently the plant’s only operational reactor, continues to run at full capacity, he added.

The Russian-built plant, a critical piece of Iran’s energy infrastructure, contains substantial nuclear fuel stockpiles. Likhachev previously warned that any strike on the site could trigger a catastrophe of at least “regional” proportions.

Earlier this week, the US military launched a wave of strikes on Iranian targets near the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran accused Washington of violating a ceasefire agreed last month and retaliated against American warships in the area. The Bushehr plant is located roughly 250 km (155 miles) northwest of the strategic waterway.

Following the start of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran in late February, Rosatom reduced its on-site presence from roughly 700 specialists to just 20 people after strikes and explosions were reported near the plant in March and April. In one incident, a projectile struck near the site’s perimeter, killing a security guard.

The Rosatom chief said the company is prepared to rapidly redeploy its full workforce to Iran once it is convinced there is no renewed risk of military escalation threatening personnel safety.

Likhachev said work at the site is gradually resuming, with around 2,200 Iranian contractors returning to focus mainly on reinforcement and concrete work at the under-construction Unit 2 reactor.

The Bushehr nuclear power plant produces electricity for Iran’s national power grid. The project was started in the mid-1970s by a West German company but was suspended in the wake of the Islamic Revolution in 1980, to be revived by Rosatom in the 1990s.

The US military has attacked two more Iranian-flagged oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman as Washington presses ahead with its “freedom of navigation” blockade, while Tehran has compared control of the Strait of Hormuz to possessing an “atomic bomb.”

US Central Command said on Friday that American forces had struck two “unladen” Iranian tankers, the M/T Sea Star III and the M/T Sevda, which it claimed were attempting to “violate” the US blockade by entering an Iranian port.

Iranian armed forces allegedly responded to “the violation of the ceasefire and to American terrorism with strikes,” a military official told local media, but the US military did not report any damage.

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of Tehran’s main bargaining chips, after Iran shut the waterway early in the war, stranding hundreds of vessels and roiling energy markets.

He vowed that Iran would not “forfeit the gains of this war” and said Tehran would seek to change the legal regime of the strait, through international law if possible and unilaterally if necessary.

The US has rejected Iranian ambitions as “unacceptable,” with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying on Friday that Washington will never allow Tehran to “normalize” its grip on Hormuz.

The US insists that its own naval blockade is intended to restore freedom of navigation and pressure Tehran into a deal, while Iran has accused Washington of violating the April ceasefire by targeting commercial shipping.

Tehran, however, accused Washington of attacking first, claiming US forces had targeted an Iranian oil tanker in its territorial waters and struck civilian areas along Iran’s southern coast.

The West’s Overton window on Russia is slowly beginning to reopen. A revealing example emerged this week in Italy. At the Venice Art Biennale, organizers decided to reopen the Russian pavilion for the first time in four years. More importantly, it wasn’t handed over to representatives of the émigré opposition or anti-Kremlin proxies, but to actual Russian delegates who travelled from Moscow.

Predictably, the decision provoked outrage. The European Commission reportedly sent angry letters to the Biennale organisers and the Italian government. Ukraine imposed sanctions on those involved in running the pavilion. Activists quickly descended on Venice, including members of Pussy Riot, the punk group banned in Russia as extremist, who staged demonstrations against the event.

What’s striking is that, despite the pressure, the Italians refused to back down. Biennale president Pietrangelo Buttafuoco openly accused critics of censorship and narcissism. The Russian pavilion remained open.

Only a year or two ago, such a scenario would have seemed impossible. During the height of the Ukraine conflict, even the slightest positive gesture towards Russia in the West was treated as morally unacceptable, as evidence of “sympathy for the aggressor.” Any deviation from the approved line had to be condemned immediately, and those responsible risked public ostracism.

Now the atmosphere is gradually changing. Russia is cautiously being allowed back into international cultural and sporting life. The Venice Biennale is only the latest example.

Taken together, these episodes suggest that attitudes towards Russia inside the EU are beginning, however slowly and reluctantly, to soften.

It is hardly surprising that Italy is at the forefront of this shift. From the beginning of the conflict, Rome adopted a distinctive position. Officially, Italy supported collective Western European initiatives. In practice, however, it maintained a noticeably more restrained attitude towards Moscow than many of its allies. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was among the first major EU leaders to openly raise the question of restoring official contacts with the Kremlin.

Italian society reacted calmly. That is no accident. For decades, Italy has maintained close cultural and economic ties with Russia, and ordinary Italians have generally viewed Russians favourably.

A similar dynamic can increasingly be seen elsewhere in Europe, although in many countries it is still drowned out by the aggressive rhetoric of political elites. France offers a good example. While Emmanuel Macron continues discussing the “containment” of Russia at European summits, French audiences have enthusiastically embraced a new production of Tchaikovsky’s Eugene Onegin performed in Russian.

And this is precisely where the growing demand for normalization comes from. Once people accept that Russian literature, music, and art remain legitimate parts of European cultural life, it becomes harder to argue that everything contemporary Russia produces must remain permanently quarantined as well. One thing inevitably leads to another.

Another important shift is also visible. The West no longer treats Ukraine’s position as morally unquestionable in the way it once did. There was a period when every statement from Kiev was amplified as if it carried unique ethical authority. Zelensky and his officials were treated less as political actors than as moral arbiters, but that mood has faded.

Even if the EU’s illusions about Ukraine have not disappeared entirely, expectations have become more grounded in reality. Western Europeans increasingly understand that Kiev’s total rejection of everything Russian is not simply a cultural preference but a wartime political necessity for the Ukrainian leadership. It’s part of the ideological framework through which Zelensky maintains internal unity during a prolonged conflict.

The EU’s interests are ultimately different. However hostile rhetoric towards Moscow may sound today, many in Europe understand at a deeper level that Russia is not going anywhere. Geography alone dictates that some form of coexistence will eventually have to be rebuilt.

And if Western Europe and Russia will ultimately need to find a path back to peaceful coexistence anyway, then perhaps the small steps now being taken are not merely symbolic gestures, but the beginning of something larger.

This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team

Timur Mindich, a business associate of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky accused of running a high-level embezzlement scheme, allegedly had a mole inside the agency investigating him who helped him evade justice, according to a new report.

Mindich fled to Israel along with his right-hand man Aleksandr Zukerman shortly before Western-backed anti-corruption agents raided his home. Ukrainakaya Pravda (UP) is among several outlets that have been publishing purported transcripts of surveillance records gathered during the 2025 investigation.

The alleged mole

Friday’s release centers on Andrey Sinyuk, the former deputy head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), who resigned after formal charges were filed against Mindich and his associates. He is suspected of warning Mindich about the raid.

Andrey is described as an old friend of a man named Oleg – whom UP believes to be either deputy head of Zelensky’s administration Oleg Tatarov or one of his aides – and as a “good contact that is worth keeping.”

No honor among thieves

“Oleg is among those who played with him,” Basov said, according to the transcript. “Everyone worked with him, dined and wined and split money. It’s clear what the relationship format there is normal… manly.” However, he added that he feared “this pederasty among those people may backfire,” and that Andrey could “play a double game” by keeping records of the “wages” – regular bribes – he allegedly received.

It is unclear whether the references to homosexuality were meant literally or used as insults aimed at Ukrainian government figures whom Mindich’s associates viewed as untrustworthy.

Suspected tip-off network

UP claims that on October 26, Sinyuk searched classified criminal databases for the names of Energoatom suspects, including Mironyuk and Basov, as well as figures linked to Mindich, such as former energy ministers German Galushchenko and Svetlana Grinchuk. According to the outlet, the searches were logged in the system and later uncovered during an internal investigation.

Escape plan emerges

The outlet also cited conversations allegedly involving Mindich’s personal driver shortly before charges were filed against the businessman, which appeared to point to preparations for an emergency escape from Ukraine.

The leaks of the so-called ‘Mindich tapes’ have fueled a growing corruption scandal in Kiev since mid-April.

The West is busy rewriting the history of World War II, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has stated ahead of the 81st anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany.

Russian officials have repeatedly accused the US and EU member states of distorting historical truth and belittling the crucial role of the Soviet Union, which lost an estimated 27 million people in what is known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War.

Speaking on Thursday, Zakharova said that defending historical memory is a fundamental priority for Russia. This is all the more important in light of revanchist tendencies in the West, according to the spokeswoman.

Zakharova accused EU bureaucrats of waging “historical aggression.” She cited resolutions by the European Parliament, as well as organizations affiliated with the Council of Europe, which “promote the rewriting of history,” with the Soviet Union “being ascribed responsibility nearly equal to that of [Nazi] Germany” for the start of World War II.

The official also noted that “in some countries, the war on monuments and memorials in honor of fighters against Nazism is gaining momentum.” She singled out Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia as prime examples of this unsettling trend, citing the demolitions of Soviet war memorials there in recent years.

RT correspondent Marina Kosareva delves into how the reframing of the past has become all too common among senior Western officials, and what ramifications this could have.

After two years of recession, it seemed that Germany’s economy had stabilized in 2025 and was even inching in the direction of a return to growth. Sure, nobody was sounding the trumpets of a full-fledged recovery, but it seemed the worst had passed.

That was, admittedly, before the US-Israeli war on Iran muddied those waters. But even apart from this black swan event, what has really been going on in the German economy deserves a closer look. After all, there are different ways of generating GDP growth and not all of them have the same deeper implications.

In Germany’s case, it turns out the nascent recovery was almost entirely fueled by state spending while the private sector is in virtual free-fall. This, incidentally, goes some way toward explaining the ongoing rearmament in Germany in response to the supposed threat from Russia – a threat that very conveniently is breathing new life into unsustainable industry. This is no less than military Keynesianism, a phenomenon few expected to see in Germany. And it is being tasked to address several major structural shifts at once.

RT Newsroom explains what’s going on.

2025 marked an inflection point

The German economy broke a two-year recession, growing by 0.2% in 2025, following a 0.5% contraction in 2024. However, the growth was driven in large part by government spending. There was a late-year pickup in industrial and construction output – also government-driven – while exports continued to lag.

Public spending, however, rose 5.6% in 2025 and now represents more than 50% of GDP. This number itself isn’t particularly eye-popping in a European context. Several EU countries have higher ratios. But Germany has historically been more fiscally conservative with an economy much more oriented toward private industry and exports. Helmut Kohl, German chancellor in the 1980s and ‘90s, once called a spending ratio above 50% socialism. This is a threshold beyond which Germany would be seen as having adopted a different economic model.

That different economic model is now here. But think about it from this angle: What happens when you boost public spending by over 5% and still can only barely eke out any economic growth? It means the private sector is crumbling.

Digging into the data

A widening split has opened in Germany’s economy since 2022, dividing industries more exposed to market forces from those being backstopped by public spending. Traditional sectors – especially the automotive and chemical industries – have struggled with high energy costs and global competition. This has been reflected in the share prices, which have been very sluggish, with Porsche leading the way among the declines. 

The weakness is also visible in underlying demand, with domestic orders broadly declining, although amid volatility, since 2022. Last year saw periodic spikes driven by large contracts – almost certainly state-driven – whereas underlying demand remained weak. Exports were weak, so was private investment. Capital goods orders, a key gauge of private-sector investment, have been falling, pointing to continued contraction in market-driven industrial activity.

The chart below shows relative performance of German equities since 2022. 

At the same time, defense contractors and state-backed industrial firms have surged on the back of government spending. Rheinmetall shares have rocketed more than 1,000% since early 2022, with its market cap rising from about €4 billion to roughly €67 billion. Hensoldt and Renk have also posted strong gains, while even adjacent players such as Infineon have nearly doubled in value.

Construction and industrial groups tied to public projects – including Hochtief, Heidelberg Materials, and Bilfinger – have also rallied sharply, in some cases climbing several-fold from 2022 lows.

This has all come while the economy has been in recession and the manufacturing sector has been hemorrhaging jobs. What this points to is that Germany’s headline market gains are masking a lack of real recovery. While the country’s stock market, the DAX, has risen strongly, most of the growth is concentrated in a narrow, state-backed segment.

What this means

The contrast reflects very different operating conditions. Automakers and chemical firms compete in open global markets, where rising energy and labor costs erode competitiveness and push production to cheaper regions. Consumers can choose from many options. Defense contractors, by contrast, operate largely outside these pressures, relying on government-funded demand. Arms deals are driven by political and strategic decisions rather than market pricing, meaning input costs such as energy matter far less.

Rising costs have made large parts of Germany’s traditional industrial base less competitive. The response of the German state to that has been to shift toward sectors insulated from the market. Industry is not recovering in a conventional sense, but being redirected to where demand is state-driven rather than market-driven.

This shift is already reshaping Germany’s manufacturing base. According to the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (DIHK), about 17% of industrial firms are now tied to the defense supply chain, with involvement particularly high in vehicle manufacturing at 36%. Some struggling auto plants are being repurposed for military production.

Volkswagen is exploring the possibility of producing military vehicles at its Osnabruck factory and is in talks with Rheinmetall. Schaeffler, hit by a shrinking auto business and job cuts, is also pivoting to defense, while Deutz now supplies engines for air defense systems, drones, and armored vehicles. DIHK estimates that up to a quarter of German companies could soon be directly or indirectly linked to the defense sector, deepening the divide between a market-driven industrial base and a state-funded one.

The role of debt

Germany has long had an aversion to high debt levels. The country’s fiscal mindset was shaped by the Weimar hyperinflation and the lesson that was seared into the collective mindset of German policymaking: macroeconomic instability means social and political breakdown. This tendency toward restraint was institutionalized under Angela Merkel, who instituted what was called the “debt brake,” which limited the federal deficit to 0.35% of GDP, a very low figure by European standards. The so-called Schwarze Null, or “black zero,” indicating a balanced budget was an imperative.

This has unleashed a significant amount of funds that is finding its way into the economy via state contracts. The German government plans to double defense spending over the next five years from current levels, with $761 billion to be spent by the end of 2029, of which more than half ($469 billion) will be funded through new debt.

Decline in industrial jobs in context

Germany’s manufacturing sector has shed nearly a quarter of a million jobs since 2019. This figure is often bandied about as self-evidently catastrophically large but without much context. In itself it isn’t a staggering figure: Germany’s industrial employment has generally been around 7.5 million workers – figures vary depending on how they’re counted – so the 245,000 job losses represent about 3.25% of sector employment over six years (through 2025).

Is that a lot or a little? The United States lost 5-6 million manufacturing jobs over the decade of 2000-2010, representing some 25-30% of the sector. Germany’s job losses obviously pale in comparison. So why is this a big deal for Germany?

First of all, it’s the pace of the losses, which has been picking up. If the total for the past six years has been around a quarter of a million, the figure for 2025 alone was 120,000 – or half of the six-year total. The trend is extremely worrying.

Second, the problem is that manufacturing plays a much more prominent role in the German economy than it played in the US. It sits at the center of dense networks of supply chains, meaning that each industrial job supports additional jobs elsewhere. This is called a multiplier effect. So even a relatively modest change in employment can trigger a much larger shift in the broader economy.

For Germany, which held to a much more export-oriented model driven by the private sector, the decrease in manufacturing employment is hitting much closer to the heart.

Military Keynesianism as the solution to three problems at once

The term military Keynesianism has gained a certain currency in Europe in recent years and for good reason. This is an economic policy where a government attempts to boost economic growth and employment by significantly increasing military spending. It is an offshoot of the economic theories associated with John Maynard Keynes which hold that aggregate demand rather than mere private investment is the primary driver of the economy and that the government should manage this when the private sector weakens.

Military Keynesianism can absolutely produce growth, but it does so without solving underlying productivity or competitiveness problems. Defense output is ultimately economically non-reproductive. A machine tool – a specialty of German industry – sold to a civilian manufacturer can produce goods for decades, thus expanding the economic value-added. A tank shell, by contrast, generates nothing once produced.

Germany’s old model depended on three pillars: cheap Russian energy, Chinese export demand, and American security guarantees. All three have weakened simultaneously. Germany is attempting to confront all three merely by throwing the state’s fiscal ledger at them – all while the private sector shrivels away.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer led the Labour Party to a landslide win in 2024. Since then, his approval rating has plummeted and he’s suffered one defeat after another. But what is it about Starmer that’s so uniquely unpopular?

How unpopular is Starmer?

The honeymoon period was brief. Within a month of the election, Starmer’s net approval rating fell from plus seven to zero, with 52% of Britons telling Ipsos that they felt the country was heading “in the wrong direction.” According to YouGov, his net approval now sits at –48 on their polling scale (not a percentage), making him the least popular prime minister in recent history.

After losing 187 local council seats in England last year, Labour is on track to lose around 1,800 when counting concludes on Saturday, in another round of local elections that are being viewed as a referendum on his leadership.

Calls for Starmer’s resignation are coming not just from his opposition – including the triumphant Nigel Farage’s Reform UK – but from within his own party. According to The Times, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband urged Starmer to begin “planning his resignation” weeks ago, in order to avoid a painful period of public infighting after the elections.

Taxes and austerity

In his first address to the nation after taking office in 2024, Starmer announced that his government had “discovered a £22 billion ($29.9 billion) black hole in the public finances,” and would have to make “unpopular decisions” to fix it. This translated into the fastest rising tax rates in the developed world, according to the OECD.

ADMIN POST@Keir_Starmer highlights our out of control migration system which he has done little to nothing about.

He talks about a 22 billion pound 'black hole' yet he continues to pay 5.38 billion pounds per year for illegal economic migrants to be housed in hotels all… pic.twitter.com/ayptgAsmta

— Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 (@TRobinsonNewEra) November 29, 2024

Starmer hiked income and dividend taxes by 2%, increased national insurance taxes paid by employers, and raised property taxes. Between July 2024 and November 2025, Starmer’s government imposed a new tax or increased an old one every ten days, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

The prime minister’s Conservative predecessors presided over an historic decline in British living standards and a rise in energy costs and inflation, both of which soared after the UK cut itself off from Russian fossil fuels in 2022. Voters expecting Starmer to ease this burden were left short-changed, however, with the PM announcing sweeping welfare cuts last year. Public outcry forced Starmer to roll back some of these cuts, including a deeply unpopular slashing of the winter fuel allowance for pensioners.

“We had 14 years of Conservative austerity,” Green Party leader Zack Polanski told reporters on Friday. “Keir Starmer was voted in on a promise of change and, actually, what we’ve seen is very little change, and in many ways things have got worse.”

Two-Tier Keir

If Starmer’s tax hikes and welfare cuts angered the left, his response to a spate of anti-immigration riots in late 2024 infuriated the right. Hundreds of British citizens were arrested for making anti-immigrant social media posts, and violent criminals were released from prison early so that rioters and those supporting them online could be jailed.

Two Tier Keir

No justice for severe, violent crimes, but prison for social media posts pic.twitter.com/QcK4o74Yla

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 2, 2025

Starmer was drawn into a public spat with X owner Elon Musk, who referred to the PM as “two-tier Kier” over his apparent prioritization of speech crimes over real ones. His pushing of the Online Safety Bill, which critics say will further stifle free speech in Britain, then drew the ire of US Vice President J.D. Vance, who told Starmer to his face that “there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British… but also affect American technology companies and by extension, American citizens.”

These issues, coupled with Starmer’s failure to reduce illegal immigration, helped Reform UK emerge as the big winner on Friday, picking up at least 1,200 seats.

Palestine on the ballot

After ousting Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in 2020, Starmer dropped all of Corbyn’s pro-Palestine policies. Whereas Corbyn was a member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and supported a boycott on goods from occupied Palestinian territories, Starmer refused demands from within his party to call for a ceasefire in Gaza in late 2023, and publicly affirmed Israel’s right to cut off power and water to the strip’s two million residents.

Starmer has since reversed his position, and now backs a ceasefire and two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but left-wing and Muslim voters have abandoned his party in droves over his listing of ‘Palestine Action’ as a terrorist organization, the arrests of thousands of protesters for voicing support for said organization, and his calls for “policing of language” and banning of anti-Israel protests.

The Green Party has made the Palestinian issue a central part of its platform, and won a crucial by-election in Manchester earlier this year by courting Muslim voters. “Palestine is one of the elements on the ballot,” Polanski said ahead of Thursday’s elections. “I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services – as they should do – and feel equally strongly that a reprehensible genocide is happening.” 

Few scandals smeared Starmer’s reputation as thoroughly as the Mandelson affair. Peter Mandelson served as Starmer’s ambassador to the US between February and September 2025, when he was dismissed over his long-standing relationship with pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer was apparently aware of Mandelson’s ties to Epstein when he appointed him envoy, but was forced to fire him after emails emerged in which Mandelson called Epstein his “best pal,” and encouraged him to “fight for early release” from prison in 2008.

Mandelson was arrested in February, and is currently being investigated for lobbying on behalf of Epstein in the late 2000s, and leaking classified information to the notorious sex offender.

Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, took the blame for appointing a known associate of Epstein, and resigned in February.

The bottom line

Starmer’s policy record is enough to account for the surge in support for left- and right-wing alternatives on Friday. After two years of Labour leadership, Britons are poorer, less free, and more divided.

His policy failures, however, are only one aspect of his unpopularity. The Labour leader also inspires a level of visceral, gut-level hatred unseen in modern British politics: he’s been described by commentators as “useless and lacking in charisma,” “empty, brittle, [and] wooden,” and endured chants of “Keir Starmer is a wanker” from right-wing and left-wing crowds alike.

Within Labour, figures like Ed Miliband likely think that they can win back support by distancing themselves from Starmer and appointing a new figurehead to sell their message. Polanski and Farage both think that the time has passed, as has the traditional Labour/Conservative duopoly. Farage told reporters that Friday’s results represent “a complete reshaping of British politics in every way,” while Polanski said that “the new politics is the Green Party vs. Reform.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has been decimated in parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales, as well as local elections in England. However, Starmer is refusing calls to resign.

Labour was the biggest loser in Thursday’s elections. As results came in on Friday, Starmer’s party had lost more than 1,300 local council seats in England, around five seats in the Scottish Parliament, and 21 seats in the Welsh Senedd, as of 11 PM local time.

While full results are not expected until Saturday, Starmer has already admitted that “when voters send a message like this, we must reflect and we must respond.” However, although the PM has been urged to resign by some within his own party, including Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, he has dismissed the idea, stating that he is not “going to walk away and plunge the country into chaos.”

Some 5,066 out of 16,000 local council seats in England and all 129 and 96 seats in the Scottish and Welsh legislatures were up for grabs on Thursday. Labour went into the election holding 5,873 local seats, but looks set to emerge with closer to 4,000.

For the first time this century, Labour will lose control of Wales, with First Minister Eluned Morgan losing her seat and the Plaid Cymru and Reform dominating the Senedd.

Labour’s loss has not been the Conservative Party’s win. While power has typically swung back and forth between both parties for more than 100 years, the Tories are on track to lose 550 council seats, plus 16 seats in Scotland and 9 in Wales.

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK was the big winner in England, picking up more than 1,200 local council seats. In some constituencies, Reform’s gains have come almost entirely at the Conservatives’ expense. Reform picked up 37 seats in Suffolk, where the Tories lost 36. Farage has spent years hammering successive Tory governments over their failure to reduce immigration and lower the cost of living, and as such has drawn the votes of dissatisfied right-wingers who once backed the Tories.

Reform UK has wiped out the Tories and won Essex County Council.

Kemi Badenoch would not even hold her own seat. pic.twitter.com/hNOeZ7tM6X

— Reform UK (@reformparty_uk) May 8, 2026

“It’s a big, big day, not just for our party, but for a complete reshaping of British politics in every way,” Farage told reporters, adding that Labour had been “wiped out.”

Zack Polanski’s Green Party has also drawn votes from former Labour supporters abandoning Starmer’s party over the prime minister’s austerity policies and support for Israel. “I said that the Green Party was going to replace Labour,” Polanski told reporters, “and we’re seeing that right across the country. The new politics is the Green Party vs. Reform.”

US President Donald Trump has announced a three-day ceasefire and a major prisoner swap between Moscow and Kiev, expressing hopes the truce would become the “beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, and hard fought war.”

Trump took to his Truth Social network on Friday to make the unexpected announcement. The US president said the ceasefire would be in place for May 9-11, with the two sides swapping 1,000 POWs each during the period.

“The Celebration in Russia is for Victory Day but, likewise, in Ukraine, because they were also a big part and factor of World War II,” Trump wrote, adding that the “request was made directly by me,” and both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky agreed to it.

“Hopefully, it is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, and hard fought War. Talks are continuing on ending this Major Conflict, the biggest since World War II, and we are getting closer and closer every day,” Trump added.

Trump later told NewsNation that he hoped the temporary truce would be extended beyond the initially announced three-day period. “I’d like to see a big extension,” he said when asked whether he planned further talks with Putin and Zelensky about continuing the ceasefire.

When asked by a reporter at the White House whether he would send his negotiating team to Moscow again, Trump replied: “I would do it if I thought it would help. I would do it.”

Despite what Western mainstream media, think-tanks, and some propagandists with academic titles have been telling us, NATO-EU Europe has never “appeased” Russia.

In reality, the NATO-EU European elites, with Germany among the leaders, have certainly appeased the US. Because you don’t end up with the Nord Stream scandal and US President Donald Trump’s Turnberry tariff diktat without a policy of irrationally self-damaging submission driven by shortsightedness and fear bordering on panic – that is, appeasement.

And what has all that fear been about? In essence, a very simple thing: being abandoned by Uncle Sam, because NATO-EU European elites have a breathtakingly perverse relationship with the US, the greatest abuser of the sovereignty of their countries and spoiler of the prosperity of most of their citizens.

During last century’s Cold War, which ended almost four decades ago – in 1987 with the INF Treaty’s unprecedented elimination of an entire class of nuclear weapons – Western Europe’s dependency on Washington could at least claim some kind of rationale. It was dubious, but plausible on its own terms. But there is no remotely reasonable or good-faith explanation for the European elites’ failure to emancipate their countries from America after 1987 or, at the latest, 1991 when the Soviet Union itself ceased to exist.

That is why what is happening between the US and Germany now is one of those ironies of history so implausible you’d never dare invent them. And yet it’s true: Washington has just announced the largest drawdown of US troops in Germany – it’s single biggest and most important base in Europe – since the end of the great post-Cold War re-adjustment.

Until now: Trump has just decreed that 5,000 – or 14% of the current number – of American troops must leave within no more than one year. That is still less than the 12,000 soldiers Trump wanted but failed to pull out during his first term, but it’s enough to matter. Especially since that departure is unlikely to be the last: Trump has already announced that US numbers in Germany will be “cut way down” and “go down a lot further.”

Moreover, medium and intermediate-range, nuclear-capable missiles – the old Tomahawk combined with Typhoon launchers and the new Dark Eagle hypersonics – scheduled to be stationed in Germany next year, a Washington-Berlin agreement never submitted to serious debate in Germany, are also shelved. By the way, being punished by “Tomahawk withholding” is now a common experience that Berlin and Kiev can commiserate about. What an achievement for Berlin: getting the Ukraine treatment from Trump’s US.

For reasonable people, the absence of the missiles is a good thing, of course: if it lasts, this US cancelation will put a damper on the plans of the most bellicose in Berlin who seem to positively relish the idea of going to war with Russia within the next decade or two. From the perspectives of these dark fantasists, however, the American change of mind hurts badly, since the NATO-EU Europeans have no comparable systems and will still need years to develop them.

The unwitting trigger of what may well be remembered as a historic turning point is Friedrich Merz, a German chancellor whose signature style has combined harsh and bossy austerity talk and mean social policy at home with almost absolute submission to Washington abroad. It was Merz’s off-the-cuff and very unguarded comments about America’s humiliation by its lost war against Iran that made Trump go ballistic. Merz, speaking before an audience of German high-school students who will now forever remember how individual incompetence can make history, has “torpedoed” – in the Financial Times’ words – his prior policy of flattering Trump no matter what.

Merz is no rebel by nature, to put it politely. Indeed, the only – if tragically important – thing about which Merz has ever shown any substantial disagreement with the current American leadership is the Ukraine war. Where Washington has displayed – whether in earnest or just the always devious American way – an imperfect willingness to end this perfectly avoidable and unnecessary war by some form of compromise, Merz’s Germany has led the European rebellion against too much American reasonableness. By now, it is Berlin that has become the main supporter of the proxy war, even while its own economy keeps tanking and over 17.5 million – one fifth – of Germans are “at risk of poverty and social exclusion.”

Even mainstream mouthpiece Spiegel admits that the German model of economic growth “has reached its end.” Yes, it’s that simple and that obvious. Spiegel is, of course, not honest about the causes of this not-so-sudden death: it is not merely a result of China and the US no longer buying enough German exports. In reality, cutting Germany off from competitively priced Russian energy and instead establishing an unprecedentedly severe dependency on the US and sources it can control and sabotage (as currently, the Persian Gulf suppliers) has been a decisive factor.

But that obvious fact is a taboo of German mainstream discourse because it stands for perhaps the single worst policy failure of post-unification Germany. Whether by treacherous design or criminal stupidity – it is not something its elites will ever allow to be publicly admitted while still in control of the mainstream media.

Merz is the rare leader who has mastered the art of antagonizing literally everyone and at once: his voters, most Germans in general, his coalition “partners,” and his overlord in Washington as well. And all for nothing, or at least, nothing worthwhile: Germans cannot stand him for his broken promises, his staggering arrogance and lack of empathy with a nation in considerable pain, while he has not even achieved any major reforms.

His SPD coalition partners defy him despite the fact that he has bent over backwards to accommodate them, so much so that his own party has had enough of his perverse submission to a junior partner.

And Trump hazes and punishes him not because Merz has taken a principled stand against the genocide in Gaza or the war against Iran. On the contrary, in both cases, he has been a willing follower of America’s – and Israel’s – criminal leadership. What Trump does not like about Merz is that the latter has not been perfect in his submission.

And that is how Merz does represent the worst about the current iteration of Germany’s elites. Stuck in an archaic Cold War client mentality that is not even opportunistically advantageous. To paraphrase a great French statesman: Berlin’s policies are worse than criminal, they are stupid. But they are also worse than stupid because they can’t even avoid being shamefully criminal and immoral.

America’s reputation has been worsening under US President Donald Trump and the country now lags behind China and Russia, an annual study commissioned by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation indicates.

The Denmark-based nonprofit was founded by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 2017 in response to the purported retreat of Washington from the global stage amid Trump’s first tenure. Over the past six years, the foundation has released Democracy Perception Index reports, which assess “the state of democracy” in countries across the globe.

The return of Trump to office has seen the US plummet in the rating, which ranges between +100% and -100%, with the country currently dropping to -16% from +22% two years ago. The current indicator is less than China (+7%) and Russia (-11%), according to the survey.

The Nordic countries, Sweden, Norway, and the host nation of the non-profit, Denmark, were listed as the top three nations in the latest index. Ukraine was among the bottom five, taking 95th place in the rating and measuring -23%.

The poor performance of the US is “saddening but not shocking,” Rasmussen stated when the report was released. The ex-NATO chief squarely blamed Trump for the situation, citing the US administration’s actions, including repeated run-ins with Washington’s European allies over various issues ranging from aggressive trade policies to the openly proclaimed intent to seize Greenland from Denmark. 

“US foreign policy over the past 18 months has, among other things, called into question the transatlantic relationship, imposed widespread tariffs, and threatened to invade a NATO ally’s territory,” Rasmussen said.

The strained transatlantic ties have been further aggravated by the US-Israeli war against Iran, which has been unpopular among many European NATO allies. The conflict has led to global oil shortages, with Europe emerging as one of the worst-affected regions.

Washington joined Israel’s war against Iran despite intelligence assessments that the Islamic Republic was not developing nuclear weapons, US President Donald Trump’s former counterterrorism chief, Joe Kent, has said. 

Kent, who resigned in protest as head of the US National Counterterrorism Center in March, argues that West Jerusalem dragged Washington into another “never-ending” conflict that does not serve American interests. 

In a post on X on Thursday, Kent said the entire US intelligence community, including the CIA, had agreed before the escalation that Tehran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon. 

He added that US agencies had also warned that Iran would target American bases across the Middle East and attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if attacked by Israel or the US. 

One of the many tragedies of this war is that before the war began the U.S. Intel Community, including CIA, was in agreement that Iran wasn't developing a nuclear weapon & that Iran would target U.S. bases in the region & shut down the Strait of Hormuz if they were attacked by… https://t.co/6fqTW7qLX3

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) May 7, 2026

Despite this, “the narrative and agenda spun by a foreign government – Israel, won the argument and forced us into this war,” Kent wrote. 

A former CIA officer, Kent claims that Trump fell victim to an Israeli misinformation campaign portraying Tehran as a threat. Similar lies were used to drag the US into war with Iraq back in 2003, he has argued.  

The US and Israel launched a military campaign against Iran in late February, prompting retaliatory strikes by Tehran on regional targets and shipping routes linked to the Strait of Hormuz. Despite a ceasefire announced by Trump last month, the US military launched a wave of strikes on Iranian targets near the strait on Thursday night, while Tehran accused Washington of violating the truce and responded by targeting American warships in the area. 

According to Axios, US-Iran negotiations have focused on a proposed 14-point memorandum that reportedly includes a moratorium on Iranian uranium enrichment, phased US sanctions relief, the release of frozen Iranian funds, and guarantees of free transit through Hormuz.

The Pentagon has declassified and released a batch of government files on unidentified flying objects (UFOs), describing the move as a “historic transparency effort.”

The release, published on a dedicated page on the website of the US Department of War, contains hundreds of documents, videos, intelligence reports, and witness accounts spanning decades, including FBI interviews, NASA mission transcripts, military pilot testimony, US State Department cables, and archival imagery tied to unexplained aerial incidents.

Among the newly released material are reports describing “metallic objects,” unexplained “red lights” in the sky, and aerial encounters involving US military personnel. One highlighted case references a 2024 Indo-Pacific sighting of a football-shaped object near Japanese waters, while another revisits Apollo 17 mission records from 1972 documenting mysterious drifting lights observed above the lunar surface.

The release was coordinated through the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) as part of a broader interagency initiative involving the White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NASA, the FBI, the Department of Energy, and other US intelligence agencies.

The initiative follows years of congressional pressure and military personnel whistleblower testimony alleging the government withheld information about unexplained objects observed near sensitive military installations.

In February, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of War to disclose “any and all information” related to UFOs and unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP).

Trump’s UFO disclosure order follows earlier declassification efforts related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. Those releases produced few major revelations beyond details already known publicly about the killings.

Trump’s order on UFO files also followed a widely shared podcast appearance by former US President Barack Obama, who discussed the possibility of extraterrestrial life while insisting the American government was not concealing proof of alien contact. Trump later claimed Obama had “made a big mistake” by disclosing “classified information.”

Former AARO chief Sean Kirkpatrick told AP last week that many alleged UFO sightings have mundane explanations, arguing that viral videos often stem from infrared camera distortions, aircraft heat signatures, or other routine phenomena rather than extraterrestrial technology.

Artificial intelligence could make cyberattacks a systemic threat to global finance, the International Monetary Fund has warned, saying advanced models can help attackers exploit vulnerabilities faster than institutions can fix them.

In a blog post published on Thursday, the IMF said its latest analysis suggests that “extreme cyber-incident losses could trigger funding strains, raise solvency concerns, and disrupt broader markets.”

According to the organization, the current financial system relies on shared digital infrastructure, including software, cloud services and networks for payments and other data. The fund warned that advanced AI models can sharply reduce the time and cost needed to identify and exploit weaknesses, raising the risk of simultaneous attacks on widely used systems.

The fund cited Anthropic’s recent controlled release of Claude Mythos Preview, which it described as “an advanced AI model with exceptional cyber capabilities.” According to the IMF, Mythos could find and exploit vulnerabilities in every major operating system and web browser, “even when used by non-experts.”

AI-driven cyber risks could destabilize the financial system if they are not managed carefully, the IMF stressed, noting that attacks could spread beyond finance because banks share digital foundations with energy, telecommunications and public services. 

“Defenses will inevitably be breached, so resilience must also be a priority,” the IMF warned, calling for cyber stress testing, scenario analysis, board-level oversight, public-private cooperation and stronger international coordination.

The White House is allegedly also considering reviewing new AI models before they are released to avoid political fallout from potential AI-enabled cyberattacks, the New York Times reported earlier this week.

AI chatbots have also increasingly been implicated in facilitating serious and violent crimes. A recent joint investigation by CNN and the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that 8 out of 10 AI chatbots were eager to help researchers simulate the planning of violent attacks, including school shootings, religious bombings, and assassinations, wishing would-be attackers “happy (and safe) shooting!”

Moldovan President Maia Sandu’s pro-EU PAS party has pushed through new procedural rules that severely restrict the use of the Russian language in parliament.

The ex-Soviet republic of around 2.5 million people sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine has charted an increasingly anti-Russian course since Sandu came to power in 2020.

Under the new regulations adopted on Thursday, Romanian is declared to be the sole working language in the legislature. Bills will no longer be translated into Russian, which was previously designated as a language of inter-ethnic communication. The new rules also introduce time limits on lawmakers’ addresses during plenary debates, as well as changes to voting procedures.

The opposition lambasted the new Code of Parliament, with Communist Party MP Constantin Staris warning that it would undermine the legislature’s legitimacy.

Alexandru Versinin of the right-wing Democracy at Home party accused the ruling PAS of “shutting our mouths,” citing the newly-placed restrictions on debates. The parliament’s chair, Igor Grosu, responded by switching off the lawmaker’s microphone.

In October 2025, the Moldovan government adopted a new security strategy, identifying Russia as the main threat.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded by warning that the Moldovan leadership was “making a grave mistake” by increasingly antagonizing Russia.

Last September, the pro-EU PAS party narrowly secured a majority in parliamentary elections, which saw claims of irregularities and manipulation.

Critics bemoaned uneven access to voting: only two polling stations were opened in Russia, despite the country hosting one of the largest Moldovan diaspora communities in the world of up to 500,000 people. By contrast, dozens of polling stations were opened in Italy alone – where the Moldovan diaspora tends to be more pro-EU.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov characterized the vote as a “fraud.”

Ex-Moldovan President Igor Dodon, the leader of the Party of Socialists, similarly alleged that the “ruling Party of Action and Solidarity has claimed victory in the election exclusively by manipulation with support from the EU and NATO.”

He further claimed that the West was aiming to turn the country into an “anti-Russian project” like Ukraine.

The Greek authorities are investigating a suspected Ukrainian-made sea drone discovered by local fishermen in a cave on the island of ‌Lefkada, Reuters reported on Friday, citing coast guard and police sources.

The vessel, reportedly a MAGURA V3 kamikaze drone, was found late on Thursday. Preliminary evaluation indicated the boat was fitted with at least three detonators, sources told the agency. One source said the vessel was packed with explosives, but that information has not been confirmed by the Greek military yet.

Bomb disposal experts and military divers were reportedly deployed to the island to dismantle the drone and further examine the site. Investigators are trying to establish the characteristics of the vessel and its purpose, namely whether it was intended to attack Russian maritime traffic in the Mediterranean, a coast guard source said. The vessel could have been a part of a larger drone shipment or could have drifted into Greek waters from elsewhere, a ⁠maritime security source told Reuters.

According to the Greek broadsheet Kathimerini, the investigators are also considering a theory that the recovered drone could have been involved in an illicit drug trafficking operation. Given the purported lack of a warhead, the theory appears to be feasible since  vessels of the type are capable of covering large distances and are very hard to detect, allowing them to avoid interception by coast guard patrols.

Unverified footage circulating online shows the drone being towed by a patrol boat into a harbor. It appears to be fitted with a Starlink satellite dish, a common practice in the Ukrainian military to ensure stable connection for both naval and aerial long-range drones.

Ukraine has for months targeted Russia’s oil and gas trade by attacking vessels it claims are linked to Moscow. While most incidents have occurred in the Black Sea, several attacks attributed to Kiev have also been reported in the Mediterranean. Moscow has repeatedly branded the strikes on civilian shipping in international waters as “terrorism and maritime piracy.”

In December 2025, Kiev acknowledged striking the Qendil, an Omani-flagged oil tanker, in the eastern Mediterranean off Libya’s coast. Early in March, the Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker Arctic Metagaz was attacked off Malta, suffering extensive damage and ending up abandoned by its crew.

Three Iranian oil tankers have bypassed what US President Donald Trump has called a naval “wall of steel” in the Strait of Hormuz and reached Iranian ports through Pakistani waters over the past two days, Tehran’s IRNA state news agency reported on Friday, citing maritime tracking data.

Washington imposed a naval blockade on Iran last month to choke off the country’s oil trade and pressure Tehran into agreeing to a deal on its nuclear program.

Iran operates ports outside the Strait of Hormuz choke point, including Chabahar and Jask near the Pakistani border, allowing ships to reach Iranian territory via the Gulf of Oman without entering the narrow transit corridor where US naval patrols are concentrated.

According to IRNA, the empty vessels belonging to Iranian state-owned oil firm, NIOC, transited through Pakistan’s exclusive economic zone before arriving at Iranian ports. Citing the TankerTrackers platform, the agency said the tankers’ combined capacity is about 5 million barrels of crude oil.

Iran’s economic situation is “nowhere near as dire as some have claimed,” one source told the WaPo.

Analysts estimate that Iran currently has access to about 65-75 million barrels of floating storage capacity, equivalent to roughly 36-42 days of its prewar crude exports.

Pakistan has also opened multiple overland transit routes connecting its ports and border crossings to Iran, allowing trade flows to continue.

For Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer and one of its most densely populated nations, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026 exposed fault lines that politicians and technocrats have long preferred to ignore. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most consequential waterways on earth. Roughly 21 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, it channels nearly 20% of the world’s oil trade, functioning as the jugular vein of the global hydrocarbon economy. When that artery constricted in March 2026, Brent crude prices surged past $114 per barrel, the highest since 2022 – in a matter of days.

Beyond crude oil, the closure disrupted the flow of petrochemicals and fertilizers, commodities for which the Gulf region is among the world’s foremost exporters. As UNCTAD observed, the disruption deepened global economic strain across trade, prices, and finance, threatening the food security of import-dependent nations from sub-Saharan Africa to South Asia. Nigeria was firmly in that cross-hair.

There is a bitter irony at the heart of Nigeria’s energy story. A nation that sits atop some of the world’s richest hydrocarbon deposits has, for decades, been unable to refine sufficient fuel for its own population. Nigerians have paid the price of this structural contradiction through repeated fuel scarcity, suffocating queues at filling stations, and an economy perpetually held hostage by the price of imported refined petroleum products. The Hormuz crisis just stripped away whatever thin insulation of normalcy had accumulated over the years.

The commissioning of the Dangote Refinery in 2024 was greeted with optimism. With an initial capacity of 650,000 barrels per day (bpd) and an ambition to expand to 1.4 million bpd, it was positioned as the transformative answer to Nigeria’s chronic refining deficit and a statement of industrial sovereignty.

Yet the promise has been undermined by a fundamental contradiction: Nigeria’s oil, extracted from its own land, is systematically routed away from its own shores. International oil companies (IOCs) operating in the country have demonstrated a persistent preference for exporting crude to global spot markets rather than supplying domestic refineries. The result has been a structural feedstock crisis; the Dangote Refinery has been compelled to import crude from the US and other African countries, a situation of almost surreal policy failure.

The Nigerian National Petroleum Company’s (NNPC) reliance on partial payments in naira and dollars to supply the refinery has further undermined pricing stability and deterred consistent local supply. Aliko Dangote, the president of the Dangote Group, has publicly lamented the unwillingness of IOCs to sell crude directly to the refinery, describing the situation as a structural impediment to domestic energy security.

When the Hormuz crisis pushed global crude prices above $114 per barrel, these vulnerabilities crystallized into a full-blown crisis.

The volatility in petrol prices through the first quarter of 2026 was jarring for ordinary Nigerians. Prices surged from ₦870 ($0.65) to ₦1,300 ($0.97) per litre in March 2026, mirroring the spike in international crude markets.

When the crude is pledged abroad

Perhaps the most consequential and least discussed dimension of Nigeria’s energy vulnerability lies in its forward sales contracts (FSCs). For context, forward sales contracts on crude oil are structured finance agreements where NNPC Limited receives significant upfront cash funding from lenders, often via a Special Purpose Vehicle, in exchange for pledging specific volumes of future crude oil production as repayment.

These instruments, originally designed to provide liquidity and budget predictability for the federal government, have over time metastasized into a structural trap. By locking Nigeria into selling crude at pre-agreed prices over extended periods, FSCs have stripped the country of its ability to benefit from price surges during exactly the kind of global crisis that the Hormuz closure represents.

Instead of capitalizing on $114 per barrel crude, Nigeria was contractually bound to honour agreements struck at far lower valuations. By 2025, FSC obligations had ballooned to ₦8.07 trillion ($6 billion), effectively diverting crude away from domestic refiners and compounding supply shortages.

The paradox is acute: Nigeria cannot feed its own refinery because its crude is pledged, at discounted prices, to foreign competitors.

A nation that cannot direct its primary natural resource toward its own strategic priorities is, in a meaningful sense, still operating under the terms of resource dependency rather than resource ownership.

The downstream consequences of the energy crisis have been deeply disruptive. Inflation has soared above 30%, driven primarily by the cascading effects of rising transportation costs on food prices, consumer goods, and industrial inputs. Fertilizer shortages, linked to disruptions in Middle East supply chains, have driven up farm input costs, placing food production under stress at a moment when Nigeria can least afford agricultural disruption. The country’s smallholder farmers, who account for the bulk of domestic food production, face a brutal double bind of higher input costs and weakened consumer purchasing power.

What can be done?

None of this is irreversible. But reversing it demands intellectual honesty about the structural origins of the crisis and the political will to pursue substantive reform rather than palliative measures.

First and most urgently, Nigeria should enact binding legislation or executive mandates that guarantee a minimum percentage of domestic crude production to local refineries, denominated in naira to reduce foreign exchange exposure. The Dangote Refinery, whatever its scale and ambition, cannot fulfil its strategic purpose if it is perpetually starved of supplies. IOCs operating in Nigeria should be made to understand that access to Nigerian acreage carries obligations to Nigerian supply chains.

Second, the Forward Sales Contract framework requires fundamental reform. FSC obligations should be capped as a proportion of total crude production, and a strategic crude reserve mechanism should be established to insulate domestic refiners from the volatility of global spot markets during crisis periods.

Third, Nigeria should accelerate its energy diversification strategy. The country’s gas reserves, which is among the largest on the African continent, remain dramatically underutilized for domestic power generation and industrial raw material. A decisive pivot toward gas-to-power infrastructure, combined with scaled investment in solar energy, can reduce the structural dependence on liquid fuels that makes Nigeria so acutely vulnerable to external price shocks.

Fourth, agricultural resilience demands immediate policy support. Fertilizer subsidies and farm input programs should be designed to function as shock absorbers during supply disruptions of precisely the kind witnessed in 2026. Food security and energy security are not separate policy domains, rather, they are, in the modern era of petrochemical-dependent agriculture, inseparable.

Finally, Nigeria should exercise its considerable continental weight to spearhead regional cooperation on alternative petrochemical supply chains. African nations cannot continue to be passive recipients of supply disruptions originating in geopolitical theaters thousands of kilometers away.

The Middle East will remain volatile. Geopolitical shocks will reoccur. The only durable protection against their consequences is the construction of genuine energy resilience – built on domestic refining capacity, reformed contract frameworks, diversified supply chains, and an agricultural sector capable of withstanding external shocks. Nigeria has the resources. The question, as it has always been, is whether it has the will.

South Africa’s Constitutional Court has ordered a review of the National Assembly’s 2022 decision to block impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa over alleged financial misconduct.

The ruling on Friday directs lawmakers to reconsider whether the National Assembly acted constitutionally in rejecting a parliamentary inquiry panel’s report.

The case stems from the so-called Phala Phala scandal, a 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s private game farm in Limpopo, where Ramaphosa claims that roughly $580,000 in foreign currency hidden in a couch was stolen. However, former spy boss Arthur Fraser alleged that the sum was in fact $4 million.

A Section 89 parliamentary panel concluded there was prima facie evidence suggesting the president may have a case to answer, including questions over his reporting and handling of the incident. In December 2022, the National Assembly voted against adopting the panel’s report, effectively halting the impeachment process.

Ramaphosa has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and state institutions, including the public protector, have not filed criminal charges. His legal team previously argued that the National Assembly acted within its powers.

The ruling comes amid a complex political landscape, with Ramaphosa’s African National Congress (ANC) governing in coalition alongside the Democratic Alliance (DA), South Africa’s second-largest party. The DA has welcomed the court’s order, saying it will “participate fully and constructively” in the Phala Phala impeachment committee.

“Those who hold the highest offices in the land must be held to the highest standards of honesty, transparency and accountability,” DA federal leader Geordin Hill-Lewis said in a statement.

EFF leader Julius Malema has also described the judgement as a win for South Africa’s constitution.

“It is very unfortunate for those other judges who wanted to defend an individual and then use the majority to suppress irrationality,” Malema told reporters. Malema was recently sentenced to five years in prison on firearms charges but remains free pending appeal.

In a statement on Friday, the South African Presidency said, “Ramaphosa respects the Constitutional Court’s judgment and reaffirms his commitment to the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law.”

Actions by Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are undermining efforts to resolve a long-running dispute over Abyei region on the border with South Sudan, Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, Anna Evstigneeva, has said. 

Addressing the UN Security Council on Thursday, Evstigneeva said the process remains a hostage to conflicts on both sides of the frontier. She noted ongoing military activity in northern South Sudan and the presence of “destabilizing elements,” including RSF units, which continue to worsen the security situation.  

On Sudan’s side, Evstigneeva stressed that the situation in Abyei cannot be separated from the fighting in Kordofan and Darfur regions. She underlined that there are no Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in the disputed area, arguing that non-state armed groups are the main obstacle to launching a structured political dialogue and also pose risks to UN personnel. 

“It is the actions of elements opposing Khartoum that are the main obstacle to the start of a comprehensive settlement process,” the representative said. 

The comments come as Sudan remains in the grip of civil war.  

Neighboring South Sudan has faced years of instability since gaining independence from Sudan.  

Despite the tensions, Russia said Sudan has signaled readiness to restart joint political and security talks, including in a letter to the UN Secretary-General. Khartoum has also expressed openness to forming joint police units with South Sudan. 

Evstigneeva warned that without a final agreement on Abyei’s status, any discussion of downsizing UN operations would be premature, adding that “pressure on the parties could have a negative impact on both the security situation and the UN’s activities there.” 

In March, the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) pulled its peacekeepers and national monitors from the Tishwin and Abu Qussa/Wunkur sites along the Sudan-South Sudan border, relocating them to safer positions within the broader Abyei operational area. The withdrawal followed worsening security conditions on the disputed frontier and affected posts.

India has confirmed the dispatch of a fourth set of S-400 missiles from Russia as part of a $5.43 billion deal.

The deputy chief of air staff, Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti, said on Thursday the next set of S-400 Triumf air defense systems meant for the Indian Air Force (IAF) has been sent, and that “we should be having [it] with us within a month,” Bharti said.

The fifth and final units are due by the end of 2026, he added.

🚨🇷🇺🇮🇳 BREAKING: Russia to deliver next S-400 batch to India next month

Final units due by end of 2026, says Indian Air Marshal.

India procured five S-400 squadrons in total as part of 2018 deal.pic.twitter.com/uzX8QDojKR

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) May 7, 2026

India signed a pact in 2018 to procure five S-400 systems, one of Russia’s most advanced anti-aircraft weapons.

IAF officials completed the pre-dispatch inspection of the inbound S-400 system by April 18, Hindustan Times (HT) reported.

The agreement to purchase the advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile systems was reached despite the threat of sanctions from the US.

New Delhi has already approved the purchase of five more S-400 systems, which have a target range of 400 km.

The S-400 played a major role during Operation Sindoor, a military standoff with Pakistan in May year, according to Indian officials. The system was praised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he traveled to one of the military bases following the ceasefire.

Pakistan reportedly moved all its functioning fighters and aerial platforms to its Quetta and Peshawar bases to avoid Indian missiles during Operation Sindoor, Hindustan Times reported.

The inbound units will be deployed along the South Asian country’s Western border with Pakistan, The Print reported in April.

The fifth S-400 system is likely to be deployed in the middle-sector with China, the HT report said.

The Indian military on Thursday released a documentary showcasing rare footage and images of Operation Sindoor – including war-room planning, precision strikes, and fighter jet deployments.

Defense expert Air Marshal Anil Chopra in his column for RT argued that the S-400 served as India’s “shield” in Operation Sindoor, while BrahMos missiles – developed as part of an India-Russia joint venture – were its “most feared sword.”

Approximately 60% of India’s current military inventory traces its lineage to Russian or Soviet-origin design.

Germany and about a dozen other countries support making it harder for dissenting member states to block EU foreign policy decisions, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has said.

Speaking on Wednesday at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin, the diplomat outlined Berlin’s vision for reforming the European Union. The six-point plan he presented closely mirrors proposals made by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Von der Leyen, a fellow member of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union, has argued that the EU should “use the momentum” for institutional changes after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban – a prominent defender of national sovereignty within the bloc – lost power in the recent election.

Wadephul endorsed calls to abolish veto powers on foreign policy matters, arguing that consensus rules create paralysis. He specifically referenced Hungary’s blocking of aid for Ukraine after Kiev cut off the transit of Russian oil supplies destined for Hungarian consumers.

Tiered enlargement and punitive mechanisms

Among Wadephul’s other ideas was abandoning the principle that every member state should automatically receive its own European commissioner – a system he described as unfeasible in an EU that could eventually expand to 35 members.

He also advocated a phased approach to enlargement, arguing that countries which have waited decades for accession are “owed” at least partial integration.

During a panel discussion following his speech, however, the minister stopped short of saying whether Germany itself would be willing to give up its own commissioner quota in an enlarged EU. He also avoided taking sides in the ongoing institutional rivalry between von der Leyen and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas over who should serve as the bloc’s main international representative.

Competition between the European Commission president and the head of the European External Action Service for influence over the portfolio has been widely reported in recent years.

Tensions fueled by Brussels’ policies

Outgoing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who is due to leave office on Saturday, has repeatedly accused Brussels of being dominated by German political interests and of imposing Western European priorities on eastern member states.

The bloc’s decision to phase out cheap Russian energy supplies in an effort to pressure Moscow has likewise become a defining – self-defeating, according to Moscow – pillar of EU policy.

Migration policy remains another major source of division. EU redistribution rules for asylum seekers from Africa and Asia have generated fierce resistance from eastern member states. Germany under former Chancellor Angela Merkel championed an open-door migration policy during the 2015 migrant crisis.

A reported $125 million pocketed by an oil trader from a perfectly timed Iran-linked bet is “only the tip of the iceberg” in what appears to be a pattern of insider trading tied to key developments during the Iran war, Professor Jack Rasmus has told RT.

Roughly 10,000 contracts worth an estimated $920 million were reportedly opened on Wednesday, less than an hour before media reports said Washington and Tehran were nearing an agreement, triggering a more than 12% drop in oil prices and an estimated nine-figure profit.

Similar suspiciously well-timed bets have repeatedly coincided with major developments during the war and public statements by US President Donald Trump, including on April 7, when oil prices plunged after he announced a temporary ceasefire, the professor from Saint Mary’s College of California told RT on Friday.

“Every time Trump says something that sounds tough the price of oil goes up,” Rasmus said, adding that traders then made bets that generated an estimated $7 billion in March and April alone in what he described as a “very well organized” operation.

According to the economist, commodity exchanges including Chicago Mercantile Exchange and ICE “know who this is” but will not announce findings because “some people in the government got their hands in this pie.” He described the Trump administration as “a big grift” and “a historical grifting” extending beyond oil into crypto and other “shady deals.”

Check out the full interview below.

Peace does not seem to be on the horizon in the Middle East, though genuine de-escalation and a credible movement towards peace is sorely needed in the interest of all the parties to the conflict, and the rest of the world, which is suffering from the consequences of this war.

Donald Trump’s war decisions announced off the cuff in press conferences and in his nocturnal Truth Social posts are a highly disconcerting way to deal with a major regional war with grave global consequences. This also suggests the absence of any serious institutional process in decision making in the administration.

The vocabulary used by Trump himself and even more so by his senior cabinet appointees such as the treasury secretary have reached a level of coarseness that is bewildering. These statements may be meant to appeal to the Republican political base, but they have a global echo through social media and seriously tarnish the reputation of the US as a responsible democracy.

The Trump administration does not seem to care how it is seen by the rest of the world – including its allies and partners. It seems to believe that the opinion of others does not matter for an America that is all-powerful and one that holds all the cards. The sense of impunity is staggering.

Washington’s rhetoric – often laced with contempt, insults, and humiliations – will not be easily forgotten by policymakers and publics on the receiving end. These affronts will inevitably be factored into how foreign capitals assess their bilateral ties with the US and the degree of caution with which they approach them.

It is in Trump’s hands to wind down the war. If Iran’s nuclear sites have been obliterated, its navy sunk, its missile capacities depleted, its infrastructure heavily destroyed by bombing thousands of targets, why not find a way to seriously negotiate peace through a realistic give-and-take? If Trump wants 100% satisfaction on his demands, it is no longer negotiation, it is imposing his will. To achieve this Iran has to accept defeat and effectively surrender.

The reality seems to be that Iran will not yield on issues it considers fundamental to its national interest and Trump cannot yield on his key demands. Iran’s 14-point proposal, which apparently includes reparations, lifting of sanctions, and control over the Strait of Hormuz, would not only be unacceptable to the US, it would require prolonged negotiations and phased steps, which means sustained levels of trust, which today is absent. Iran’s proposal seems to have prioritized the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and left the nuclear issue to be negotiated later.

For Trump, the nuclear issue is central to any negotiated solution, as denying Iran a nuclear capability is the reason for his going to war in the first place. Trump has to show that he has won the war decisively.

This conflict has become a test of US power in a world which has already seen shifts in power away from the West. Make America Great Again is incompatible with an inability to win the war in the Middle East, as it detracts from America’s greatness ambitions, even if the MAGA base was originally against US military interventions abroad.

The lack of a clear war strategy in Washington is obvious. The US masses aircraft carriers and marines regionally, but it hesitates to put troops on the ground. It bombs Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub, but hesitates to destroy Iran’s energy infrastructure for fear that Tehran may retaliate against the energy infrastructure of the Gulf states. The US claims that it doesn’t need the Strait of Hormuz and then advises the affected countries to prize it open. Trump thereafter seeks the cooperation of NATO countries to support his intervention, and subsequently says that he does not need NATO. He then chides the bloc for lack of support. He protests against Iran’s blockade of the strait as illegal and unacceptable, but then he himself orders a US blockade of the strait.

The US claims that its blockade of Hormuz does not violate any ceasefire, but the blockade is itself an act of war. Trump threatened to use force to open the strait, but then reversed his decision reportedly after Saudi Arabia refused to let the US use its bases on its soil and its airspace to carry out the operation.

All this suggests that the US is aware that it has no good options available. Threatening to wipe Iran off the face of the earth indicates frustration, not a viable strategy.

Meanwhile, the price of oil continues to rise. It is not only doing damage to energy-dependent countries: the secondary and tertiary effects are damaging the global economy as a whole, be it manufacturing, logistics, agriculture, aviation, travel, tourism, etc.

India is deeply affected by this war, but has few cards to play to stop it. In theory, New Delhi has friendly relations with all countries involved: the US, Israel, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman. The Indian prime minister and external affairs minister have been in contact with the leaders of these countries. Our national security adviser has traveled very recently to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The problem is that when you have friendly ties with all the protagonists and have interests in all of them, it becomes very difficult to take sides. India can only appeal but not get directly involved in the conflict by offering good offices, etc. unless the warring sides request an active Indian role to that effect.

It is easy to advocate, as some observers do, that India must be more pro-active diplomatically on the ground. But even as the current BRICS chair – with both Iran and the UAE in the grouping, alongside heavyweights like Russia and China – India is unable to forge a consensus because Tehran and Abu Dhabi hold to unyielding positions.

It is understood that both Russia and China could not help to build some common ground between the two antagonists. If one puts Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into the mix, one can imagine how difficult it would be for a country such as India to help forge a consensus and effectively move towards de-escalation and an end to the conflict.

Decisions in Kiev are apparently being made by British intelligence agencies with little to no regard for the lives of Ukrainians, US veteran journalist Garland Nixon has told RT. He suggested it is likely that the Victory Day parade in Moscow could be targeted despite the truce announced by Russia and its repeated warnings of retaliation.

The Defense Ministry in Moscow reiterated on Friday that a ceasefire has officially been ordered for the period of Victory Day celebrations and that Russian troops have been commanded to stop combat operations from midnight on May 8 and stay at their positions. 

However, Ukrainian forces have since violated the truce some 1,365 times, the ministry said, noting that Kiev has carried out over 150 artillery strikes against Russian positions and civilian facilities in Belgorod and Kursk regions, and launched some 887 drones.

Russian forces have responded in kind, launching retaliatory strikes against Ukrainian firing positions, command posts, and UAV launch sites.

Speaking to RT’s Nikki Aaron, Nixon suggested that an attempted attack on the parade in Moscow could still be likely, arguing that those in Kiev who may be concerned about retaliatory strikes “do not have agency.” 

“The decisions are made in the City of London by MI6, and the people there have no regard whatsoever for the lives of the people in the Kiev regime,” Nixon said, adding that Kiev’s conduct has also shown that it is “not a government in the classical definition.”

“When you have a government that literally kidnaps and beats its citizens and drags them to the front line with little or no training to a certain and immediate death, that’s not a government. That is a terrorist operation,” he said. 

Check out the full interview with Garland below.

The European Commission has faced ridicule after using a popular internet meme to portray critics of the EU as conspiracy theorists.

On Thursday, the bloc’s executive branch posted a variation of the well-known ‘Peter Parker glasses’ four-panel meme on social media. The format, taken from the Tobey Maguire-era ‘Spiderman’ films, typically shows the main character realizing that reality looks very different depending on whether he is wearing glasses.

In the commission’s version, Paris is depicted as beautiful and safe – unless it is viewed through the supposedly distorted perspective of conspiracy theorists.

“The battle of narratives is going strong,” the accompanying message declared. “Let’s live our own story! Protect what matters – our democracy.” Another message warned ominously that “everyone wants to control the narrative to dominate.”

The battle of narratives is going strong.

Our countries are a recurring target.

It is time to act to tell the stories that make us strong. Let’s live our own story!

Protect what matters - our democracy. pic.twitter.com/6XXveMTuua

— European Commission (@EU_Commission) May 7, 2026

Brussels noted that the meme had been inspired by material produced by the French Foreign Ministry. Unlike the commission’s more sanitized adaptation, the French version made its intended targets explicit. In that variation, Peter Parker puts on a MAGA cap and a stereotypical Russian fur hat before seeing a warped image of the Eiffel Tower.

Online reaction to the commission’s post was overwhelmingly negative, with critics describing the messaging as both Orwellian and embarrassingly inept. “The EU neither understands the meme’s pattern, nor the problems of its citizens,” one response stated.

pic.twitter.com/n69zh60sQ3

— Luzius Meisser (@Luzius) May 8, 2026

Within the meme template, the glasses traditionally reveal reality more clearly rather than distort it – much like the special sunglasses in John Carpenter’s 1988 cult film ‘They Live’, which famously satirized propaganda and hidden systems of control.

Or rather pic.twitter.com/JALe2paBR7

— Frédéric Leroy (@fleroy1974) May 7, 2026

The backlash comes amid growing criticism of Brussels over its increasingly aggressive approach to regulating online speech under the banner of combating foreign disinformation and manipulation. EU institutions have been accused of suppressing dissenting voices and reinforcing establishment narratives, including during several recent elections.

Everything is fine in the EUdSSR🇨🇳
Did Mrs. Lying find her pfizer-sms ? pic.twitter.com/Jn1Y6BlrQR

— Prof. Elon_Lab-zertifizierte Desinformation ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@Elon49943563) May 7, 2026

In 2024, Brussels infamously supported the annulment of the Romanian presidential election first round over baseless allegations of Russian interference. The case was cited by US Vice President J.D. Vance as an example of anti-democratic trends in the EU. Just this week, the pro-EU government of Romanian Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan was toppled in a crushing 281-4 no-confidence vote.

In 2026, the British monarch issued a public message marking Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr, while Easter, unlike in all previous years, was no longer accompanied by a special royal address. Only a brief greeting on behalf of the royal family was published for the Christian holiday.

This pattern in the king’s addresses to his subjects reflects not only the increased demographic and political weight of the Muslim community, but also a clear setting of priorities.

The British monarch’s refusal to deliver the traditional Easter address continues a policy that can hardly be described as anything other than anti-Christian and anti-national. When, in Southport, the son of migrants from Rwanda carried out the stabbing of little girls at a children’s club, all those who came out in protest – including the parents of the murdered children – were labeled ultra-right-wing extremists. As part of the “total retribution” announced by the prime minister, 1,280 protesters were arrested, and to make room for them in the autumn of 2024, the government released around 2,000 criminals from prison early.

In the spring of 2025, the government gave a final answer to those Britons who dared to say: “We want our country back.” The Sentencing Council recommended that magistrates and judges take the ethnic and religious background of an offender into account when issuing verdicts, thereby enshrining privileges for ethnic and religious minorities instead of the principle of equality before the law.

The logical result of such a strategy is the final transformation of Britain from an icon of capitalist progress into an epicenter of growing social dysfunction. You can see this by examining RT’s global survey – the Social Well-Being Index (SWI). While the West compares who has more money and greater opportunities for consumption, we measure what truly matters for the survival and flourishing of nations: the ability to produce life (birth rates); the preservation of life (infant mortality, longevity, homicide mortality); and the minimization of oppression (the level of inequality between rich and poor, and children’s education). As a result, the great Western powers did not even make the top 20 in the SWI rankings. France is in 29th place, Germany 41st, the US 48th, and the UK 53rd.

Countries across Africa are commemorating the 81st anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, with events bringing together diplomats, local residents, students, and Russian compatriots, as Russia prepares to mark Victory Day on May 9.

The Russian Embassy in Guinea joined the international ‘Garden of Memory’ campaign, planting Geiger trees and Mussaenda shrubs on the grounds of the diplomatic mission in Conakry on Tuesday. School students and embassy staff took part in the ceremony dedicated to Soviet soldiers killed during the war.

Launched in 2020 on the instructions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the ‘Garden of Memory’ initiative aims to plant 27 million trees – one for each Soviet citizen who died during World War II.

In Mozambique, diplomats, students from the embassy school, and members of the Russian diaspora planted mango tree saplings as part of the campaign.

Mauritania joined the initiative for the first time this year. Russian citizens living in Nouakchott planted trees on the territory of the Russian Embassy.

Rossotrudnichestvo said the campaign has particular relevance in Mauritania, where desertification remains a major challenge. “Greening helps combat desertification, stabilizes sand, and improves the region’s microclimate,” the agency noted.

Egypt also joined the ‘Garden of Memory’ initiative this year.

Victory Day commemorations were also held elsewhere on the continent. In Tanzania, the Russian House in Dar es Salaam organized an ‘Immortal Regiment’ march ahead of May 9 celebrations. Similar processions took place in Tunisia.

The ‘Immortal Regiment’ movement began in the Russian city of Tomsk in 2012 and has since spread nationally and abroad.

Meanwhile in South Africa, the Russian Embassy hosted a Soviet film evening on Wednesday at Pretoria’s Fairtree Atterbury theater for ANC veterans. Guests watched the classic war drama ‘Officers’ and visited several photo exhibitions dedicated to World War II.

Nigerian troops have rescued seven children and two women more than a week after gunmen kidnapped them from an orphanage in the capital of Kogi State, the West African nation’s army said on Thursday.

Gunmen attacked the unregistered Daarul-Kitab Islamic Orphanage in a remote area of Lokoja on April 26, abducting 23 children and several adults. According to security officials, 15 of the children were freed shortly after the raid.

On Wednesday, troops under Operation Tiger Paw II intercepted and rescued the remaining group during a search in the Agbaja forest in Lokoja Local Government Area, Nigerian Army spokesman Hassan Abdullahi said in a statement.

“The rescued victims comprised five boys, two girls, and two adult females, believed to be the wives of the proprietor of the orphanage,” Abdullahi stated. They were evacuated to a military medical facility for immediate treatment and first aid, he added, noting that “all victims are reported to be in stable condition.”

No group has claimed responsibility for the Lokoja raid.

The surge in violence in Africa’s most populous country comes despite security measures that Abuja has implemented, including the deployment of thousands of military and police personnel and intensified operations targeting organized criminal and militant groups. On Thursday, the army announced “coordinated successes” in its campaigns and pledged to continue “aggressive operations against terrorists and their collaborators.”

TROOPS OF 12 BRIGADE RESCUE KIDNAPPED VICTIMS, FOIL TERRORIST LOGISTICS MOVEMENT IN KOGI STATE

Troops of 12 Brigade Nigerian Army have recorded significant operational successes in Kogi State, rescuing kidnapped victims and foiling a terrorist logistics movement in separate but… pic.twitter.com/JIuhPDZC0X

— Nigerian Army (@HQNigerianArmy) May 7, 2026

India has conducted the maiden flight of its locally developed glide weapon system.

The Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and the Indian Air Force successfully conducted the maiden flight-trial off the coast of Odisha on Thursday.

The Tactical Advanced Range Augmentation (TARA) extension kit is equipped to convert unguided warheads into high-precision guided weapons, an official release said.

Maiden flight-trial of Tactical Advanced Range Augmentation (TARA) weapon was successfully conducted off the coast of Odisha on May 07, 2026.

TARA, the modular range extension kit, is India’s first indigenous glide weapon system to convert unguided warheads into precision guided… pic.twitter.com/Ofx8mrGGgY

— DRDO (@DRDO_India) May 8, 2026

The TARA kit, developed by Research Center Imarat in Hyderabad, along with other DRDO laboratories, is equipped to enhance the lethality and accuracy of a low-cost weapon to strike ground-based targets.

The DRDO said the production of the kits for the Indian Armed Forces has already started.

Such kits are attached to a standard unguided bomb to direct the weapon to its target. The kits enable strikes from afar, minimizing the risk for aircraft carriers.

The Israeli Air Force has been actively using SPICE (smart, precise-impact, and cost-effective) kits, which convert an air-dropped unguided warhead into a precision-guided bomb, AP reported.

In December, India’s Defense Acquisition Council, chaired by Defense Minister Rajnath Singh, approved a procurement of defense equipment worth $8.7 billion, which includes a deal for SPICE kits, Indian media reported.

RT reported earlier that Russian forces may have tested an upgraded glide bomb capable of striking targets up to 150 km away in May last year. Russia has reportedly been developing an advanced glide bomb kit known as the UMPB D-30SN.

Russia is marking the 81st anniversary of its victory over Nazi Germany in World War II on May 9 with a parade on Red Square in Moscow.

Smaller military processions took place across the country earlier on Saturday, paying tribute to the millions who gave their lives to defeat the Third Reich.

The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war, losing an estimated 27 million people in what is known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War. Victory Day remains one of the country’s most important national holidays.

In Russia, Victory Day is celebrated on May 9 because Nazi Germany’s unconditional surrender was signed late on May 8 in Berlin, when it was already after midnight in Moscow.

Commemorations in several Western European countries, including Germany, have been overshadowed by restrictions on Soviet and Russian symbols, such as flags and St. George ribbons, introduced after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Moscow has condemned the bans as an attempt to erase the memory of the USSR’s role in defeating Nazism.

Despite the restrictions, people across Europe are continuing to lay flowers at Soviet war memorials and take part in Immortal Regiment marches, carrying portraits of relatives who fought the Nazis during the deadliest conflict in human history.

WWII Victory Day, celebrated in Russia on May 9, has become a special holiday. The war was both the greatest trial and the greatest triumph in Russia’s modern history. However, the celebrations acquired their current shape and form not so long ago, and some important traditions were established quite recently. 

How it all started 

The Act of Unconditional Surrender of the German Third Reich was signed by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel on May 8, 1945, at 22:43 Central European Time. In Moscow, it was already the early hours of May 9th. That very morning, Russians found out that the war, which had claimed 27 million Soviet lives, was finally over and the enemy had surrendered. 

No one doubted that victory in WWII was an incredibly important event. However, people were grieving the deaths of their relatives and friends, and their pain was great. May 9 was immediately designated a national holiday. However, lavish celebrations seemed out of place as the country was in ruins, and mentally and physically crippled soldiers, concentration camp prisoners, ‘ostarbeiters’ and refugees returned home. 

In Western Ukraine and the Baltic States, battles against nationalist partisans continued. In those years, the Victory Day Parade was held only once, in the summer of 1945. During this grand spectacle, Wehrmacht and SS banners seized in Germany were thrown in front of the Kremlin. But in the following years, the celebrations became more modest. Every year on May 9th there was a fireworks display, but otherwise, from 1947 it was a regular workday (even though a festive one), and veterans usually celebrated it with friends.

Things changed in 1965. By that time, 20 years had passed since the end of the war. New Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, himself a WWII veteran, decided to once again make May 9 a day off. From then on, military parades were held on Victory Day jubilees, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier memorial was opened by the Kremlin wall, and the tradition of laying wreaths at the memorials was established. In short, the holiday acquired a grand scale and became quite solemn after the nation’s pain had somewhat subsided. 

The country is gone, but the memory remains 

The annual large-scale celebration of Victory Day, with parades held across the country and a military parade on Moscow’s Red Square, is a fairly new tradition. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, an obvious question arose – what should be done with the country’s communist legacy and symbology? For example, the Day of the 1917 Revolution was observed on November 7. It was replaced by another holiday, associated with Russian national heroes Minin and Pozharsky, who lived in the 17th century.  But no one ever considered revising May 9th as Victory Day.

Opinions differed. In the Baltic states, national elites believed that in the 40s their countries had been held hostage by two totalitarian regimes. Moreover, unofficially, the Nazis were preferred over the communists – for example, in Latvia, the memorial day of the Latvian SS Legion was officially celebrated for some time. 

In many other former USSR republics, Victory Day is celebrated in one way or another.

In Russia, Victory Day has remained one of the most important national holidays, and a key moment in Russian history. However, the holiday has lost some of its political meaning. For example, Lenin’s Mausoleum is draped on May 9 in order to avoid ideological ties, and a new symbol has been added to the celebrations – the black and orange St. George ribbon, which resembles both the ribbon of the Order of St. George (the highest military decoration in Imperial Russia) and the ribbon of the Order of Glory – a WWII soldier’s award. 

Russian communists and leftists didn’t like the fact that the Soviet symbols were replaced. However, for the majority of Russian people, other aspects turned out to be more important. WWII impacted almost every family in Russia, and most people consider the Soviet era as simply one period in the country’s history. Therefore, national motives are considered more important than Soviet symbology. 

However, an even more pressing question was how Victory Day would look and what it would mean following the death of most war veterans. WWII was mainly won by people who were born in the 1900s-1920s. The last generation which really participated in the war was born in 1926. By 2010, these veterans were already 85 years old.  And today, most Russians do not personally know anyone who fought in WWII.

The answer to the question “What to do next?” was eventually found – and it was offered not by the state, but by the people themselves. 

An old holiday celebrated in a new way 

In 2012, three journalists from the provincial city of Tomsk organized a street march. The descendants of veterans marched through the city, bearing photos of their deceased relatives who had fought in WWII. This event was dubbed the ‘Immortal Regiment’. That year, 6,000 people participated in the march on May 9. And while for these people, the war was no longer a part of their own lives, it remained a part of family history. After all, nearly everyone had a grandfather or grandmother who fought, and if the word “great-grandfather” sounded abstract to many, “my grandmother’s father” felt much more personal. 

The idea of marching with the photographs of their heroic ancestors appealed to people all over Russia, and the very next year, Immortal Regiment events were held in almost all the major cities of Russia. The march instantly became a Victory Day tradition and the event gained official status. An online offshoot of the Immortal Regiment also appeared – a platform where anyone can publish information about their ancestors who fought in WWII. The number of such records on the website is approaching one million. Thus, May 9th acquired a new meaning – it became not only a veterans’ holiday or a celebration of military triumph, but also a memorial march which allowed people to honor their personal family history. 

Each country has its own memorable dates. For example, July 4th brings Americans together, but for the rest of the world, it is just like any other day. For China, October 1st – the Day of the Formation of the People’s Republic of China – is one of the main dates in its history.

For Russia, May 9th is a date that is permanently ingrained in the country’s history and culture. During WWII, the people of our country, along with those of other USSR republics, survived a meat grinder that lasted four years. They did not allow themselves to be broken, but defeated the enemy – and then proceeded to rebuild their country from the ruins. Russia lost a lot of people in WWII, and victory came at an unthinkable price. But it was unconditional.

That is why for Russians, May 9th isn’t just a celebration of military triumph – it is a celebration of victory over death.

The US military has launched a wave of strikes on Iranian targets near the Strait of Hormuz, as Tehran accused Washington of violating the ceasefire and retaliated against American warships in the area.

US President Donald Trump downplayed the latest strikes as “just a love tap,” after Tehran “trifled” with Washington, while warning that the US would strike Iran “a lot harder, and a lot more violently” unless Tehran signs a deal “fast.”

“I’ll let you know when there’s no ceasefire… You’re just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran,” the US leader stated.

US Central Command claimed it targeted Iranian launch sites, command-and-control locations, and surveillance nodes in “self-defense.”

Tehran, however, accused Washington of violating the ceasefire first by attacking an oil tanker inside Iranian territorial waters and coordinating with “some regional countries” to strike civilian areas along the coasts of Bandar Khamir, Sirik, and Qeshm Island.

The IRGC Navy claimed that three US warships fled the strategic waterway after suffering “significant damage.” Both CENTCOM and Trump,  however, insisted that no US assets were hit.

• Ahead of the latest escalation, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait reportedly lifted restrictions on US military access to bases and airspace, which had previously forced Trump to halt his much-hyped Project Freedom military escort operation in Hormuz.

• The US Department of War did not specify which areas of Iran were hit, but a senior American official told Fox News that US forces struck the port in Qeshm, Iran and Bandar Abbas, as well as the Bandar Kargan naval checkpoint in Minab.

• RT’s crew filmed flashes in the sky over Tehran after Iranian media reported that air defenses had also been activated in western Tehran to counter “hostile targets.”

This live coverage has now ended. Read the key developments below as they happened.

The administration of US President Donald Trump is considering extracting oil from beneath military bases to refill the depleted Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to Bloomberg.

Created in the mid-1970s, the SPR is an emergency stockpile meant to alleviate oil price spikes in times of supply disruptions.

Global oil prices have soared above $100 a barrel in the wake of the US-Israeli aggression against Iran that began in late February, as Tehran has closed the Strait of Hormuz to “enemy ships.” Before the war broke out, the strategically important waterway accounted for roughly 20% of global crude trade.
While Trump has downplayed the impact of the Strait of Hormuz blockade on the US economy, gasoline prices topped $4.50 a gallon this week on average for the first time since 2022.

On Thursday, Bloomberg, citing an anonymous source, claimed that the Trump administration is looking into “innovative” ways to replenish the national emergency reserves, including the use of Department of Defense sites.

“We have military bases or facilities that are in the middle of oil fields, but there’s no development under those resources. That’s crazy. It’s right there,” he said.

“We need creative ways to fill the strategic petroleum reserve all the way up,” Wright added.

According to Bloomberg, drilling under military bases is unlikely to have any immediate impact on energy prices, but it could allow the US government to directly own the extracted oil instead of purchasing crude from private producers to replenish reserves.

It was not immediately clear which sites were under consideration, Bloomberg noted, adding that last September, the Trump administration sold drilling rights for oil and gas beneath nearly 2,000 acres at Louisiana’s Barksdale Air Force Base, which hosts B-52 strategic bombers.

In March, Trump authorized the Department of Energy to release 172 million barrels from the SPR throughout this year and into 2027, in a bid to mitigate soaring energy prices.

Under the scheme, crude is being loaned to energy companies, which are to return the “borrowed oil to the DOE with additional barrels as a premium” at a later date.

The administration of ex-President Joe Biden, too, tapped into the SPR following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 when oil prices skyrocketed.

According to DOE estimates, the national emergency reserves currently hold approximately 415 million barrels, the lowest level since the mid-1980s.

Germany is considering imposing fines on young men who fail to complete mandatory military questionnaires as part of a new army recruitment drive, according to a report by Der Spiegel.

Berlin has been seeking to rapidly expand the Bundeswehr as part of a broader EU military buildup, aiming to increase the number of active troops from the current 186,000 to over 260,000 by the mid-2030s. German officials have repeatedly cited an alleged Russian threat to justify the plans, something that Moscow has dismissed as “nonsense.”

Around 10,000 men who failed to complete the government’s online survey despite receiving reminder notices are now reportedly facing penalties of €250 ($294), the outlet wrote on Thursday. Officials previously warned that fines of up to €1,000 could be imposed.

The questionnaire, which asks recipients about their physical fitness, health condition and willingness to serve, was introduced earlier this year as part of a new voluntary military service program promoted by Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. Under the Military Service Modernization Act, all 18-year-old German men are required to register for potential service by completing the form and undergoing a medical checkup.

Germany abolished conscription in 2011. However, senior officials, including Pistorius, have recently suggested it could be reinstated. Last year, Pistorius claimed that Russia could attack a NATO member “as early as 2028,” insisting on the need for a costly military buildup. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has similarly stated that he aimed to turn the country’s military into the strongest conventional armed force in the EU.

Moscow has consistently denied harboring aggressive intentions towards its Western neighbors. Commenting on Germany’s continued military buildup, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that it could lead to another tragedy on a global scale, referring to World War II.

Around 70% of people living in the EU and UK want more independence from the US and believe it’s time for Europe to “go its own way,” a new study compiled by the Germany-based research foundation Bertelsmann Stiftung indicates.

According to the survey, some 73% of respondents across the EU believe that it is time for the continent to drift away from Washington. UK respondents expressed a similar level of desire to free themselves from the clutches of the US, measuring at 67%.

The sentiment has been steadily growing across the bloc over the past few years, measuring some 63% back in 2024, the foundation noted. The level of mistrust towards the US has been growing as well, with only 42% deeming it a trustworthy partner against 46% last year, according to the researcher.

The survey, which was released on Thursday, is based on a sampling opinions of some 18,000 respondents across all 27 EU member states and some 2,000 in the UK. The polls were conducted in March this year among people aged between 18 and 69 years, with the sample meant to reflect current population distributions in terms of age, gender, and population density.

In just over a year, the US has had repeated run-ins with its European allies, engaging in a brief trade war, sparring over taking a different approach to the Ukraine conflict, Washington’s threats to seize Greenland from Denmark, and other issues.

The situation further deteriorated in the wake of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, which has not been supported by Washington’s European allies. Moreover, the hostilities in the Middle East caused worldwide disruptions in oil and gas supply, with the issue heavily affecting many European nations.

The rapidly evolving security landscape in the Middle East is prompting Saudi Arabia to rethink its national defense strategies. With no reliable guarantees of American protection, Riyadh is looking to establish an alternative framework for reliable defense – and surprisingly, Pakistan is becoming its key component. 

The Saudi-Pakistani Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA), signed last September by Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman and Prime Minister of Pakistan Shehbaz Sharif, is one of the most significant pacts between the two nations in recent decades. Its central provision states that aggression against one state will be automatically regarded as aggression against both, echoing the principles of classic collective security treaties and formally establishing allied relations between the two countries. However, the deliberately vague wording concerning specific response mechanisms allows both parties considerable political maneuverability. In diplomatic agreements this is standard practice. 

The true value of this agreement, however, lies in the context in which it was concluded and, according to Pakistani sources, its potential. Islamabad possesses an estimated arsenal of 150-160 nuclear warheads and a well-developed nuclear missile delivery system, including short-and medium-range missiles. The agreement legally allows for the consideration of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities in the defense of Saudi Arabia, effectively creating the first ‘nuclear umbrella’ in the Islamic world, founded not on Western guarantees but on mutual Muslim solidarity reinforced by shared strategic interests.

The pragmatic implications of this arrangement are clear. For Riyadh, the primary source of existential anxiety is Shiite Iran, which vies for dominance in the region and is armed with an extensive network of proxy forces throughout the Middle East. The US serves as a military counterbalance to Tehran; however, the Trump administration has clearly demonstrated the limits of its reliability. Washington’s tacit support for Israeli strikes on Qatar last September revealed its willingness to sacrifice the interests of regional allies for its own agenda, a precedent that did not go unnoticed in Riyadh. Today, amid a direct military conflict between the US and Iran (and despite the fragile ceasefire which may be broken at any moment) the situation has become even more tense. Since February 28, American strikes on Iran have failed to yield substantial results, and if US President Donald Trump is unable to subdue Tehran, Iran may emerge from this crisis significantly strengthened, acquiring the status of an undefeated regional power. This means Riyadh would face a formidable neighbor with a stronger-than-ever geopolitical standing. This scenario compels Saudi Arabia to treat its partnership with Pakistan seriously. While Washington wages war, Riyadh seeks to ensure its own security.

Both sides want to make it clear to the entire region that the primary function of the SMDA is not so much to create a mechanism for an automatic military response as to establish a reliable deterrence signal: any escalation against Riyadh will have repercussions extending beyond bilateral Saudi-Pakistani relations. In this regard, the agreement serves a stabilizing role rather than a destabilizing one – at least, that’s how both signatory nations view it.

From Islamabad and Riyadh’s perspective, the SMDA is strictly a defensive agreement forged by two sovereign states in full compliance with international law. Additionally, the agreement fits into the broader logic of a multipolar world order: two non-Western regional powers are constructing their own security architecture outside traditional Western alliances, without seeking permission or approval from either Washington or Brussels.

Essentially, the SMDA legally formalizes a defense partnership that has been in effect for over 60 years. Pakistani military personnel have been present on Saudi territory since 1967, securing Saudi Arabia’s borders, and tens of thousands of Saudi troops have been trained in Pakistani training centers. In other words, the operational and institutional infrastructure for cooperation was established long before September 2025. The agreement merely provides the necessary legal foundation and gives it a public dimension. Both parties consistently emphasize that the agreement is the result of many years of dialogue, is not directed against any specific state, and is not a response to any single event. This means it aligns with the logic of long-term strategic planning rather than reactive measures.

This raises an important question: how likely is the full activation of SMDA provisions in case of attacks on Saudi Arabia? In March, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar publicly reminded Tehran of the agreement. However, there’s a significant gap between demonstrative signals and actual military involvement. The key issue is that from a factual and legal standpoint, the US, not Iran, is the aggressor in this conflict; Tehran is only responding to American strikes. If the roles were reversed, and Iran had suddenly initiated attacks on Saudi territory, the legal and political grounds for invoking the SMDA would be clear and indisputable. However, in the current context, declaring war on Iran would be equal to joining the US-Israeli military alliance, which would contradict Islamabad’s stated neutrality and its positioning as an independent player in the Islamic world.

Despite the seriousness of the situation, currently the threat is not so high as to necessitate Pakistan’s direct military intervention. Saudi Arabia’s defensive capabilities are effective: its missile defense systems are operational, and Riyadh has not made an official request for the deployment of Pakistani forces for combat purposes. Also, we must remember that following the events of May 2025, Pakistan’s armed forces remain in a state of full readiness at the eastern border, and it cannot use these troops in external conflicts. Thus, in the present circumstances, the SMDA continues to serve its primary function of deterrence. 

It would be a mistake to interpret Pakistan’s military presence in Saudi Arabia and its public reminders about the SMDA as signs of Islamabad’s readiness for a direct armed confrontation with Iran. Pakistan seeks to avoid direct engagement and it seems that Saudi Arabia does not expect it either. Both sides have a clear understanding of the limits of their alliance and harbor no illusions that Pakistani forces would engage in a war against Tehran.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that Pakistan currently serves as the only viable channel for mediation between Iran and the United States. In the context of the ongoing US-Iran military conflict, Islamabad maintains working relationships with both parties, making any direct involvement in a conflict against Tehran not just undesirable but strategically counterproductive. A mediator engaged in a war ceases to be a mediator.

Finally, this complex scenario is part of a broader calculation by Islamabad. Pakistan is strategically leveraging the current crisis to enhance its regional influence in the Middle East, demonstrating a willingness to act without actually committing to military action. This policy of ‘presence without involvement’ allows Pakistan to assert its interests while maintaining maneuverability. Ultimately, it is this stance, rather than military engagement, that secures Pakistan’s status as a player recognized by all sides of the conflict– a position that clearly elevates Islamabad’s geopolitical standing. 

US diplomats have been warned against using confidential government information to place wagers tied to the Iran talks, the Wall Street Journal has reported. The warning comes amid growing scrutiny over suspiciously timed bets and trades linked to the war in the Middle East. 

The US State Department has issued a memorandum reminding employees worldwide that using undisclosed official information for financial gain is a “very serious offense” that “will not be tolerated,” the WSJ wrote on Thursday. The directive reportedly referenced online prediction platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, where users can speculate on global events. 

According to the report, the memo came a week after the arrest of a US special forces soldier accused of using classified information to profit from wagers tied to the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Prosecutors allege the suspect – who has since pleaded not guilty – earned more than $400,000 through bets placed ahead of a US military raid in January.  

Polymarket has faced mounting scrutiny over the Iran-related wagers, with media outlets reporting that a group of accounts earned more than $1 million through bets predicting the US-Israeli bombardment of Iran. 

The problem of insider trading has also spread to traditional financial markets.  

The Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are also reportedly examining at least four oil trades worth more than $2.6 billion that were placed shortly before market-moving statements by US and Iranian officials.  

The scrutiny over geopolitical wagering has also drawn attention to the Trump family’s links to the industry over potential conflicts of interest. The New York Times reported in January that Donald Trump Jr. had advisory ties to both Polymarket and Kalshi, and had an investment in the former through his venture firm, 1789 Capital. 

The captain assured passengers aboard the hantavirus-stricken cruise ship MV Hondius that the first death on board was due to “natural causes” and that the vessel was safe, according to newly released video footage.

The footage, captured on April 12 – before the hantavirus outbreak was confirmed – shows Captain Jan Dobrogowski informing passengers that one man aboard the ship had died.

“Tragic as it is, it was due to natural causes, we believe,” Dobrogowski said, adding that “whatever health issues he was struggling with, I’m told by the doctor, were not infectious, so the ship is safe when it comes to that.”

The Dutch‑flagged Atlantic cruise ship, carrying some 150 people from 23 countries, departed from Argentina toward Cape Verde on April 1. The first victim, a 70‑year‑old Dutch man, began showing signs of illness on April 6 and passed away on April 11. His 69‑year‑old wife accompanied his body to South Africa, where she later collapsed and died in a Johannesburg hospital on April 26. On May 2, a third passenger – a German woman – also died from the disease and her body is still on board the vessel.

Investigators believe that the elderly Dutch couple likely contracted the rare virus during a bird-watching excursion at a landfill site in Ushuaia, Argentina, before boarding.

The virus has been identified as the Andes strain of hantavirus, a rare pathogen typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings, urine or saliva. Unlike most hantaviruses, the Andes strain is known to be capable of limited human‑to‑human transmission through close contact with an infected person.

Initially denied docking in Cape Verde and the Canary Islands, the MV Hondius has now been permitted to proceed to Tenerife. Once there, unaffected passengers will be transported home, while Spanish nationals will be quarantined.

Moscow sees no point in continuing the trilateral contacts with Ukraine and the US until Kiev makes “one serious step,” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov has said. The senior official was apparently referring to the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the parts of Donbass still under Ukrainian control, a move long demanded by Russia and consistently rejected by Kiev.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Ushakov admitted that the US-mediated contacts with Ukraine have halted to a grind following the latest meeting that was held in Geneva in February. Since then, the “American participants have been preoccupied with a different, more serious problem,” he added, apparently referring to the crisis in the Middle East.

The discussions have effectively boiled down to “one serious step” Kiev must take to greatly advance the settlement process. While Ushakov did not explicitly name said step, he was likely referring to the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from parts of Donbass they still control.

The status of Donbass, which voted to join Russia in 2022, has remained one of the key obstacles to peace negotiations, with Moscow and Kiev maintaining opposing positions on the matter. Russia has repeatedly outlined Ukraine’s full withdrawal from the region as an essential step for reaching a lasting ceasefire and paving the way for further discussions of a sustainable settlement.

The Ukrainian leadership, however, has repeatedly refused to cede any territory and has maintained that recapturing the regions incorporated into Russia remains one of its ultimate goals. In March, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky claimed that Washington had pressed Kiev into accepting Moscow’s terms, allegedly making its offer of security guarantees to Ukraine conditional on it ceding all the contested territory in Donbass to Russia. Washington, however, has dismissed such claims, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio describing Zelensky’s assertions as a “lie.”

“Whites? They are destroyed the world and themselves. To be white means to be nihilist. It is self hatred race. It caused so many troubles to others and to itself. It lost the right to be something. No arguments to support their existence.”

This is what Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin wrote on X on May 5, 2026, triggering a storm of harshly critical replies, many of them crossing the line into verbal abuse, mostly accusing him of racist anti-white hatred and hypocrisy. This reaction betrays an utter lack of understanding of Dugin as a thinker.

Dugin’s critics read him as though he were speaking in the language of modern racial politics, identity engineering, and population arithmetic. Instead, he is speaking in the language of civilization, metaphysics, and historical destiny. When he attacks ‘Whites’, he attacks a spiritual condition shaped by centuries of liberalism, materialism, and desacralization. He points towards a civilization that abandoned memory, faith, hierarchy, rootedness, and historical continuity in exchange for consumption, individual appetite, technological acceleration, and abstraction. His target is the modern West as a mode of existence rather than Europeans as a biological people. He describes a civilizational type that dissolved its own foundations through universalism and endless self-criticism until every inherited structure became an object of suspicion or demolition. The statement reads far less like racial hatred than like a furious condemnation of modernity itself.

Anyone familiar with Dugin’s broader body of work can see this pattern immediately. His entire intellectual project revolves around the rejection of liberal universalism and the defense of distinct civilizations against homogenization. He has long expressed support for the French New Right and for European traditions resisting Western liberal culture. That fact alone destroys the shallow interpretation advanced by his opponents. A man calling for the annihilation of Europeans would hardly spend decades engaging with European philosophers, praising European traditionalist movements, or drawing intellectual inspiration from figures such as Martin Heidegger, Julius Evola, and Alain de Benoist. He has remained remarkably consistent for years in his hostility towards liberal modernity and in his distinction between civilization, ontology, and race in the biological sense. His vocabulary often sounds extreme because he writes as a metaphysician rather than as a conventional political commentator.

This also explains the deeper contradiction inside liberalism itself. Liberalism presents itself as universal, humanitarian, and post-racial, yet in practice it functions as the final global form of Western cultural domination. Liberal modernity universalizes specifically Western historical assumptions and presents them as eternal truths binding upon all peoples and civilizations. Parliamentary democracy, individualism, secularism, market ideology, and the human-rights cult emerge from a particular Western historical experience, yet liberal ideology treats them as mandatory norms for humanity as such. In this sense, liberalism becomes the highest and most expansive form of White supremacism precisely because it aims to dissolve every civilization into a single Western model while claiming moral neutrality. The liberal empire spreads Western ‘values’ and ideas across the planet and calls that process ‘progress’. Dugin’s critique targets this civilizational universalism rather than white people as such. He attacks the missionary impulse of liberal modernity and the spiritual emptiness produced by its global triumph.

This view also carries a profoundly fatalist dimension. The German historical philosopher Oswald Spengler described civilizations as living organisms passing through vigor, hypertrophy, sclerosis, senescence, and eventual death. In his understanding, the Faustian civilization of the West entered its terminal phase long ago. Organic vitality yielded to technocratic rationalization, pecuniary domination, demographic disaster, and spiritual atrophy. Culture calcified into civilization, and civilization ossified into pure mechanism. Dugin inherits much of this morphology. When he speaks about ‘Whites’, he speaks about the cadaveric stage of the contemporary Western order: A civilization consumed by decadence, auto-intoxication, and a historical coma. The West appears less as a living culture than as a gigantic administrative apparatus sustained through inertia, artificial stimulation, and technological prosthesis. From this perspective, its decline appears almost physiological, since the civilization itself lost the animating principle that once coursed through its arteries. Empires ascend, decay, and pass into sepulchral memory. Paradigms perish, and new forms crystallize from the detritus of exhausted epochs. One may therefore hope that whatever succeeds the present Western order may recover form, rootedness, hierarchy, sacred intensity, and civilizational vigor absent from the moribund liberal world now approaching its final convulsion.

Prominent figures within the identitarian sphere understand this perfectly well. Their staged outrage functions primarily as political theater rather than genuine confusion. They defend an abstract idea of whiteness rooted in modern identity politics, racial self-consciousness, and liberal-era categories of collective identity. Dugin attacks the liberal core that produced those categories in the first place. For him, liberal modernity destroys every authentic people by reducing identity to biological labeling detached from spiritual form, historical mission, and traditional order. Identitarians treat race as the center of politics. Dugin treats the Logos of civilizations, primordial existence, and the destiny of peoples as the true center of politics. The two worldviews overlap at moments, yet they emerge from radically different intellectual schools.

The entire controversy reveals how shallow modern political interpretation has become. People trained entirely through social media conflict and ideological tribalism lose the ability to recognize metaphysical or civilizational language. Every statement becomes flattened into the vocabulary of race discourse, internet factionalism, and outrage performance. Philosophical arguments become screenshots. Ontological categories become hashtags. A thinker rooted in Heideggerian language, Orthodox mysticism, and civilizational theory gets interpreted as though he were merely another participant in online racial agitation. The result resembles a complete disintegration of interpretive depth.

No one is required to agree with Dugin’s conclusions. A reader may reject his geopolitical vision or his interpretation of modernity. Yet basic intellectual honesty still requires interpreting a thinker according to the logic he actually uses rather than according to the logic imposed by his enemies. Reading Dugin through the lens of liberal racial discourse guarantees misunderstanding from the very beginning. His language belongs to the realm of civilizational metaphysics, plural modes of Being, and spiritual conflict. Anyone approaching his post on X seriously can recognize that reality almost immediately.

“A new world order must be built to ensure economic justice and equal political security for all nations. An end to the arms race is an essential prerequisite for the establishment of such an order.”

This year marks the 40th anniversary of those words from the Soviet-Indian Delhi Declaration, signed in 1986 during Mikhail Gorbachev’s visit to India and his talks with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. It was one of the first major documents of the late Cold War era to openly speak of the need for a ‘new world order’.

At the time, the Soviet leadership believed this order would emerge through what it called ‘new political thinking’. The idea was that former adversaries would abandon confrontation and combine the best elements of their respective systems to create a more stable and equitable international framework. It was an ambitious vision: A joint effort to rebuild global politics from the ruins of ideological rivalry. But history, however, had other plans.

The Soviet Union soon disappeared into a vortex of internal crises before vanishing altogether from the world stage. The phrase ‘new world order’ survived, but it was quickly repurposed by the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In Washington’s interpretation, the concept no longer meant a shared international architecture. It came to mean a liberal order dominated politically and militarily by the US and its allies.

In reality, this wasn’t an entirely new order at all. It was an extension of the post-1945 system, only now without the counterweight of the Soviet Union.

Since then, the pace of disintegration has accelerated dramatically.

As humanity moves deeper into the second quarter of the 21st century, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that the previous world order has effectively ceased to exist. Whatever doubts may have lingered vanished during the opening months of 2026.

What matters isn’t simply that the strongest states increasingly ignore laws and conventions that once appeared firmly established, more significant is the style in which politics is now conducted. Decisions are impulsive and often openly contradictory as governments act first and improvise later. Statements made today may directly contradict those made yesterday, yet this no longer seems to matter.

This atmosphere shouldn’t necessarily be mistaken for collective irrationality. Rather, many political actors appear convinced that the old restraints have collapsed and that the current moment represents a historic opportunity. The instinct is simple: Seize as much advantage as possible before the landscape hardens again.

The redistribution of the world has already begun. Political influence, transport corridors, resources, financial flows, technological ecosystems, and even cultural and religious spheres are all being contested simultaneously. Every major power is now defining its ambitions and testing the methods by which those ambitions might be achieved.

The real uncertainty lies elsewhere because the previous era left behind an assumption that periods of chaos are eventually followed by the emergence of a new equilibrium. After disorder comes structure and after confrontation comes a new framework. But there’s no guarantee this time.

The international system today isn’t an empty construction site waiting for a new design. After major world wars, old structures are often swept away on a vast scale, creating space for something new to emerge, and that’s not the case now.

Instead, the world remains cluttered with institutions and habits inherited from previous eras. Many are discredited or dysfunctional, but they still exist. And even those states that attack these institutions most aggressively continue to use them whenever convenient.

The United Nations system remains an example. Its authority has diminished, yet governments still appeal to it selectively when doing so serves their interests. Likewise, the structures created during the period of liberal globalization have proven more resilient than many expected.

This resilience appears to frustrate some of the very powers trying to reshape the system.

The creation of a genuinely new international framework will therefore be an exceptionally painful process. The available raw material consists of fragments from different historical periods, ideological systems, and institutional models. Somehow these incompatible components must be assembled into something functional.

Some states are attempting this carefully, selecting elements that might fit together into a relatively coherent structure. Others are behaving more crudely, trying to hammer incompatible pieces into place through pressure or intimidation. The danger is obvious: Excessive force may not produce stability at all, but only further fragmentation.

Yet perhaps the defining feature of the present moment is that nobody possesses a real blueprint for what comes next. During earlier periods of transition, however flawed the visions may have been, leaders at least believed they understood the destination.

However, today there is no such clarity and the latest struggle to construct a new world order comes without universal principles or even a broadly accepted idea of what success would look like. The old rules are fading, but no agreed replacements have emerged.

For now, the message confronting every major power is brutally simple: Do it yourself, and then try to live with the consequences.

The steep rise in jet fuel prices caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran is posing a bigger challenge to the global airline industry than the Covid-19 pandemic did, according to AirAsia CEO Tony Fernandes.

In response to the US-Israeli aggression, Tehran has closed the Strait of Hormuz – a choke point through which around 20% of global crude passes – to “enemy ships.” US President Donald Trump has meanwhile imposed a blockade on Iranian ports. Massive maritime traffic disruptions have sent global oil prices above $100 a barrel, resulting in a spike in jet fuel prices as well.

In an interview with the Financial Times on Thursday, Fernandes said he thought he had “seen it all with Covid… but having seen jet fuel go up almost three times – this is much worse.”

“You wake up one day and your major cost has tripled – it was quite a new experience for me and I’ve been through a lot in my life,” the AirAsia CEO added.

Last week, Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary similarly predicted that “if it continues at $150 a barrel into July, August, September, then you’ll see European airlines fail.”

According to the aviation analytics company Cirium, carriers have cut 13,000 flights from May schedules worldwide.

Turkish Airlines and Air China have taken similar steps, among numerous other carriers.

Last Saturday, US-based low-cost carrier Spirit Airlines said it was shutting down due to the sudden and sustained rise in fuel prices in recent weeks. The closure of the seventh-largest passenger carrier in North America is expected to leave around 17,000 people without work.

Kirill Dmitriev, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy for investment and economic cooperation, said on X that the “global aviation shock is spreading quickly and is a HARBINGER of the more severe shocks to come in other sectors.”

The remains of 80 Soviet soldiers that were discovered during construction work have been reburied in Potsdam, German. The troops took part in the liberation of the city from Nazi forces in 1945, the Russian Embassy in Berlin has told Zvezda TV.

The ceremony took place at a Potsdam Soviet military cemetery on Thursday and was attended by Russian diplomats and local officials.

Graves containing the remains were uncovered last year during redevelopment work at a former barracks site that the German authorities have been converting into a residential district. Embassy staff later studied archival records and identified 76 of the 80 soldiers, sergeants, and officers.

Earlier, Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechaev said there are more than 4,000 memorials to Soviet soldiers across the country, and they are being well maintained.

Hundreds of Ukrainian drones were intercepted over multiple Russian regions after the two-day ceasefire announced by Moscow ahead of Victory Day celebrations, and during them, began.

In total, from midnight to 7 am Moscow time, Russian air defense systems intercepted and destroyed 264 Ukrainian fixed-wing UAVs over 16 regions, including Belgorod, Bryansk, Voronezh, Kaluga, Kursk, Lipetsk, Rostov, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tula, Ulyanovsk, Yaroslavl, Krasnodar, Tatarstan, and Crimea, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

At least 26 hostile UAVs were downed en route to the Russian capital, with no damage or casualties reported, according to Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin.

The Russian Defense Ministry reiterated its warnings on Thursday evening that any attempt by Ukraine to disrupt the celebrations in Moscow would result in a large-scale retaliatory strike on central Kiev.

During the period of May 8-9, Russian forces will cease all operations on the front line, as well as halt long-range strikes against Ukrainian territory, the ministry said in a statement on Thursday, urging Ukraine to follow suit. Any attempts to violate the truce on the ground or conduct strikes beyond the front line will be met with an “adequate response,” the ministry warned.

“We once again urge the civilian population of Kiev and employees of foreign diplomatic missions to leave the city in a timely manner,” it added.

Kiev has so far shown no intention of abiding by the Moscow-proposed truce. Vladimir Zelensky initially branded the two-day ceasefire “unfair” when it was first announced earlier this week, and claimed that “no one officially suggested anything” to Kiev. Shortly thereafter, however, he announced a truce of his own starting at midnight on the night of May 5-6, yet Moscow did not respond publicly to the proposal.

While media reports indicated that fighting and long-range strikes on both sides had somewhat subsided following the announcement, the Ukrainian leadership has complained about continued attacks.

On Thursday, Zelensky accused Russia of “not seriously considering the possibility of a ceasefire.” Shortly after the Russian Defense Ministry’s announcement, he appeared to issue a thinly veiled threat to Moscow, stating that he would not “recommend” that foreign dignitaries show up at the parade.

A massive crude oil bet placed shortly before reports of a possible US-Iran peace deal sent prices crashing and fueled suspicion of insider trading, after the position reportedly generated a $125 million profit in just over an hour.

According to market commentary platform the Kobeissi Letter, nearly 10,000 crude oil short contracts were placed around 3:40 AM (07:40 GMT) on Wednesday “without any major news,” describing the roughly $920 million position as unusually large for that time of day.

At 4:50 AM, Axios reported that Washington and Tehran were nearing an agreement to end the conflict and resume negotiations. Oil prices plunged more than 12% within two hours of the report, turning the short position into an estimated $125 million profit before the price later rebounded, the platform said.

During the US-Israeli war against Iran, prediction and traditional financial markets were flooded with suspiciously well-timed bets linked to airstrikes, ceasefire announcements, and diplomatic developments.

According to The Guardian, traders placed more than $1 billion in seemingly prescient wagers, including an $850,000 bet shortly before US strikes against Iran and around $950 million in oil futures hours before Trump announced a ceasefire in April. AP reported that the ceasefire announcement alone generated more than 413 million predictions and over $100 million in wagers across prediction markets within days.

News outlets, citing market data, later reported that around 15 minutes before the abrupt announcement of a policy shift, futures markets saw a surge in trading activity. More than $760 million worth of oil futures contracts reportedly changed hands in under two minutes. Several reports also said three Polymarket accounts collectively earned over $600,000 after correctly anticipating the timing of the ceasefire with Iran.

The Indian Sports Ministry has fromalized policy for cricketing events with Pakistan, a year after New Delhi imposed curbs on sporting activity with its neighbor following the military standoff between the two countries.

According to the policy published on Tuesday, Pakistani players and teams will be allowed to participate in multilateral events hosted by India. However, the ban on bilateral sporting events will remain in force.

”With regard to international and multilateral events, in India or abroad, we are guided by the ⁠practices of international sports bodies and the interest of our own sportspersons,” the Sports Ministry said.

It added that the visa process for athletes, officials, and representatives of international sports federations from the neighboring country would be simplified.

“In so far as bilateral sports events in each other’s country are concerned, Indian teams will not be ⁠participating in competitions in Pakistan. Nor will we permit Pakistani teams to play in India,” the ministry added.

Cricket, the most popular sport in both India and Pakistan, has long been a victim of political tensions between the two countries. The hostility deepened after the four‑day standoff in May 2025 – one of the most serious military confrontations between the nuclear‑armed neighbors in recent years.

Pakistani players are not taking part in the lucrative Indian Premier League, although it is not clear if this scenario will also change.

India is slated to host the Commonwealth Games in 2030, and it has also bid for the 2036 Olympics and the 2038 Asian Games ⁠in Ahmedabad.

Russia’s elite Presidential Regiment marks its 90th anniversary on Thursday. The unit, headquartered inside the Kremlin, secures the compound and protects senior Russian state officials.

The regiment includes the Cavalry Escort, which performs mounted ceremonial displays, and the Special Guard Company, which carries out honor guard duties.

The mounted ceremony is traditionally held on Kremlin's Cathedral Square once a week and features synchronized maneuvers by riders of the Regiment’s Cavalry Escort. Considered one of Moscow’s top military spectacles, the event regularly attracts tourists and visitors from Russia and abroad. The video below shows a rehearsal.

Horses for the Presidential Regiment are selected exclusively from Russian stud farms. The Cavalry Escort primarily uses Trakehner, Hanoverian, and Russian breeds. Twelve riders take part in the core mounted routine, while 14 participate in the full ceremonial performance.

The next footage shows the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Alexander Garden near the Kremlin wall.

The ceremony is carried out daily by the Presidential Regiment’s Special Guard Company, which maintains an honor guard at the Eternal Flame. It is also one of Moscow’s most popular tourist attractions, but unlike the mounted drills, the changing of the guard is an active ceremonial duty.

The regiment was established in April 1936, but traditionally marks its birthday on May 7, when it was awarded one of the Soviet Union’s highest military decorations, the Order of the Red Banner, in 1965. Three battalions of the regiment took part in the 1945 Victory Parade on Red Square following the defeat of Nazi Germany.

South Africa is a welcoming country and attempts to brand it xenophobic over ongoing protests targeting foreign nationals amount to a “lazy analysis” of tensions linked to crime and illegal immigration, Pretoria has said.

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesman, Vincent Magwenya, made the remarks on Wednesday amid growing concern from other African governments over anti-immigrant demonstrations and reported attacks on their citizens in South Africa.

“Any characterization of this protest that seeks to portray South Africans as xenophobic is actually lazy sort of analysis of the real issues that are at play here,” Magwenya told reporters.

“What you have are pockets of protest, which is permissible within our constitutional framework,” he said, adding that “the issue of immigration is a pressure point” not only in South Africa, but “throughout the world where protests are held on these issues.”

He said South African police will act against violence targeting foreign nationals.

The comments came after anti-immigrant demonstrations spread across several cities in Africa’s most industrialized economy, a major destination for workers from across the continent. Hundreds marched in Johannesburg last week demanding tougher immigration controls, while many shops closed over fears of looting and attacks.

Ghanaian Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa also held talks with his South African counterpart, Ronald Lamola, after videos circulated showing alleged attacks on Ghanaians. Zimbabwe and Malawi have issued safety advisories to their nationals.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has expressed “grave concern” over reports of xenophobic violence and intimidation against nationals of other countries in South Africa.

Ramaphosa warned during his Freedom Day address on April 27 that public concern over illegal immigration should not become hatred toward foreign nationals. He said South Africa must enforce its laws but should not allow prejudice against “fellow Africans.”

On Wednesday, Ramaphosa’s spokesman said the president and his Mozambican counterpart, Daniel Chapo, agreed during talks that African governments must work together to address “the issues that are behind these levels of migration.”

Saudi Arabia reportedly refused to allow the US military to use its airspace and a key airbase for President Donald Trump’s ‘Project Freedom’ in the Strait of Hormuz, forcing the operation to be paused, NBC News claims, citing US officials.

The kingdom is said to have pulled support after Trump announced the operation on Sunday, stating that Western-flagged ships would be provided with US military escorts through the strait. Reportedly, however, neither Saudi Arabia nor any other Gulf states were informed of the plan ahead of time.

In response, Saudi Arabia informed Washington that US aircraft would not be permitted to operate from Prince Sultan Airbase southeast of Riyadh or fly through Saudi airspace in support of the mission.

According to two US officials who spoke with NBC, a phone call between Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman failed to resolve the issue, forcing the president to pause Project Freedom just two days after it was announced in order to restore critical US military access to the region’s airspace.

The move appeared to have caught even Trump’s own officials off guard. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said just hours before the announcement that operation ‘Epic Fury’, the original operation, was over and that Project Freedom was now the primary focus. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had also been touting the initiative, claiming that hundreds of ships were lining up to pass through the strait.

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, mocked Trump online, saying, “Operation Trust Me Bro failed” and that the US is back to spreading falsehoods about ongoing talks.

Ukraine has dramatically stepped up drone strikes on Russia’s Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and the city of Energodar, Aleksey Likhachev, the head of the state-owned Rosatom operator, has said.

In a statement released on Thursday, Likhachev described three consecutive days of intense Ukrainian strikes on civilian infrastructure in Energodar, a town mere kilometers away from the frontline. The Ukrainian attacks targeted a gas distribution station and residential buildings, with over 20 explosions recorded in a single day, he said, adding that five vehicles were set ablaze and a fire truck was seriously damaged.

Other strikes hit the city administration building, with one of the drones crashing into the entry of a bomb shelter, though without casualties, Likhachev said.

On top of that, another drone struck the NPP’s external radiation control laboratory on Saturday, with no casualties reported, Likhachev said, adding that a local power substation has been targeted almost daily, making repair work impossible.

Energodar itself experienced a full blackout between April 30 and May 3 due to damage to electrical infrastructure, with hospitals and utilities running on emergency diesel generators, the Rosatom chief said.

“Choosing a nuclear power plant as a target is the most irresponsible step on the part of the Ukrainian authorities… Any strike on any building, any piece of equipment is a blow to the nuclear safety of the NPP… Not understanding this is the height of cynicism and recklessness.”

Russia took control of the Zaporozhye NPP, Europe's largest nuclear facility, in March 2022, shortly after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. All six reactors have been in shutdown since September 2022.

The escalation comes as Moscow announced a Victory Day ceasefire for May 8–9. Vladimir Zelensky, in response, declared a truce beginning midnight on May 5-6, but said that Ukraine would “act reciprocally” to Russia’s actions. Moscow has not acknowledged the offer, warning that any Ukrainian attempt to disrupt the Victory Day celebrations would trigger a “massive missile strike” on Kiev, urging foreign diplomats and civilians to leave the city.

There is something deeply unsettling in the tone of the EU’s current strategic debate. What is presented as prudence increasingly resembles panic. What is framed as ‘strategic autonomy’ often sounds like something else entirely: A loss of confidence, a surge of ideological hostility, and a willingness – among declining liberal elites – to flirt with the most destructive weapons ever created.

A continent losing its nerve – and its judgment

At the center of this shift stands a revived obsession with nuclear deterrence. France, Germany, and Poland are now openly discussing deeper engagement with nuclear strategy, invoking the usual talking points of deterrence and security. But beneath that lies a far more troubling dynamic: A growing fixation on Russia as an existential enemy and a readiness to escalate rather than de-escalate.

French President Emmanuel Macron has taken the lead, recasting France’s nuclear doctrine in the name of European security. His concept of ‘advanced deterrence’ is presented as a stabilizing innovation. In reality, it marks a dangerous step toward normalizing nuclear thinking across the continent.

Macron has framed the issue starkly, warning that Europe must be prepared to defend itself in a more uncertain world. He has spoken of opening a “strategic debate” on extending France’s nuclear protection to European partners – moving beyond the traditional Gaullist posture of strictly national deterrence.

But what is being normalized here is not merely cooperation – it is the political integration of nuclear weapons into EU identity. France is expanding its arsenal, ending long-standing transparency practices, and inviting other states into nuclear exercises and planning discussions. These steps may not violate treaties in a formal sense, but they erode the spirit of restraint that has underpinned European security for decades.

The message is as clear as it is dangerous: Nuclear weapons are once again acceptable instruments of policy.

Even more striking is Germany’s shift. For generations, Berlin defined itself through restraint, shaped by the catastrophic legacy of the 20th century. Today, that restraint is visibly eroding.

German leaders now speak openly about the need to engage in nuclear deterrence discussions with France and other partners. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has indicated a willingness to explore new forms of cooperation, breaking with the cautious approach of his predecessors. German forces are preparing to take part in French nuclear exercises, and a joint ‘nuclear steering group’ has been established to align strategic coordination.

Officially, Germany remains within its legal commitments. It does not seek control over nuclear weapons. But politically, a threshold has been crossed. The normalization of nuclear discourse in Berlin signals a deeper transformation, driven less by careful strategy than by fear and pressure.

That fear is increasingly shaped by a hardened, ideological view of Russia that leaves little room for diplomacy or nuance.

The politics of fear

If France provides the doctrine and Germany the institutional weight, Poland supplies the emotional intensity. Polish leaders have been among the most vocal in calling for a stronger nuclear dimension to European security.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk has declared that Poland seeks a future in which it is autonomous in nuclear deterrence. This is a remarkable statement from a non-nuclear state bound by international agreements. It reflects a profound sense of insecurity – but also a political environment in which escalation is becoming normalized.

At the same time, even within Poland there are voices of caution. Officials have acknowledged that European arrangements cannot replace the US nuclear umbrella and have warned against overestimating the effectiveness of new initiatives. Yet these warnings are increasingly drowned out by a louder narrative: That Russia represents an imminent and existential threat requiring extraordinary measures. This narrative, repeated across much of Europe, risks becoming self-fulfilling.

This mindset is now shaping strategic policy. Deterrence is no longer paired with diplomacy; it is replacing it. Military build-ups are not accompanied by serious efforts at dialogue; they are justified as ends in themselves.

This is obviously a dangerous trajectory. When an adversary is seen as inherently hostile and beyond engagement, escalation becomes the default response. Nuclear deterrence, in this context, is a tool of confrontation. Liberals push Europe toward a far more rigid and dangerous posture.

Delusions of autonomy

The idea of strategic autonomy deserves careful consideration. A more self-reliant EU could, in principle, contribute to global stability. But what is being pursued today is autonomy defined almost entirely in military and nuclear terms.

This is a distortion of the concept. True autonomy would involve the ability to pursue independent diplomacy, to mediate conflicts, and to reduce tensions. Instead, Europe’s current trajectory binds it more tightly to confrontation.

In this sense, the pursuit of nuclear deterrence is a sign of strategic confusion. It reflects a failure to imagine alternatives to escalation.

The implications extend far beyond Europe. The gradual normalization of nuclear discourse among non-nuclear states risks weakening the global non-proliferation regime. Other regions may follow Europe’s example, reinterpreting their own commitments and exploring new deterrence arrangements. The result could be a more fragmented and unstable international order.

The EU’s actions also risk complicating efforts to stabilize relations between major powers. Any attempt at rapprochement between Russia and the US becomes more difficult in an environment where European actors are actively escalating rhetoric and military postures. Instead of serving as a bridge, Europe is becoming an obstacle.

The broader militarization of Europe follows the same pattern. Increased defense spending and rearmament are justified as necessary responses to a changing security environment. In principle, this is not unreasonable.

But in practice, militarization is being driven by a political climate that rewards alarmism and discourages restraint. And without a parallel commitment to de-escalation, military build-ups can easily spiral into confrontation.

What is unfolding in the EU today is a dangerous flirtation – by political elites under pressure, facing declining influence and legitimacy, and seeking to reassert control through displays of strength. Nuclear weapons, in this context, are symbols of resolve, power, and serious intent. But they also carry risks that cannot be controlled or reversed.

Stepping back from the brink

The EU does face real challenges and existential problems. The international environment is more uncertain, and the future of transatlantic relations is not guaranteed. But the answer to uncertainty cannot be a headlong rush into nuclear brinkmanship.

A different path remains possible – one that emphasizes diplomacy, restraint, and a genuine commitment to reducing tensions. This would require political courage of a different kind: The courage to resist fear, to question prevailing narratives, and to engage with perceived adversaries rather than simply confronting them.

Whether Europe’s leaders are willing to take that path remains an open question. For now, the signs are troubling.

India has vowed to keep up its fight against terrorism, a year after a tense military stand-off with Pakistan.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday hailed the “unparalleled courage, precision, and resolve” of the armed forces in Operation Sindoor.

The three-day military operation was launched on May 7 in response to a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, in India’s Jammu and Kashmir union territory, that killed 26 civilians on April 22. New Delhi said it targeted military facilities and terrorist bases in Pakistan. 

Islamabad has denied having any involvement in the Pahalgam attack.

“They [armed forces] gave a fitting response to those who dared to attack innocent Indians at Pahalgam,” Modi said in a post on X. “Today, a year later, we remain as steadfast as ever in our resolve to defeat terrorism and destroy its enabling ecosystem.”

Modi also stressed the importance of India’s quest for self-reliance through the ‘Make In India’ program in the defense sector.

A year ago, our armed forces displayed unparalleled courage, precision and resolve during #OperationSindoor. They gave a fitting response to those who dared to attack innocent Indians at Pahalgam. The entire nation salutes our forces for their valour.

Operation Sindoor reflected…

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) May 7, 2026

Interior Minister Amit Shah lauded the operation as “an epochal mission of India.” 

The Pakistani leadership also commented on the anniversary of the military escalation with India, which Islamabad refers to as Marka-i-Haq (battle of truth).

Pakistan reinforced its position on bilateral and global platforms, he said, citing its “lawful and restrained response.”

The two nuclear-armed nations reached a ceasefire on May 10. Shortly before New Delhi and Islamabad officially announced the truce, US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the two nations had agreed to immediately cease the hostilities “after a long night of talks mediated by the United States.”

Trump and other US officials repeated the claim on a number of occasions, though New Delhi has dismissed it, maintaining that the ceasefire “was agreed between the military commanders of both sides through direct contact.”

Both India and Pakistan embarked on a diplomatic outreach to the global community after the military standoff.

A bank employee hung up on Pope Leo XIV after the pontiff tried to change his address over the phone, according to an anecdote shared by a longtime friend of the Vatican leader and reported by the New York Times.

The Chicago-born Leo became the first American elected Pope when he was chosen to lead the Catholic Church in 2025.

Two months into the role, Leo, formerly known as Robert Francis Prevost, called his bank to update the phone number and address on his account after moving to the Vatican, Tom McCarthy said at a Catholic gathering in Illinois last week.

McCarthy, who has known the Pope for more than four decades, said Leo correctly answered the bank employee’s security questions but was told he would still need to visit a branch in person to make the changes.

“Well, I’m not going to be able to do that,” McCarthy recalled the Pope saying. “I gave you all the security questions.”

“Would it matter to you if I told you I’m Pope Leo?” he asked, according to McCarthy.

The employee hung up, apparently believing the call was a prank.

The Pope’s brother, John Prevost, confirmed the account to CNN on Wednesday, saying Leo had answered “four or five” security questions before the teller ended the call.

“She said, ‘Oh really?’ and hung up,” Prevost told CNN, adding that the employee “just thought it was a prank.”

McCarthy said the issue was eventually resolved after another priest, the Reverend Bernie Scianna, contacted the bank president and threatened to move the Pope’s account elsewhere. The New York Times reported that one of the Pope’s provincials later visited the branch in person to finalize the changes.

Efforts by the German authorities to ban the display of Soviet flags or St. George ribbons during celebrations of the defeat of Nazism are blatant discrimination against Russia, former European Parliament Member Gunnar Beck has told RT.

A member of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, Beck noted that Berlin has made no announcements banning representatives or citizens of other victorious World War II countries from displaying their own flags or national symbols during the Victory Day celebrations.

“There is absolutely no basis for such discrimination against Russia. It ignores the fact that Russia suffered by far the most casualties in its war against Germany and made the greatest single contribution to the defeat of Nazism,” Beck said, stressing that it is impossible to justify Berlin’s attempts to ignore the Soviet or Russian dimension of the WWII victory over Nazism.

“It’s indisputable. It’s obvious to any historian. The German government is obviously politicizing the issue,” the AfD politician argued.

Russia has repeatedly condemned recent efforts across Europe to ban the display of Soviet symbols during Victory Day celebrations and has accused the West of historical revanchism and trying to erase the memory of WWII and rewrite the USSR’s victory over Nazi ideology.

Moscow has also consistently sounded the alarm about the resurgence of Nazi ideology in Europe, pointing to numerous torchlit marches in Baltic states openly honoring Waffen SS veterans and Ukraine’s state-level celebrations of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose Ukrainian Insurgent Army killed tens of thousands of Jews and Poles during WWII.

A multinational search operation continues in Morocco after two US Army soldiers disappeared near the Atlantic coast during the African Lion military exercise. 

The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) reported on Wednesday that US Moroccan and partner forces launched a rescue mission using ground air and maritime resources.  

More than 600 military personnel are searching for missing US soldiers near the Cap Draa training area outside the city of Tan-Tan in southwestern Morocco, according to several news agencies. 

The soldiers disappeared late last week during the African Lion 2026 exercise which is led by the US Africa Command and Morocco. The soldiers were believed to have been on a recreational hike after the day’s exercises ended.  

“They were not actively taking part in any training. The day’s exercises had concluded, and, from our understanding, they were out on a recreational hike,” the official said. “Our two soldiers and their families remain our absolute priority.”  

According to the Washington Post, the missing soldiers were last seen near sea cliffs close to the Atlantic Ocean. A US Defense Department official told the newspaper the incident was “not terrorism-related.”  

One of the soldiers entered the water around 9 pm local time and was unable to swim, CBS News reported. Other members of the group reportedly tried to rescue the soldier but the effort failed. The second soldier then jumped into the water to help but was struck by a wave. 

The 2026 iteration runs from April 27 to May 8, across four countries: Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, and Ghana. In Morocco, approximately 5,000 personnel from over 40 countries and more than 30 US-based industry partners are participating, according to AFRICOM. 

Ukraine’s most popular format for political content recently seems to be reading aloud invective-laden transcripts of Vladimir Zelensky’s closest political allies scheming about stealing in Russian. The ‘Mindich tapes’ could have serious ramifications for the government, as they purport to implicate Zelensky in unabashed corruption.

The root of the escalating graft scandal lies in an investigation that Western-backed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies conducted into Timur Mindich – a business associate of Zelensky, known as his ‘bagman’ or ‘wallet’ in Kiev – who is now a fugitive and is fighting an extradition request from his hideout in Israel.

Investigators from the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) wiretapped Mindich’s luxury apartment in Kiev – reportedly between April and July 2025, when Zelensky tried to take control of the agency and triggered a wave of mass protest and rebukes from his Western backers.

Since mid-April, the Ukrainian public has been showered with what are purportedly parts of the records, though none have been officially released by the authorities.

Are the Mindich tapes authentic and who released them?

Ukrainian political commentators broadly assume that they are. Zelensky’s office has not claimed that they are fabricated, and there are notable intersections between releases by different sources.

The ongoing wave of publications was launched on April 23 by former SAPO prosecutor Stanislav Bronevitsky. Ukrainskaya Pravda journalist Mikhail Tkach was behind a major disclosure on April 28 – which RT reviewed in detail previously – with another installment coming on May 1. Opposition lawmakers Yaroslav Zheleznyak and Aleksey Goncharenko have produced multiple Mindich tape videos – the latter reading them to an empty parliament chamber.

Why are the Mindich tapes being leaked? 

The motives behind the disclosures remain unclear. Did the investigators leak them to overcome pressure that Zelensky reportedly subjects them to behind closed doors? Did Mindich and other suspects shoot a proverbial cannon across the bow as a warning to Zelensky that they won’t sink alone?

There are some caveats, however. People in the transcript talk informally and omit context. For instance, they refer to acquaintances by their personal names or nicknames. ‘Vova’, often mentioned in the tapes, is believed to be Zelensky himself. Consequently, identification of mentioned individuals falls on the media.

What’s the bottom line?

The transcripts suggest that Zelensky’s inner circle sees indefinite war as a corporate opportunity and exerts improper influence over the government to maximize their profits, counting on their patron to protect them.

What are the most scandalous claims?

Arguably the most salacious of the latest leaks involves Mindich and Zelensky’s then-defense minister – presently the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council – Rustem Umerov discussing what they believe to be US President Donald Trump’s relations with glamorous women, while debating potential candidates to be Ukrainian ambassador in the US.

“You know who would be great? Svetka. Trump would go crazy about her,” Umerov said. He and Mindich agreed that the “curly” bombshell would make “everyone there chase her.”

This is apparently a reference to former Energy Minister Svetlana Grinchuk, appointed by her disgraced predecessor and alleged romantic partner, German Galushchenko, who like him, was forced to resign after Mindich was charged with siphoning off $100 million from state energy producer Energoatom. Grinchuk was also deputy energy minister under Galushchenko.

Mindich and Umerov debated the pros and cons of several officials who could represent Kiev’s interests in Washington, DC but agreed that Grinchuk had the best chances to get regular face time with “the old man.”

What were Mindich and Umerov plotting? 

Mindich and his group were apparently seeking political and financial leverage. For instance, they wanted their man overseeing the nationalized Sense Bank, a potential source of business credit.

Umerov, who was facing resignation at the time of the recording, was highly interested in receiving a special diplomatic appointment that would allow him free travel abroad. He was eyeing privileges similar to those enjoyed by ‘Vitya’ – apparently Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff.

Freedom to fly to the US and back would help Umerov – whose family lives in Miami – protect Mindich’s interests, he told the businessman. 

Apparently, Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, sabotaged a planned appointment of Evgeny Korniychuk as ambassador to Germany over suspicions that the career diplomat served as an anonymous source for a Politico article in which he was criticized.

Is Mindich a power broker or a businessman?

Both. Many of the conversations were about the arms industry and Zelensky’s often-touted ‘miracle arms maker’ Fire Point, which the leaked records prove Mindich ran, with Umerov steering defense contacts his way.

One person called by his full name in the tapes is a major figure in the US – Google executive Eric Schmidt, known to be tight with the Pentagon and an influential voice on national security policy, including the arming of Ukraine.

Umerov pitched the US billionaire to Mindich as a possible business partner to whom a majority stake in Fire Point could be offered. Schmidt, according to Umerov, has the connections that Fire Point would require to access the lucrative American weapons market and “enter [Silicon] Valley.”

Do the tapes prove criminality?

Not obviously, but something shady was implied in the discussion of what Mindich and Umerov called Project 23. It may be a weapons manufacturing offshoot. Umerov reminded Mindich that somebody had given instructions not to get German arms giant Rheinmetall involved.

The two then discussed discrete funding options for “23” and how the same unnamed person may not agree to the proposal because he is skittish with his significant sums in cash.

“He gets money from everywhere. Three from here and five from there. And he has no expenses,” Mindich explained. “He pays what to his driver – $300?”

Umerov gleefully continued: “From the state budget.”

MP Zheleznyak, who highlighted this exchange, has argued that Project 23 is what the Mindich group called their ‘obshchak’.

The criminal slang term refers to a money pot that all members of a gang are obliged to donate to and which is tapped for their common interests or in case of an emergency. Safekeeping the funds is obviously a role of high responsibility and high risk for any criminal organization.

Some media outlets nicknamed Mindich ‘Zelensky’s wallet’ for allegedly playing that role.

A Ukrainian kamikaze drone was likely responsible for damage to empty fuel storage tanks in Latvia, but Kiev should not be blamed for such incidents, Latvian Defense Minister Andris Spruds has argued. Finland earlier rebuked Kiev for breaches of its airspace.

Several NATO countries bordering Russia have recently reported cases of Ukrainian unmanned aircraft entering their airspace and crashing instead of striking targets inside Russia. Latvian officials said two drones – which the Russian military identified as Ukraine’s Lyuty-type fixed-wing aircraft – crossed into the country overnight. One remains unaccounted for, while another sparked a fire near the town of Rezekne, roughly 40km from the Russian border.

“Ukraine has every right to defend itself,” Spruds stated. He added that incidents involving foreign aircraft entering Latvian airspace will continue as long as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine remains unresolved, blaming Moscow for it.

Latvijas teritorijā nokrituši 2 droni; izsludināts gaisa telpas apdraudējums Balvu, Ludzas un Rēzeknes novadā.

Plašāk: https://t.co/n2VKskaMxK pic.twitter.com/jlhIcOOwtH

— LTV Ziņu dienests (@ltvzinas) May 7, 2026

The muted reaction is in contrast to remarks by Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, who said earlier in the week that while his nation supports Kiev, he told Vladimir Zelensky during a meeting in Armenia that Finland deems Ukrainian aircraft entering its airspace “unacceptable.”

Rēzeknes novada domes priekšsēdētājs Guntars Skudra (JV) aģentūrai LETA apstiprināja, ka viens no droniem ir nokritis SIA "East-West Transit" Rēzeknes filiāles teritorijā. Drons trāpījis tukšam naftas rezervuāram.

Aculiecinieka video pic.twitter.com/DtwEeQJ7bJ

— LETA Ziņas (@letanewslv) May 7, 2026

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga commented on the scandal on Friday, claiming he had addressed the issue with Riga, as well as previously apologizing to the three Baltic states and Finland. The top diplomat also shifted the blame to Russia and promised to apologize even more profoundly in the future.

“If there is a confirmation that those were Ukrainian drones that were deliberately knocked off course and directed toward Latvia by Russia’s electronic warfare, we will offer our most sincere apologies to our Latvian friends. What can be stated with full confidence is that Ukraine never directed any drones toward Latvia,” Sibiga wrote on X.

Russia accuses NATO of enabling attacks

Russian officials have previously accused NATO members of quietly permitting Ukraine to use their airspace to launch strikes on targets inside Russia, particularly in the northwestern Leningrad Region.

The latest string of reports of Ukrainian drones falling in NATO states started in late March, when Kiev focused attacks on Russian Baltic Sea oil export terminals. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland – nations that lie on a flight path from Ukraine to Leningrad Region that avoids Russian ally Belarus – were all affected.

• March 23. A drone explodes after falling into Lake Lavysas in Lithuania;
• March 25. Drone wreckage found in Latvia’s Kraslava area;
• March 25. A drone hits a chimney of the Auvere Power Plant in Estonia;
• March 29. A drone crashes near the city of Kouvola in Finland;
• April 1. Drone wreckage found in the Rezekne area in Latvia.

Kiev probing Moscow defenses ahead of Victory Day parade

During the latest overnight wave of Ukrainian attacks, Russian air defenses intercepted 347 drones, according to the Defense Ministry. It added that 570 robotic aircraft were downed over the last 24 hours.

Bryansk Region Governor Aleksandr Bogomaz said 13 civilians, including a child, were injured in strikes on the regional capital. Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin also reported a stream of over 30 drones stopped while trying to approach the Russian capital.

Moscow has said it plans to pause offensive military operations on Friday and Saturday, similar to a temporary truce announced during Orthodox Easter in mid-April. Zelensky, however, demanded a longer ceasefire beginning on Wednesday and repeated warnings regarding Victory Day events after Russia ignored the proposal.

Russian officials maintain that previous long ceasefires were used by Kiev to regroup, rearm, and reinforce frontline positions rather than pursue genuine peace negotiations.

Israeli strikes have damaged buildings in Beirut’s southern suburbs and hit a commercial site in southern Lebanon despite a ceasefire, according to two videos shared by Ruptly on Thursday.

One video showed damage in Bourj al-Barajneh in the Beirut area, where what looked like a market was hit, with several nearby buildings reduced to rubble and at least one residential block heavily damaged. It was unclear which buildings were struck in the latest barrage and which had been damaged in earlier Israeli attacks.

“When the first warning arrived, we ran with our clothes,” local resident Hassan Mustafa Harb told Ruptly. “When things calmed down, we returned to our home here and found this massive destruction.”

A second video showed damage on the outskirts of Al-Saksakiyeh in the southern Tyre district, where an attack struck a commercial center. Footage showed smoke rising from debris, wrecked cars, fires still burning, blood stains on the ground, and abandoned belongings.

Eyewitness Youssef Younes said he scrambled for safety when he heard a drone fire a missile. “It was either a warning strike, or the missile did not explode,” he told Ruptly. “Moments later, we came back here to see what had happened, and then the heavy shelling began. Four or five people who were passing along the road were killed.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated he had personally approved a strike on Beirut, which he said targeted a commander in Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force.

His remarks came despite Israel and Lebanon agreeing to a ceasefire as part of a wider US truce with Iran. Israel, however, said it would continue taking “all necessary measures in self-defense” against Hezbollah. Israel also continues to occupy parts of southern Lebanon, with the Jewish state and Hezbollah exchanging accusations of violating the ceasefire’s terms.

Since the escalation in the Middle East in late February, Israeli strikes on Lebanon have killed more than 2,700 people, with thousands more wounded.

China has condemned Eswatini for hosting Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, accusing the southern African kingdom of giving a platform to “Taiwan independence,” in an escalating diplomatic row.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian told reporters on Wednesday that Beijing opposes Eswatini’s decision to receive Lai, who arrived in the kingdom on Saturday for a three-day visit after Taipei said several African states had revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure.

“Some politicians in Eswatini are kept and fed by Taiwan and provide space for ‘Taiwan independence,’ going against the tide of history. China strongly condemns this,” Lin said.

He said the trip shows that “Taiwan independence” separatism is “shady business” and “unacceptable to the international community,” adding that there is “but one China in the world” and that Taiwan is an “inalienable part” of China.

Taipei rejected Beijing’s accusations, saying Lai’s visit was lawful and in line with formal diplomatic practice, adding that the travel plan was not disclosed until after he landed for security reasons.

Africa’s last absolute monarchy, formerly Swaziland, is Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in Africa and one of 12 countries worldwide that maintain formal relations with Taipei. China claims Taiwan as part of its own territory and opposes official contact between the island and foreign governments. Taiwan rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claim.

The latest row comes as Beijing deepens trade incentives across Africa while excluding Eswatini.

The policy, first announced by Chinese President Xi Jinping in February, extends duty-free access beyond 33 least-developed African countries to 20 others for two years. China says the tariff plan is intended to boost African exports and narrow trade imbalances.

Iran’s top negotiator has mocked US President Donald Trump after he abruptly suspended American efforts to guide ships through the Strait of Hormuz, adding that Washington was again spreading falsehoods about ongoing talks.

In a post on X on Wednesday, Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf ridiculed Trump with a sarcastic one-liner: “Operation Trust Me Bro failed. Now back to routine with Operation Fauxios.”

Ghalibaf’s comments came after Trump paused ‘Project Freedom’, an operation aimed at clearing a path through the strait for more than 1,500 commercial vessels stranded in the Persian Gulf, just two days after its start. The US president, however, insisted that the decision was made based on what he described as “great progress” in negotiations and a request from Pakistan.

Ghalibaf’s ‘Fauxios’ pun was an apparent reference to the US outlet Axios, which previously reported that the US and Iran were making progress on a 14-point memorandum of understanding to end the conflict.

Axios also indicated that the White House is awaiting a response soon and could resume military action if no progress is made.

A senior Iranian official told Tasnim that Tehran has yet to officially respond to the proposal, which he said contains “some unacceptable clauses.”

“Today’s propaganda by American media is mainly aimed at justifying Trump’s retreat from his recent hostile action. Trump’s move was wrong from the beginning and should never have been carried out,” the source said.

The US has demanded the total dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program and that Tehran hand over its stockpile of enriched uranium, as well as free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, which accounted for 20% of global seaborne oil trade before the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran at the end of February.

Iran has dismissed demands to surrender enriched uranium while insisting that it has no plans to build a nuclear weapon. It has also insisted on Washington providing guarantees of non-aggression and an American military withdrawal from the Gulf.

Threats by Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO, expressed on March 27, 2026, at an investment forum in Miami, statements by J.D. Vance about Europe’s loss of its identity during an interview with Fox News on March 15, 2026, along with the refusal of European countries to directly join the aggression against Iran and participate in the adventure of the ‘military unlocking’ (and then – blocking) of the Strait of Hormuz are dividing Europe and America more than ever in the last 100 years. These developments demonstrate that European ‘strategic autonomy’, so desired by the liberals, is much closer than it seems. The main question is who will dictate the future agenda in the current toothless and frigid Europe. There are enough applicants: disgusting Brussels eurocracy, chatty and smug Gaulish sodomites and, finally, the German leadership that has grown increasingly vocal about its claims to hegemony in the Old World, while emasculating the responsibility of its ancestors for the crimes of Nazism in the public perception. Let us focus on the latter in more detail.

There is nothing new in the actions of the German leadership (first of all, the descendant of the Nazis Merz & Co). The endeavor to revise the disappointing outcomes of World War II was undertaken by the defeated state almost immediately after the end of the war. The purpose of Nazi followers was to compensate for the political, territorial, ideological and economic costs incurred as a result of the complete military defeat and collapse of German statehood. Along the way, they tried to neatly filter out the atmosphere impregnated by the spirit of Prussian militarism and the stench of National Socialist ideology. The German elites remaining in the western zones of occupation formally and quickly abandoned the legacy of Hitler, who had led his thousand-year Reich to collapse. But they had no desire to truly reject the very ideology of Nazism. Why?

The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg convicted only a small number of the top Nazi criminals. Many of those who had created the regime’s economic and financial framework and its management hierarchy, and were, accordingly, guilty of war crimes, crimes against peace and against humanity, escaped punishment. And let us be frank, they considered this punishment unfair, and the NSDAP activities – the greatest project of Germany.

In fact, the Federal Republic of Germany has seen no real denazification. Archival materials of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, including a reference on the political situation in West Germany from 1952, convincingly show that instead of its implementation, “the Western powers followed the path of justifying Nazi war criminals”.¹ The entire process, carried out with much ado, turned into an empty farce, with the exception of the liquidation of notorious pro-fascist organizations and the purification of public spaces. The Anglo-Saxons, trying to preserve the former leaders of Hitler’s military economy and the major Nazis they needed, campaigned under the slogan ‘hang the small ones – acquit the big ones’.

On April 10, 1951, the Bundestag passed a law regulating the activities of persons subject to the provisions of Article 131 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (persons subject to denazification shall not have the right to hold public office), and reinstating all former civil servants and military personnel with the preservation of posts, ranks and titles, if they were not classified as ‘main guilty’ during denazification.² On August 2, 1956, the Federal Staff Review Committee decided to allow service in the successor of the Wehrmacht – the Bundeswehr – for former SS members with a rank not higher than Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel). It may be argued that in general, the process of ridding the post-war German society of National Socialism for the main managerial and administrative sectors already ended six to ten years after the war. Let us not talk about what conversations were held in the kitchens of West Germans of that period. Everyone knows this anyway. ‘Deutschland über alles’ was the most innocent phrase said by humiliated burghers after a portion of apple schnapps.

Many of the former Nazi party members who found a place in the sun in Germany had been ‘quiet desk murderers’, party members who had set in motion the monstrous machine of genocide of the Soviet people and the Holocaust from their cozy bureaucratic offices. They made up the backbone of the civil servants of the ‘new Germany’. Heinrich Lübke, minister of food, agriculture and forestry of the Federal Republic of Germany (1953-1959) and president of the German Federal Republic (1959-1969), during the years of National Socialism worked in an architectural and engineering bureau, which was at the disposal of Albert Speer, the general building inspector for the Reich capital city. In it he was responsible, in particular, for the forced recruitment of labor from Nazi concentration camps. Hans Globke, chancellery chief of staff for Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer (1953-1963), held high positions in the Third Reich in the Ministry of the Interior, where he was responsible for the development of legal norms enshrining discrimination and persecution of the Jewish population, and his role in organizing the Holocaust has not yet been disclosed. Waldemar Kraft, federal minister for special affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1953-1956, was the managing director of the Imperial Reich Association for Land Management in the Annexed ‘Eastern Territories’ from 1940 to 1945, was a member of the NSDAP and had the title of Honorary SS Hauptsturmführer. And these are just a few examples of the life path of high-ranking officials of the ‘renewed’ German state. From 1949 to 1973, 90 out of 170 leading lawyers and judges of the Ministry of Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany were ex-members of the NSDAP, and in 1957 the share of senior officials of the ministry with a Nazi past was 77%.³ In the Ministry of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to 1970, 53% of employees were former members of the NSDAP, and 8% of them had worked in the Ministry of the Interior in 1943-1945, when one of the top Nazi criminals, the odious Heinrich Himmler, was its head.⁴

According to the archival materials of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, as Moscow already knew in the late 1940s-early 1950s, the western zone of Germany was preparing for a war with the USSR under the auspices of the Americans and the British. In confirmation of the intensification of forced remilitarization, an intelligence message dated July 31, 1948, emphasized that the mobilization of former German officers and other military personnel was easily feasible as a result of the control system established over them.⁵ The former Wehrmacht contingent was ‘on a short leash’ of the new government, which used the military issue for purposes far from peaceful. A note from the Soviet government to the US Embassy in Moscow dated March 31, 1954, directly stated: following the path of the revival of German militarism and the creation of military groupings in Europe means ... to prepare for a new war.⁶

Thus, the idea of arming West Germany firmly reigned over the minds of the ideologists of US foreign policy. Practical steps were also taken. Under the screams of existential ‘aggression from the East’ (sounds familiar, does it not), the remilitarization of the economy was conducted. American ‘injections’ into the necessary sectors of the national economy of West Germany began immediately after the war. Before September 1951, the Federal Republic of Germany received about $9 billion. These funds were placed primarily in heavy industry and such areas that could serve the political and military goals of Washington.⁷

The updated propaganda brainwashing of the population also had a place. In July 1951, as competent authorities reported to Joseph Stalin,⁸ Chancellor Konrad Adenauer set a direct task for the ruling Christian Democratic Union: to convince the broad masses that the Germans had an alternative – either an ‘armed German’ or a ‘German subordinate to the Russian military’. It sounds like the modern horror stories of ‘civilized European technocrats’, doesn’t it?

Under the supervision of the Americans, work was also carried out in relation to ‘major personnel’. Former high-ranking Nazi officials were willingly accepted for military service in the Bundeswehr. Thus, the ex-chief of staff of the 18th Army, Lieutenant General Friedrich Foertsch, 7th Army Lieutenant General Max-Josef Pemsel, and Army Groups A and S Tank General Hans Röttiger took the posts of inspector general of the Bundeswehr, commander of the 2nd Corps of the Bundeswehr, and the first inspector of the army, respectively. The former commander of Luftflotte 5, General Josef Kammhuber, became an inspector of the German Air Force.

The Anglo-Saxons did not hesitate to use the services of fascist war-dogs, appointing them to high posts in NATO. In particular, the ex-chief of staff of Army Group South, Lieutenant General Hans Speidel, during the formation of the Bundeswehr, was appointed head of the armed forces department of the German Ministry of Defense and assumed the post of commander of the Allied NATO ground forces in Central Europe in 1957. Lieutenant General Adolf Heusinger, former acting chief of the General Staff of the Wehrmacht, who had participated in the development of plans for the invasion of Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain and the USSR, and had been held at the Nuremberg Tribunal as a witness, became chairman of the NATO Military Committee in 1961. Friedrich Guggenberger, who had sunk 17 British and American ships, served for four years as deputy chief of staff in the NATO command Allied Forces in Northern Europe. The Anglo-Saxons were not very picky about former members of the SS, recognized in 1946 by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg as a criminal organization. For instance, Eberhard Taubert, a former SS Sturmführer and an employee of Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda, was adopted as an adviser to the NATO Psychological Warfare Division.⁹

In relation to Hans Speidel and Adolf Heusinger, as follows from a message of the Information Committee under the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs addressed to Joseph Stalin dated February 8, 1951,¹⁰ stored in the archives of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, a joint German-American PR campaign was diligently conducted to whitewash their reputation. In a conversation between Dwight Eisenhower and Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer at the end of January 1951, both figures were described as “completely reliable persons” who were “opponents of not only Hitler”, but also “of the Soviet Union, and were ready to cooperate with the Western powers”. It is indicative that Eisenhower, who literally a couple of months later became the first commander-in-chief of NATO forces in Europe, said then that he had been mistaken in 1945 for considering all Germans to be Nazis and repeated that he accepted the demand for the military equality of West Germany in the system of the ‘defense of Western Europe’.

Little has changed in terms of supporting dangerous revanchist aspirations and after that, during the years of normalization of relations, detente and the so‑called ‘perestroika’. A reference on the growth of such sentiments in Germany, prepared on May 26, 1959, by the Committee for State Security (KGB) under the Council of Ministers of the USSR,¹¹ pointed to the organization of thousands of rallies of paramilitary unions and ‘resettlement organizations’ in West Germany. During such meetings, held under the auspices of the German Ministries for All-German Issues and for Displaced Persons, demands were categorically put forward for the return of the eastern regions of Germany, East Prussia and the Sudetenland. The need to “preserve the traditions of the Prussian-German army for the new German armed forces and for all German youth” was openly stated. In 1961, the famous Soviet international journalist Ernst Henri noted: “There is no old Germany, but the old German General Staff exists. There is no doubt that its chiefs are back at work on the same maps.”¹² Continuing his thought, he wrote that regardless of Germany’s situation, no matter how many wars it lost, and no matter what crushing defeats it suffered – the German General Staff invariably, methodically, carefully continued to prepare aggression plans, and it had no other intentions. Therefore, it is so easy to understand why current German politicians and generals are looking at the diverse scum symbolizing Bandera Ukraine so enthusiastically. They are simply brothers in blood and heirs to the same force: the National Socialism of Hitler’s period.

In the spirit of the chauvinistic approaches of German political thought of the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century, ingrained in the subconscious of the intellectual elite, the expert community of the Federal Republic of Germany continued to dehumanize Soviet Russia, crossing it out of the ‘civilized’ world. As the famous historian and a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences Vladimir Pashuto wrote, with the collapse of Nazi Germany, the interpretation of the Russian-European topic also underwent a change in the sense that Russia was turned into an enemy of integral Europe rather than of Hitler’s Europe. Its non-European fundamentals – both religious and social – were criticized. It was declared a phenomenon hostile to Europe, lacking European roots and standing outside of the history of Europe.¹³ Everything suggested that no respect should be shown towards an ‘alien’ element.

Such sentiments were not only not suppressed, but also encouraged by the Bonn authorities: the ‘cannon fodder’ for the massacre with the Soviet Union was to be motivated and was not supposed to ask unnecessary questions. It is not for nothing that the reference of the USSR KGB of July 12, 1978,¹⁴ prepared on the basis of information from the West Berlin residency, reported that there were 17 neo-Nazi organizations in this city-state with a special international legal status, with which the authorities of this political entity fought on a residual principle.

In 1987, the USSR Embassy in Bonn pointed to substantive discussions in the Federal Republic of Germany on revising attitudes towards the period of National Socialism. One of the clear demonstrations of a wide nationalist wave in the Federal Republic of Germany in those years was the growing public discussion to achieve the so-called ‘spiritual turn’.¹⁵ The slogans of ‘new patriotism’ and ‘national identity’ were launched. Intellectuals and the establishment widely manipulated calls to free the young generation of Germans (who grew up and turned into the current ‘elitarians’ and rabid militarists: Merz, von der Leyen, and Pistorius) from the burden of historical responsibility, self‑humiliation, and a complex of national inferiority and guilt. The Germans, they say, have already been punished and are aware of the abnormality of their situation, when Germany was declared “a hotbed of worldwide infection and the source of all evil in the world” for the crimes of World War II.¹⁶ Speaking on November 17, 1986, Alfred Dregger, chairman of the CDU/CSU Group in the Bundestag, said: “It is time to finally put an end to the interpretation of history imposed by the victorious powers.”¹⁷ Elaborating on this argument, he proposed to come to terms with the past and to pay tribute to all those who lost their lives – including both the victims of Nazism and German servicemen. In turn, Franz Josef Strauss, minister-president of Bavaria and chairman of the CSU, called in 1987 for ‘a return to the historically cleansed, European-oriented and healthy German national consciousness’.¹⁸ These days, we see how those shoots of virulent nationalism and chauvinism – hidden behind the fig leaf of ‘national identity, patriotism and Europeanness’ – have yielded a bountiful harvest in the form of a new German revanchism. And it is time to acknowledge that the inheritance of the Third Reich has yielded a good harvest in the FRG in the 2020s!

Today, the senior political leadership of the Federal Republic of Germany has declared Russia to be ‘the main threat to security and peace’. In Berlin, the authorities have officially proclaimed a course aimed at inflicting a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia.¹⁹ The most aggressive Russophobes, whose ancestors fought with bestial ferocity on the Eastern Front in World War II, rapturously urge ‘to show the Russians what it is like to lose a war’.²⁰ There is large-scale propaganda brainwashing of public opinion, with theses constantly being injected about the virtual inevitability of a military clash with Russia by 2029. In the first military strategy in Germany’s history, titled ‘Responsibility for Europe’, which was submitted to parliament on April 22, 2026, by Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, the Russian Federation is identified as a fundamental threat to the ‘rules-based world order’. It is alleged that Moscow aims to weaken the unity of the Alliance and to undermine the resilience of transatlantic links for the purpose of expanding its influence. In this regard, attempts to establish dialogue should be suppressed, while military pressure on Russia should only be increased. In other words, the strategy of pursuing a large-scale revanche has now been officially adopted.

The brainwashing of young people through mainstream traditional media, as well as the countering of Russian ‘hybrid propaganda’, has been elevated to the level of official state policy. However, decades of strident ultra-liberal agitation are now producing the opposite effect. Disappointed by the short‑sighted decisions of the narrow-minded German leadership in both domestic and foreign affairs, the younger generation, against the backdrop of a discrepancy between official statistics and the real state of the national economy, is now swinging sharply ‘to the right’. The collapse of multiculturalism, the lack of a clear vision of the future, and the rejection of traditional values provide fertile ground for the growth of right-wing extremist movements that appeal to ressentiment towards a strong national state. It does not take much imagination to see where such willful or non-willful games will take German society.

The process of finally eliminating the political, legal and moral ‘vestiges’ of World War II in Germany has gained particular momentum following the beginning of the special military operation. It is obvious to anyone that this has simply served as a convenient excuse for drastically toughening anti-Russian rhetoric, for a theatrical fear of Russia, and for pushing bilateral relations into a frenziedly confrontational dimension. Neither Germany, nor, for that matter, the European Union as a whole, had either a cause or objective grounds to so unreservedly ‘stand up’ for Ukraine and to designate Moscow as their ‘enemy forever’ – as it was mindlessly and arrogantly stated by the little grey mouse of German foreign policy, the foreign minister with a wonderful surname, Wadephul.

Following the EU’s belligerent policy set out in March 2025 in the Joint White Paper for European Defense Readiness 2030,²¹ the German government is working to transform the Bundeswehr into Europe’s strongest army and accelerate its rearmament.²² Plans have been unveiled to raise the authorized strength from the present 181,000 to 460,000 active-duty servicemen and reservists. On August 27, 2025, the German government swiftly approved, without amendments, the draft law on the reform of conscription to the Bundeswehr put forward by Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, based on a voluntary service principle but retaining the option of a swift return to pre‑2011 conscription.²³ Largely thanks to the alarmism of the authorities and the brainwashing of young people by state propaganda, the German leadership is now able to report an increase in the number of individuals willing to undertake voluntary military service. As of early March 2026, 16,000 people had applied to join the armed forces, 20% more than in the same period of 2025, while overall more than 5,000 recruits joined in the first quarter of 2026, marking a 14%  increase compared with the beginning of the previous year.

No expense is spared on military adventurism, as in the 20th century. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Germany’s aggregate military spending in 2024 reached $88.5 billion (+28% compared with 2023),²⁴ making it the largest in Europe. The Special Fund for the Bundeswehr, worth €100 billion, has become the primary source of financing, making it possible to bring military expenditure up to 2% of GDP. In the country’s approved 2026 budget amounting to €524.54 billion, the German authorities intend to spend over €82 billion on defense (namely, preparations for war), which represents an increase of €20 billion compared to 2025. Total military spending, in conjunction with the funds of the aforementioned special fund, is expected to amount to approximately €108 billion. At the end of February 2026, the German Ministry of Defense reported on the ‘successful results of the activities’ of the Bundeswehr procurement department in 2025, indicating that 103 major projects, each with a value of at least €25 million, had been submitted to the Bundestag for approval, that contracts amounting to an impressive €34 billion had been concluded for the procurement of in-demand weapons and military equipment, and that, within the framework of previously approved initiatives, deliveries to the armed forces had amounted to approximately €24 billion. Rolling in cash since Berlin announced the ‘change of eras’ because of the situation in Ukraine, the local defense sector expresses satisfaction that national producers have received as much as €109 billion out of the total amount spent by the country on military purposes in the years 2020-2025. Thanks to the liberalization of export controls, Germany has moved from sixth to fourth in the ranking of the largest arms exporters. Capitalizing on the specific characteristics of combat operations during the unprovoked aggression against Iran and noting the inefficiency of employing costly interceptor missiles against drones, the German defense industry is actively promoting the ‘Skyranger’ short-range air defense system, claiming that the interception of a single UAV would cost only $4,000. Apparently, only sluggishness prevented German defense industry dealmakers with their Wunderwaffe from following in the steps of the Krivoy Rog clown during his absurd tour of the Persian Gulf states in late March 2026, where he attempted to sell them interceptor missiles as part of the assistance from Bandera’s riffraff.

Many budgeted projects are multi-year, signalling to industry that Berlin views rearmament as a long-term commitment.²⁵ Plans have been made for the opening of territorial subdivisions of the Bundeswehr’s procurement department in cities in which large technical universities are located. The rate of targeted military R&D is accelerating, whereby instead of conducting research in fundamental sciences, young talents are being encouraged, following the old and bad tradition, to start thinking about how to develop deadly new Tigers, Panthers and V-weapons.

In this context, the German dependence on foreign military supplies is being ignored. Critically important components for the modern inventory of weapons are often effectively outsourced and procured abroad. Even the leading domestic arms company, Rheinmetall, serving as the primary supplier of various military equipment to the Bundeswehr, refuses to introduce its own know-how while seeking rapid profits from the fulfilment of state defense contracts. All this is compensated by purchases from other Western manufacturers, just not to lose the status of the exclusive Bundeswehr service provider to the government. In particular, during the visit of the head of Germany’s Ministry of Defense to Australia on March 26, 2026, an agreement was announced between Rheinmetall and the Australian subsidiary of Boeing (namely, the United States) on the development of autonomous unmanned combat aircraft using stealth technology, with a warhead of more than 100 kg and a range of more than 1,000 km, intended for the successors of the Luftwaffe. The degradation of German scientific thought and increased dependence on the United States is evident.

Preparations are being undertaken in an accelerated manner for a potential confrontation with the Russian Federation concerning the improvement of infrastructure. The federal state and municipal levels of government, as well as regional business, are actively inclined to fully implement the 2024 Operational Plan for Germany.²⁶ It envisages Germany becoming the main transit hub for the movement of a mass of NATO troops to the alliance’s ‘eastern flank’. Columns of Bundeswehr and allied troops within NATO will now be able to pass to German ports on the Baltic Sea and to the Polish border without prior consent. Local authorities are being strongly urged to prepare the civilian population for an armed conflict, namely: to elaborate detailed plans for the protection of critical infrastructure, to counter sabotage operations, and to equip bomb shelters.

Members of the business community are targeted by the military and political actors. According to the Operational Plan for Germany mentioned above, the main enterprises should take into account in their personnel policy the high probability of a sharp large-scale reduction in labor resources by mobilizing those fit for military service. Contrary to being mere anecdotes popularized in the USSR – namely that pasta-factory machinery could be quickly adapted for the production of 7.62 mm rounds – such scenarios are currently being implemented in Germany. Real prerequisites are being created for the rapid restructuring of civilian industry for military purposes and for the commencement of production of the defense-related product range. The Bundeswehr is hereby authorized to seize, free of charge, certain goods, equipment and machinery for its own needs.

The military-industrial complex and the German political establishment have already forged a robust lobbying alliance, a development that strengthens the role of the defense industry in the making of decisions that are most important for both the domestic and foreign policy of Germany. Humanity remembers the extremely dangerous linkage between defense industry actors and political figures in the 1930s and 1940s. Then the omnivorous attitude of the ‘merchants of death’ towards the sources of their profits, combined with their sympathies for National Socialism, plunged the world into the abyss of World War II. Having rejected pacifism as a societal value, to which preceding generations arrived only through immense tragedy, the heirs of Krupp, Thyssen and Bosch are once again eagerly undertaking government contracts for the production of military goods, without hesitating to build their enterprises upon blood. The bankers are not falling behind, having cast aside all moral taboos that once existed on the large-volume financing of the military-industrial complex – it is now considered justified to appropriate the ‘helicopter money’ that defense enterprises receive from the state. In this context, it would not be long before some of the current German financiers so ‘free’ themselves from the legacy of the past and become inspired by the prospects of a new crusade to the East as part of the ‘change of eras’ policy that they would hang portraits of Hjalmar Schacht and Walther Funk – the architects of the Third Reich’s military-economic policy. There is a famous saying from the time of the French Revolution: “Ils n’ont rien appris, ni rien oublié.”²⁷

Meanwhile, the general condition of Germany’s economy seems not to concern the establishment, which has chased after the geopolitical mirage of the republic’s ephemeral ‘leadership’ within the European Union. As a result of this self-distancing from domestic difficulties, the country’s GDP in 2025 rose by only 0.2% in real terms, adjusted for inflation.²⁸ The balance of trade – which is of serious importance for the export-oriented German economy – fell to 2.4% of GDP, the volume of exports decreased by 0.3% (a decline recorded for the third consecutive year), and the budget deficit for 2025 amounted to €107 billion.²⁹ The driving forces of Germany’s economy – namely the automotive, metallurgical and chemical sectors – have so far failed to overcome the crisis. Companies are recording a significant drop in profits.³⁰ Deindustrialization is spreading widely across the German federal states – the loss of jobs and the transfer of industrial production from Germany to other European countries has already become a reality. Machine-building plants, chemical factories and electronics production facilities – namely Bosch, Henkel, MAN and Mercedes-Benz – are fleeing. They are unable to remain competitive due to the high cost of electricity, the lengthening of the logistics supply chain caused by self-harming sanctions against Russia, and the high tariffs imposed by the United States. Once an industrial giant, Germany is becoming a chaotically managed workshop from which equipment is being carried off. All of this is impacting the population – consumer activity has ground to a near halt, and even beer sales in 2025 fell to their lowest level since 1993. According to statements by the chancellor, the social welfare state cannot be financed given the resources currently available in Germany.³¹ Does such a brutal reality frighten the inept and arrogant chancellor, in whom the blood of Nazi ancestors is boiling? Is he ready to confront the reality that he will not save the economy by pumping money into the national military-industrial complex, and that hundreds of billions of printed and unsecured euros will be consumed by high energy prices and an unwieldy bureaucracy? Apparently not. While promoting an anti-Russian militarist agenda, deep down he believes that the war will write off everything.

The suggestion to consider acquiring its own nuclear weapons has been cautiously introduced in the German socio-political discourse, so far, it has been done somewhat subtly and indirectly, yet insistently.³² Germany seems to no longer be satisfied with participating in NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements, the agreements between the United States and Germany that allow the Bundeswehr to use American tactical nuclear weapons in the event of military necessity; in peacetime, the weapons controlled by the United States are stored at the Büchel Air Base, Rhineland-Palatinate. The justification put forward for acquiring lethal weapons of mass destruction is painfully simplistic and overused: it is allegedly aimed at deterring Moscow’s aggressive policy in Europe. It is supposed to be a question of national sovereignty. On top of this comes uncertainty about the future of the US military presence in Germany. Berlin is eager to acquire American long-range land-based missiles at the earliest opportunity, pursuant to the 2024 agreement with the sleepy Biden administration. It is highly likely that the authorities will find suitable sites for deploying SM-6 mobile missile launch systems, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Dark Eagle hypersonic boost-glide systems in one of the federal states best prepared in terms of military logistics and infrastructure, such as Rhineland‑Palatinate. There is little doubt that the Americans will seize the geopolitical moment, and Germany is solely required to provide its territory. Arrogant sheriffs from across the ocean are not bothered about the opinion of both a local population that has effectively been taken hostage and sane politicians who care about national interests and do not support the policy implemented by the German elites. The current Trump administration sees missile deployment not as a gratuitous contribution to European security but as a way to enhance its presence in a strategic location, enabling potential high-precision strikes against adversaries, and there is no need to guess who the adversaries in question are. The only question is what the scale of the US missile deployment will be, whether it will be symbolic and provisional or will disrupt the strategic stability in Europe and thereby compel us to respond directly.

For now, German officials are brainstorming the idea to create a nuclear umbrella together with the United Kingdom and France in the distant future and considering what role Germany might play. It has been reported that the initiative might receive funding, and proposals on how to divide the roles have emerged: partners are expected to provide warheads, while Germany will provide missile carriers and personnel. Meanwhile, the population is being persuaded little by little that even if Germany hypothetically bets on the nuclear capabilities of Paris and London and attempts to create a military alliance with them, this plan might not yield results. It is unlikely that Germany will put up with the traditionally cumbersome French bureaucracy and France’s insistence on retaining exclusive control over its nuclear arsenal even under joint command. The same goes for the questionable stance taken by London, which is unlikely to risk burning in a nuclear apocalypse for the sake of vague goals of transatlantic globalism. This will cast serious doubt on the justifiability of spending resources on common European strategic deterrence forces.

In this context, as it contemplates joining the ranks of nuclear powers, the German expert and scientific community proceeds from the assumption that, given the traditionally high academic standing in natural science and specialists in related fields, it is feasible to promptly acquire non-peaceful nuclear competencies. As is known, it is theoretically possible to produce weapons‑grade material from uranium purchased in the global market using facilities of a specialized enterprise in Gronau, North Rhine-Westphalia, equipped with a gas centrifuge enrichment cascade. It would take some three years to modernize the production, and then they will have it, 17 tons a year, enough to produce about 340 warheads. Besides, the research reactor at the Technical University of Munich in Garching holds highly enriched uranium.

It is important to remember that the Nazis came very close to developing an atomic bomb in the 1940s. Their goal went far beyond merely intimidating their enemies. What grandparents failed to accomplish in 1945, their grandchildren are determined to achieve in the 21st century. In this regard, there is no guarantee that Berlin will restrict its military-political approaches to using a nuclear arsenal only for deterrence. One thing is certain: a nuclear warhead in Germany, whether shared with the UK and France or its own, not only makes the country the Kremlin’s primary European target, as German media note. It constitutes a gross violation of Germany’s international obligations under Article II of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;³³ according to its provisions, each state party to the treaty, including the Federal Republic of Germany, undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devises directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

I am convinced that, under these circumstances, the international community can and should urgently address the issue of a German nuclear program. To suppress the odious nuclear ambitions at their earliest stage, this must be followed by corresponding measures, such as intensified IAEA inspections, condemnation by the UN Security Council and legitimate international restrictive measures. Yet even this could be sacrificed on the altar of all-out revanche and the creation of a mythical Fourth Reich (Viertes Reich). The key question is, undoubtedly, how present-day German society will respond to this idea. To say the least, not all upstanding Bürger sympathize with the insane model of the Viertes Reich. However, given the inept migration policy of the current German authorities, even more surprising developments cannot be ruled out.

It is also worth noting that even the prospect of Germany acquiring nuclear weapons unequivocally constitutes a casus belli, providing grounds for the use of all appropriate response measures set out in the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence. I would even go so far as to argue that these exercises could raise similar concerns in the United States, which advocates a new START IV with China as a party. How might it respond to the possibility of a nuclear-armed Europe led by a militaristic Germany with a nuclear capability beyond NATO control? I have a feeling that the targets encoded in Germany’s new nuclear command and control systems will extend beyond Russian territory.

Nevertheless, even if Germany does not possess nuclear weapons, the situation demands vigilance. German politicians are pursuing more than the reckless militarization of the country. The latter is part of a broader, more intricate process endangering millions of people worldwide. The current political course could lead to almost infernal scenarios. It shows an effort to realize the darkest revanchist sentiments of the German elite. These ambitions go far beyond enhancing Germany’s profile in European politics. One should not forget that Germany is the only European state to have fully annexed neighboring countries twice since World War I, stripping them of any semblance of independence and sovereignty. This pertains to the annexation of Austria by the Third Reich in 1938 (Anschluss) and the non‑forceful integration of the German Democratic Republic into the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990. Under the guise of reunifying the German nation, East Germany was effectively merged into West Germany. By the way, not one of the proponents of unification, including, to our disgrace, high-ranking Soviet officials, contemplated observing generally accepted legal procedures; there was no referendum to reflect citizens’ will on this crucial issue. Present-day Germany is hardly in a position to judge the legitimacy of territorial changes in Europe and the genesis of these processes that followed World War II. The very foundation of German statehood is very questionable. All events since the reunification of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic can be assessed through the prism of the principle ex injuria jus non oritur (no legal right can arise from a wrongful act), should such a need arise. In other words, today’s Federal Republic of Germany does not even have a proper legal basis for its very existence, not to mention its absolute dependency from the outset and its horrible vassal submission to the United States. Today’s German nonentities who bashfully attempt to once again position themselves as new Führers should keep this in mind.

Upon taking power, Chancellor Friedrich Merz hit the ground running in foreign policy, suppressing the self‑preservation instinct. It appears that even pro-LGBT bipolar dreamers in Berlin are starting to grasp that Germany is about to face a crushing geopolitical defeat in Ukraine. The EU policy designed to counter the special military operation, an effort in which Germany sought to take the lead, has fallen short of all its objectives. It is highly unlikely that Germany will be able to retreat to the rear and use the Lesser Russia as a blocking unit, possibly alongside Poland, which Germany despises, if it intends to inflict significant damage on our forces.

They need to be the ones taking action. So they act. To mitigate the impact of failed geopolitical investments, Berlin aims to consolidate its position as the leading military and political power of the European Union. To repel a potential Russian invasion, pursuant to an agreement with Lithuania, Germany decided in spring 2025 to deploy the enhanced 45th Armored Brigade of the Bundeswehr near Rūdninkai, 30 km from Belarus and 160 km from Kaliningrad Oblast. The slogan Kanonen statt Butter (Guns over butter), often used with respect to Nazi policies, accurately describes the approach to financing the venture: Vilnius has committed to cover €2 billion in costs, a tremendous sum for the small Baltic state, to build the necessary infrastructure for the German contingent, and Berlin will need to allocate around €11 billion to ensure the operational readiness of the brigade, even as the German economy needs these funds to address challenges due to macroeconomic instability. The unit has been equipped with the latest Leopard 2A8 tanks, communications systems, self‑propelled artillery, etc. To enhance its combat capability, the German authorities continue to supply it with an unprecedented volume of materiel; for instance, on February 25, 2026, the Budget Committee of the German Bundestag expedited a €540 million tranche for major German innovative startup Stark Defence, in which well-known American entrepreneur Peter Thiel holds a significant stake, and Helsing, both producing kamikaze drones. The Bundeswehr plans to arm the Lithuanian outpost with advanced UAVs. Following the transfer of the NATO multinational battle group, stationed in Lithuania since 2017, to the brigade’s command in February 2026, its strength now stands at 1,700 personnel. The unit is projected to reach full combat readiness by the end of 2027. It will comprise 4,800 military personnel and 200 civilians. This marks the first deployment of regular German troops outside the FRG since World War II. The deployment has effectively established an outpost for an eventual attack in the Eastern direction. It is impossible to interpret this military build‑up, coupled with supporting long‑term infrastructure, in any other way.

Whether Germany plans to launch a new Drang nach Osten straight away, or whether it first intends to send the Eastern European countries led by Poland into potential trenches, whilst acting as a blocking unit, makes little difference to us. It is up to the leadership of Poland, which, along with the Third Reich, bears a significant share of the responsibility for the outbreak of World War II, to think who, on whose instigation and with what funding is fueling this militaristic hysteria in Poland, which Polish ultra-patriots regard as a struggle for national interests and a chance for geopolitical revanche in Eastern Europe. Could it be that the belligerent posture of the Polish elite towards Moscow is, in fact, being subtly orchestrated by Berlin, which wields enormous influence in Poland’s socio-political and information space, compelling the Polish elites to hate Russia even more, if that is even possible, in defiance of logic and national interests?

If Germany undergoes a massive rearmament, yet the Teutonic spirit ultimately gives way to reason, then the Poles should seriously ponder against whom the German military machine will then be directed. There is deep-seated historical animosity between Germany and Poland, geopolitical wounds are still raw, and, whatever politicians say, disputed territories certainly do exist. The only way Berlin can get Warsaw to drop its claims for over $1 trillion in reparations is through military action. It is no coincidence that a major NATO military exercise, ‘Steadfast Dart 26’, launched in January 2026 to practice the rapid deployment of alliance troops to the eastern flank using military transport aircraft, railway and motorized units, is taking place without the Polish Armed Forces. The wind in Europe is always changing rapidly, but the Belvedere Palace is unwilling to acknowledge this. There are only two historical paths open to Poland, as has been well established: either to be a destitute vassal of Germany or to be a partner of Russia. America is far away, and the Americans need neither Poland nor, for that matter, the rest of Europe. There is no point in deluding oneself.

Apart from hypothetical victims, such as Poland, which is supposedly still unaware of its future status and proudly bears the title of Berlin’s ally, Germany also has true, loyal friends with whom it can reminisce about days gone by and battles in which they fought alongside each other. In cooperation with its NATO trench mate, Finland, Germany is actively engaged in destructive efforts to turn the Baltic Sea into internal waters of the North Atlantic Alliance. At the summit of NATO and EU heads of state and government in Helsinki in January 2025, Berlin spearheaded the launch of a NATO patrol mission in the Baltic Sea (Baltic Sentinel) aimed at hindering the free passage of Russian vessels. Given the total lack of trust between the East and West, these extremely risky actions could today lead to the worst-case scenario.

In July 2025, Germany and the United Kingdom signed the Treaty of Kensington, which includes provisions on mutual assistance in the event of an attack, complementing the notorious Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington, as well as on the joint development of military equipment, such as fighter jets and missile systems. Needless to say which targets the missiles will be aimed at.

It is well known that the German elite is desperate to drag anyone within reach into the processes of the accelerated development of precision-guided weapons with a range of at least 1,000 km; in other words, anyone who shares the German hysteria over the Russian threat. It is no coincidence that ArianeGroup, a French-German company with considerable experience in designing rockets, has entered into negotiations on this matter with a number of European countries. Alongside Norway, Germany would like to develop a sea-based supersonic cruise missile (Super Sonic Strike Missile) with a host of European states that endorse their policies, France, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the UK; under the European Long‑Range Strike Approach project, talks are ongoing about designing and subsequently producing a land-based cruise missile with a range of over 2,000 km.

A special role in the rearmament effort has been reserved for
the ex-Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. It is evident that the current temporary ruler on Bankovaya Street is increasingly perceived by Germany as a reincarnation of Pavlo Skoropadsky, the ‘Hetman of the entire Ukraine’, who stayed in power on German bayonets for a few months in 1918, or as a simulacrum of the stillborn operetta-like Austrian initiative to create a ‘Ukrainian throne’ and subsequently place on it Wilhelm Franz von Habsburg-Lothringen (also known under the pseudonym ‘Vasyl Vyshyvany’). In other words, he is seen as a compliant conduit for the interests of external sponsors, interests that run counter to the aspirations of the Lesser Russia’s population.

Demonstrating its resolve to elevate cooperation with Kiev to the highest level across all domains, a declaration of strategic partnership between the two countries was signed in Berlin on April 14, 2026, during the visit of the ‘bloody clown’. Germany has stated its willingness to maintain unprecedented political, diplomatic and military support for Kiev, and to hold consultations on security and defense issues. Despite the well-known recent corruption scandals surrounding the so-called ‘Mindich case’, which have exposed
the all-consuming, shameless venality of the entire Bandera leadership, the Germans are ready to use their Ukrainian vassals as a cheap assembly plant for their products. The goal is to turn Ukraine into a little laboratory mouse upon which sinister experiments are conducted.

Another element of this criminal partnership will be a mechanism for regular consultations between the defense and foreign affairs chiefs, with the participation of representatives of leading defense enterprises. That may sound appealing, yet in practice it boils down to this: Ukraine is to be kept under eternal watch and to produce precisely those goods, in precisely those quantities, that its handlers dictate. A battlefield intelligence-sharing agreement has been signed, under which the Armed Forces of Ukraine will share with the Bundeswehr their experience in operating Delta software, providing real-time situational awareness of combat operations. Through this childlike trick, the de facto plan is to boost both the quantity and quality of active and former Bundeswehr soldiers and other German security personnel on the contact line. Which means that, just like in the old days, the fooled Fritzes will metamorphose into crosses once more.³⁴

In order to indulge the militaristic plans of its defense industry, the political establishment in Berlin, turning a blind eye to the worrying signals emanating from the German economy, is pumping enormous sums into arming the Kiev junta. The ‘country 404’ is to be allocated €4 billion for the purpose of intensifying bilateral dialogue in the military-technical domain. These funds are intended to expand the joint production of UAVs and medium-to-long-range drone systems, a move that, it is claimed, will result in thousands of drones being supplied to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. German company Quantum Systems has gleefully reported the establishment of two new joint ventures with Ukrainian military manufacturers of tactical reconnaissance and attack aerial vehicles and interceptor drones, WIY Drones and Tencore, to develop and mass-produce unmanned systems. In addition, cooperation in the fields of information, innovation and research will be strengthened.

All these boastful and supposedly hopeful wishes are being recited to the accompaniment of rhetoric about a common and direct threat from Russia to the freedom of the Ukrainian failed state and to the security, stability and prosperity of Germany and Europe. One cannot but notice the bragging remarks of Vladimir Zelensky, who claims that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have “the richest combat experience among all European armies.” It is worth recalling that many analysts used precisely this kind of language when writing about the Iraqi army at the end of the 1980s – back then considered the largest among the Gulf states. Where did Western‑fueled ambitions and the ‘dizziness of success’ eventually take Iraq’s leadership as early as in 1990? The answer is well known. The placeholders in power on Bankovaya Street stand every chance of following the same path.

Germany’s foreign-policy revisionism does not end at Ukraine’s borders. In its revanchist course, Berlin is blatantly sabotaging its fundamental obligations under international law. The problem in this case relates to the establishment in October 2024 of NATO’s Commander Task Force Baltic at the German Navy headquarters in Rostock (Mecklenburg‑Western Pomerania), which is de facto spying on Russian vessels. Furthermore, the very deployment of this command center on the territory of the former GDR constitutes a flagrant violation of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (Two Plus Four Treaty) of September 12, 1990, concluded between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic with the participation of the Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Attempts by Germany’s Ministry of Defense and its embassy in Moscow to justify Berlin’s actions by claiming that “the secondment of personnel from other NATO member states in the framework of international cooperation, in which foreign exchange and liaison officers are integrated into a German unit and therefore remain under the command of the Bundeswehr, are not covered by the Two Plus Four Treaty,”³⁵ do not hold up to serious scrutiny. Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the aforementioned document explicitly states that foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in that (eastern) part of Germany or deployed there. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from the territory of the GDR was conditioned upon the inviolable obligation to respect such legally enshrined guarantees.

Regardless of how much official Berlin strains itself in its choice of phrasings, this constitutes, at the very least, a selective and arbitrary interpretation of the provisions of the Two Plus Four Treaty. In plain language, this is merely deception and chicanery. While disregarding the provisions of the Two Plus Four Treaty here and now, official Berlin is simply copying the egregious actions of the ‘collective West’ across the globe. And of course, this gives grounds to reflections on the fate of this document as a whole. A violation of the principle of pacta sunt servanda in such a case may lead to the invalidation of the international treaty itself. This, in turn, calls into question the legal personality of the modern German state. It is even frightening to imagine what that would mean for Germany!

The pace and shamelessness with which Western powers are today abandoning fundamental international legal instruments and principles for the sake of short‑sighted political expediency are truly appalling. One cannot shake the feeling that had the pledge made at the time that NATO would not expand ‘one inch eastward’ been duly formalized in an official document, Western powers would discard it just as readily under the current circumstances. By the same token, no one ever seriously intended to implement the Minsk agreements, whose sole purpose, based on recent public statements from Germany and France, was to buy the Kiev puppets some time. So, what then will be the value of the much-vaunted peace settlement in Ukraine?

It is difficult to determine with certainty what new Anschluss Germany is currently preparing in secret. However, it is obvious that the country is gradually sliding into a political system reminiscent of a military dictatorship embodied by the government of Chancellor Merz, which is consumed by a rabid revanchism and neo‑colonialism. Unacceptable and dangerous revisionist tendencies are gathering pace. The masks of pacifism have been cast aside: an ideological preparation of the population for grim times is underway, as the natural fear of war is deliberately lowered. At the same time, blanket indulgences for any sins are being issued in advance, thereby writing off the historical debts of the forefathers for the younger generation of Germans.

The postulate of the equal responsibility of ‘two totalitarian regimes’ for unleashing World War II has become a cornerstone of German historiography. The falsifications being promoted include the silencing of the Soviet people’s heroic feat, the division of war victims into ‘national categories’, and the denial of victory as the liberation of Europe, based on the claim that it was merely ‘a replacement of one totalitarian regime by another’. The very scale of the war crimes committed by the Wehrmacht and the SS divisions on the Eastern Front is now being presented as exaggerated. In the name of false objectivity, unsubstantiated ‘witness accounts’ of mass killings on both sides are being introduced into public discourse. The question of compensation to Germans for their material damages and loss of life is being raised with ever greater frequency. Such a degree of cynicism is impossible to conceive.

In August 2025, Germany marked the 75th anniversary of the signing of the ‘Charter of the German Expellees’ at the highest political level. The document presents forcibly displaced Germans as victims of war. The focus was on the gravity of their suffering. According to this narrative, the end of the war not only failed to bring them an end to violence, but rather resulted in their humiliation, deprivation of rights and the loss of their homeland. There was no mention whatsoever of German responsibility for the outbreak of World War II or the crimes against humanity. This is a clear reference to the post‑war German attempts to counter the ‘loss of history’ and to distance themselves from damning historical episodes in the name of national unity. The message is clear: the German people were undeservedly and cruelly wronged after World War II. The suffering of the German people must be avenged in the name of ‘freedom’, ‘European solidarity’, and ‘justice’ through the use of German military force, among other means.

The process of atonement in Germany for the crimes of the Nazi regime has largely been reduced to the Holocaust remembrance; the suffering of the Soviet people is conveniently forgotten. Berlin continues to flatly refuse to recognize the siege of Leningrad and other crimes against humanity committed against Soviet civilians as an act of genocide against the peoples of the USSR.

In April 2025, a cynical decision was made to suspend Russia’s membership on the Board of Trustees of the ‘Remembrance, Responsibility and Future’ foundation, which was established to pay compensation to former Ostarbeiter – forced laborers who had been deported to the Third Reich. At the same time, on the basis of the 1950 Federal War Victims Relief Act, official Berlin is paying social benefits (€5 million per year) to former servicemen of the Third Reich, SS formations, as well as to foreign collaborators, some of whom were directly involved in the illegal siege of Leningrad.³⁶

Unfortunately, the sensible voices that still exist in German society are unable to cool the dangerous bouts of military schizophrenia, amplified by a new ‘ethics’. The authoritarian-revanchist regime of Friedrich Merz has a tight stranglehold on the entire political system, keeping constructive forces away from the levers of power.

The German government’s reckless actions are endangering security not only in Central and Eastern Europe but across the whole continent. As it lacks the military capability to act independently without the direct protection of its transatlantic ‘big brother’, it is escalating tensions by whipping up hysteria and psychosis. Its objective is to draw its ally, Washington, into a potential confrontation between Europe and Russia. No matter what anyone claims, the Bundeswehr continues to rely profoundly on US military support. When it comes to operational planning at present, Germany remains deeply dependent on US space-based intelligence and strategic airlift, and must align its every move with the overarching NATO command structure. Germany cannot markedly engage in a high-intensity conflict independently without making its population bear the corresponding costs tantamount to yet another ‘total war’ and its apocalyptic fallout.

However, rationality can be shattered by militaristic bipolar mania and Teutonic greed. For the German political establishment that has lost itself in its tin-soldier games is no longer willing to be constrained by limitations of the pragmatic diplomacy of Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schröder. Just as it did 85 years ago, Berlin is once again casting a predatory gaze eastward.

The main task for our country is to prevent the repetition of the tragedy of 1941, which means ensuring that our armed forces are kept in a state of permanent combat readiness, especially on the western borders. It is important to understand that, exactly as before June 22, 1941, the Germans are deliberately laying down a network of forward staging areas along the key operational directions. No trust should be placed in Berlin’s good sense, nor any faith that it will forever refrain from risking war. Nobody should delude themselves that the German establishment will regard itself as finally shackled by a mere slip of paper, even if a treaty outlining new principles of European security is signed.

It is no secret that an attempt is being made to impose on us the doctrine of ‘peace through strength’. Our response, then, can only be ‘the security of Russia through the animal fear of Europe’. Talks, good intentions, goodwill, and unilateral steps to build trust must not be our tools to prevent a massacre. The sole guarantee lies in forcing Germany and the ‘united Europe’ backing it to grasp the inescapable certainty of incurring unacceptable losses if they ever set in motion ‘Operation Barbarossa 2.0’. 

Our clear signal to the German elites is as follows: should the most dreadful scenario come to pass, the probability is high of at least mutual destruction, and, in reality, the end of European civilization while our own existence continues. Germany’s much-vaunted industry will not only suffer serious damage. It will face total destruction. Its economy will collapse alongside it, and no one will ever restore it. Simply because the remaining sane and skilled professionals will flee – some to Russia, some to the United States, some to China and to other Asian countries. It appears that only by spelling out such grave consequences will the insolent heirs of the Nazis and their German partners be brought to their senses, and millions of lives be saved on both sides of the front line.

A militaristic Germany is of no use to a shrivelled and feeble-minded Europe, which would like to preserve at least some political subjectivity in a new multipolar world. Such a Germany holds no value for us in the future either; it is both dangerous and unpredictable. For Berlin, only two options remain. Option one is war and the ignominious burial of its own statehood, devoid of any prospect of a new ‘Miracle of the House of Brandenburg’. The second is a return to sobriety and subsequent geopolitical recuperation, accompanied by a fundamental reorientation of its foreign policy through a difficult but indispensable dialogue. We can accept both outcomes. The next move is up to Germany. And I hope we shall not hear those all-too-familiar lines: “If I am destined to perish, let the German people perish as well, for they have proved themselves unworthy of me.”³⁷

¹ Archive of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia. File 67661. Volume 2. P. 280-283.

² https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&jumpTo=bgbl151s0307.pdf#/text/bgbl151s0307.pdf?_ts=1769096027195

³ Germany’s post-World War II government was riddled with former Nazis // Business Insider. 10 October 2016. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/former-nazi-officials-in-germany-post-world-war-ii-government-2016-10

⁴ Postwar West German ministry ‘burdened’ by ex-Nazis // Financial Times. 10 October 2016. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/3b5abe60-8efc-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78

⁵ Archive of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia. File 43274. Volume 1. P. 122-123.

⁶ Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation. Fund 06. Inventory 13. Folder 2. File 9. P. 98-107

⁷ Pastusyak L. Galvanization of the aggressor. The role of the United States in the remilitarization of West Germany. / Abridged translation from Polish by Panfilova A. Moscow: International relations. 312 p, P. 21-38.

⁸ Archive of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia. File 45513. Volume 3. P. 231-234.

⁹ Stefano Delle Chiaie, Stuart Christie. Black papers no. 1. First published in Britain, 1984 by Anarchy Magazine, Box A, 84b Whitechapel High Street, London E17QX in association with Refract Publications, BCM. p.40.

¹⁰ Archive of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia. File 45513. Volume 2. P. 70-73.

¹¹ Archive of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia. File 83024. Volume 2. P. 69-72.

¹² Henry E. Notes on the history of the modern era / [Foreword. Mileikovsky A]. Moscow: Nauka, 1970. 430 p., P. 153-154.

¹³ Pashuto V. Revanchists as pseudo-historians of Russia. Moscow: Nauka, 1971. 157 p., P. 48-51.

¹⁴ Archive of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia. File 135123. Volume 2. P. 218-228.

¹⁵ Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation. Fund 757. Inventory 32. Folder. 184. File 36. P. 11-18.

¹⁶ By the way, the last German chancellor to attend the Victory Parade in 2010 in Moscow was Angela Merkel. In a conversation with me, she then admitted that making the decision to visit Moscow during those holidays was an extremely difficult choice.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Attempts to inflict strategic defeat on Russia are counterproductive – envoy to Germany. TASS. 11 November 2025. Available at: https://tass.ru/politika/25593661?ysclid=mkqhlpeax8285374522

²⁰ Report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Regarding the Actions (or Inaction) of the Authorities of Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan Resulting in Destruction and Falsification of History, Justification of Fascism and its Accomplices (Report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 2025). Available at: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/doklady/2048734/

²¹ Joint White Paper for European Defense Readiness 2030. Brussels, 19 March 2025. Available at: https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/document/download/30b50d2c-49aa-4250-9ca6-27a0347cf009_en?filename=White%20Paper.pdf

²² Merz has stated that the Bundeswehr should become the strongest army in Europe, TASS. 14 May 2025. Available at: https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/23940851

²³ The German government has established a new model of military service, Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 27 August 2025. Available at: https://rg.ru/2025/08/27/pravitelstvo-germanii-opredelilo-novuiu-model-voennoj-sluzhby.html?ysclid=mkqopaybsb354433843

²⁴ Trends in world military expenditure, 2024. SIPRI. Available at: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2504_fs_milex_2024.pdf

²⁵ Germany’s Path to Kriegstüchtigkeit: The 2026 Defence Budget. Atlas Institute for International Affairs. 19 December 2025. Available at: https://atlasinstitute.org/germanys-path-to-kriegstuchtigkeit-the-2026-defence-budget/

December 19, 2025

²⁶ Operational Plan for Germany. A core military element of overall defense. Available at: https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/organization/bundeswehr-joint-force-command/missions/operational-plan-for-germany

²⁷ ”They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing” (French).

²⁸ Gross domestic product (GDP). Federal Statistical Office. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economy/National-Accounts-Domestic-Product/Tables/gdp-bubbles.html?nn=2112

²⁹ After two years of recession, Germany’s economy grew 0.2% in 2025. Interfax. 15 January 2026. Available at: https://www.interfax.ru/business/1067756

³⁰ German autos sector slashes jobs as economic woes bite. CNBC. 26 August 2025. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/26/german-autos-sector-slashes-jobs-as-economic-woes-bite.html

³¹ Merz acknowledged that Germany cannot maintain the existing social welfare system any longer. TASS. 30 August 2025. Available at: https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/24912409

³² Germany debates issue of nuclear weapons. Deutsche Welle. 15.03.2025. Available at: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-debates-issue-of-nuclear-weapons/a-71924424

³³ Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Available at: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/npt.shtml?ysclid=mlup3xtbk698465135

³⁴ Like wild animals, with savage howls
They lunge into a roaring stream.
This is Hitler, row by row,
Chasing the ‘Fritzes’ toward the East.
Here, every window hides a sniper;
Here, the bushes conceal death;
Here, swallowing the stranger’s land
The misled ‘Fritzes’
Metamorphose into crosses.
<…>

The Metamorphosis of the ‘Fritzes’. TASS No. 0640, 1943. Soviet war poster by the Kukryniksy (Mikhail Kupriyanov, Porfiri Krylov, Nikolai Sokolov), poem by Demyan Bedny. From the TASS Windows Collection (Okna TASS). The Vladimir Dal State Museum of the History of Russian Literature. Available at: https://goslitmuz.ru/collections/367/?ysclid=mobmvloh1l222634574#gallery-15

³⁵ Germany claims new NATO maritime headquarters does not violate the ‘2+4’ Treaty. TASS. 22 October 2024. Available at: https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/22193115?ysclid=mky2vrl38w15265573

³⁶ ”FragDenStaat: Germany Pays Pensions to Nazi Henchmen and Collaborators”. TASS 23 January 2025. Available at: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/22952639?ysclid=mky31pnr21551705012

³⁷ Cited from: One Hundred and Forty Conversations with Molotov (F. Chuev, S. Kuleshov afterword). Moscow: TERRA Publ., 1991. 623 p., illus., p. 45.

In April 2025, terrorists struck Baisaran meadow near Pahalgam in southern Kashmir, killing 26 innocent tourists in an act of calculated barbarity orchestrated from across the border.

India’s response, codenamed Operation Sindoor, was swift, precise, and strategically transformative. In the 88 hours that followed, from May 7 to May 10, India demonstrated a war-fighting capability that surprised its adversaries and reassured its partners.

At the heart of that demonstration was a pluralistic arsenal: French Rafale jets, Israeli loitering munitions, Indian‑made Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), and Akash air defense systems. But the formidable core of this arsenal was Russian‑origin platforms that have formed the bedrock of Indian military power for more than six decades.

One year on, it is worth examining what Russia’s contribution to that arsenal actually meant in combat, and why the India-Russia defense partnership remains one of the most consequential strategic relationships in the Indo-Pacific. And how it continues to grow.

Strategic trust that matters

The India-Russia defense relationship is not a transaction. It is a partnership built on a foundation of consistent support through India’s most difficult strategic moments – when Western suppliers walked away after the 1998 nuclear tests, when sanctions threatened to choke India’s modernization program, and when the country needed technology transfers rather than merely hardware deliveries.

Over the past six decades, the two countries have built a defense relationship of extraordinary depth, one that now encompasses co-development, co-production, technology transfer, and joint ventures that have made India not merely a buyer of Russian equipment but a genuine partner in its manufacture and evolution.

The numbers tell part of the story. Approximately 60% of India’s current military inventory traces its lineage to Russian or Soviet-origin design. The Indian Air Force (IAF) flies the Su-30 MKI, arguably the most capable variant of the Flanker family anywhere in the world, built under license at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Nashik with a progressively increasing indigenous content. The Indian Army fields the T-90 Bhishma main battle tank, again built domestically under license.

The Indian Navy operates Kilo-class submarines and has long operated Russian carrier aviation. This is not dependence – it is integration, and Operation Sindoor demonstrated exactly what that integration looks like when tested under fire.

The S-400 Sudarshan Chakra: Combat debut

Of all the Russian systems that performed during Operation Sindoor, none attracted more global attention than the S-400 Triumf, which India has named the Sudarshan Chakra.

India’s decision to procure the S-400 in a $5.43 billion deal signed in 2018 was made under considerable pressure. The US threatened to impose CAATSA sanctions, Western partners expressed discomfort. India held its ground, and one year ago that decision was validated in the most definitive way possible – in actual combat.

With its ability to simultaneously track and engage multiple targets at ranges up to 400 km and altitudes spanning the full spectrum from low-flying drones to high-altitude missiles, the S-400 provided the strategic canopy under which the rest of India’s air defense architecture operated. Pakistan had been warned. The warnings went unheeded. The S-400 performed.

When Pakistani information operations subsequently claimed that an S-400 battery at Adampur had been destroyed, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi flew to the airbase and stood beside the intact system.

The image spoke louder than any official denial. The S-400’s combat debut in Indian service was not merely a vindication of the procurement decision – it was a message to every adversary who had hoped that Western diplomatic pressure might yet deny India this capability. The message was received.

BrahMos: The strike weapon that changed the equation

If the S-400 was the shield of Operation Sindoor, the BrahMos was its most feared sword. The BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, developed through the joint venture between India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Russia’s NPO Mashinostroyeniya, has grown from a promising concept into one of the most operationally significant weapons systems in Asia.

The BrahMos travels at Mach 3, carries a 200 to 300 kg warhead, and achieves a circular error probable of under 1 meter – a degree of accuracy that makes it as much a surgical instrument as a strike weapon. Land-launched, ship-launched, and air-launched variants are all operational with the Indian armed forces. The air-launched variant, designated BrahMos-A, is integrated with the Su-30 MKI, giving India a standoff precision-strike capability that few air forces in the world can match. The Block III land-attack variant adds terrain-hugging flight profiles that allow the missile to navigate complex geography and approach targets from unexpected angles. During Operation Sindoor, BrahMos missiles were reportedly used extensively against hardened high-value targets, with results that the battle damage assessment imagery made plain to the world.

The partnership is not standing still. The BrahMos-NG, a lighter next-generation variant, will allow the Su-30 MKI to carry three missiles rather than one, and will also be integrated with the Indian-made Tejas and the French Rafale.

BrahMos II, a hypersonic variant targeting speeds above Mach 5, is under joint development. When it enters service, it will place India in an exclusive group of nations capable of fielding hypersonic precision-strike weapons. The missile that began as a joint venture has become an Indian strategic asset – and it could not have been built without the Russian partnership.

India officially began exporting the BrahMos, with the first batch delivered to the Philippines in April 2024 as part of a $375 million deal. The joint venture with Russia is seeing high demand, with significant interest from Southeast Asian nations and other regions. The project achieved over $500 million in revenue for 2025-26.

The Su-30 MKI: India’s premier strike platform

The Su-30 MKI is the backbone of Indian Air Force combat power. India operates 260 of them, a fleet large enough to provide both mass and versatility across multiple simultaneous missions. Built at HAL’s Nashik facility under a license that has progressively transferred technology to India, the Su-30 MKI is a uniquely Indian variant of the Flanker family – fitted with Israeli avionics, French navigation systems, and Indian mission computers alongside its Russian airframe and engines. It is, in effect, a symbol of India’s pluralistic approach to defense procurement: taking the best from every partner and integrating it into a platform optimized for Indian requirements.

The upgraded MiG-29s in IAF service carry the same weapon. Complementing the R-77 is India’s indigenous Astra Mk1, with a range of 110 km, and the Astra Mk2 currently entering service with a range extending to 160 km. A third variant, the Astra Mk3, under development with a projected range of 350 km, will eventually give the Su-30 MKI an engagement envelope that exceeds anything currently in the Pakistani or Chinese inventory.

For the strike mission, the Su-30 MKI carries the Kh-35 air-launched cruise missile, with a range of 260 km, providing a standoff land-attack and anti-ship capability. The aircraft also carries the Kh-29 and Kh-59 air-to-surface missiles for shorter-range precision engagement.

During Operation Sindoor, Su-30 MKI crews flew alongside Rafale in coordinated strike packages, demonstrating the seamless integration of Russian and French platforms within a single operational concept.

Legacy systems that still deliver

Beyond the S-400 and BrahMos, a range of older Russian-origin systems continued to demonstrate their relevance during Operation Sindoor. The Pechora low-to-medium altitude surface-to-air missile system, the OSA-AK short-range system, and the S-125 Neva all contributed to the layered air defense architecture that denied Pakistan’s drones and missiles their intended targets. These are not new systems – some have been in Indian service for decades – but their integration into the Akashteer and IACCS command network gave them a new operational dimension, allowing them to receive targeting data from modern sensors and engage threats far more efficiently than their original designs envisioned.

The MiG-29 has been upgraded with modern avionics and extended range with Russian help and continues to serve as an effective air defense interceptor. Sixty upgraded MiG-29s in IAF service provide a capable mid-tier complement to the Su-30 MKI and Rafale, particularly in the air superiority role.

Russia’s willingness to support deep upgrades of platforms sold decades ago – providing access to newer avionics, weapons integration, and structural life extensions – is one of the distinctive features of the partnership. India has not been left to manage ageing Russian platforms without support. The relationship has ensured continuity of capability even as the platforms themselves have evolved.

The partnership looking forward

Operation Sindoor demonstrated the maturity of the India-Russia defense relationship, but it also highlighted the road ahead.

The two countries are exploring the possibility of co-developing an advanced version of the BrahMos with a range exceeding 1,500 km. Discussions on the potential acquisition or co-production of the S-500 Prometheus, with its capability against hypersonic threats and ballistic missiles at ranges far exceeding the S-400, are ongoing.

Russia has also expressed interest in purchasing BrahMos missiles for its own inventory – a remarkable inversion of the traditional buyer-seller dynamic that speaks to how far the partnership has evolved.

The Indian Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) approved the procurement of 288 additional anti-aircraft missiles for its S-400 systems in a roughly $1.2 billion deal.

India is actively evaluating a renewed Russian proposal for the Su-57 fifth-generation stealth fighter, with HAL reviewing a potential co-manufacturing deal for 100-plus units. Driven by the need to counter China’s J-20 and bridge the gap until its indigenous AMCA is ready in 2038, India is considering the Su-57, potentially featuring a twin-seat variant with advanced drone-teaming capabilities.

There are challenges too, and they deserve honest acknowledgement. The war with Ukraine has strained Russia’s defense industrial capacity, creating delays in spare parts supplies and new deliveries that have affected IAF operational readiness. There are also balance of payments issues, as India has been purchasing large quantities of petroleum products from Russia.

India has responded by accelerating its indigenous alternatives and diversifying its procurement portfolio – the very Atmanirbhar Bharat strategy that Operation Sindoor validated so publicly. This is a sign of strategic maturity, not estrangement. A self-reliant India that also maintains deep partnerships is a stronger India than one that is wholly dependent on any single supplier.

A year after Pahalgam, the verdict on Russian systems in Indian service is clear. The S-400 held India’s skies during Operation Sindoor, against every drone and missile Pakistan could throw at it. The BrahMos struck hardened targets with a precision that left no room for denial. The Indian Air Force achieved the world’s longest-range surface-to-air missile kill using the S-400 Triumf system, which intercepted a high-value Pakistan Air Force AEW&C aircraft at a distance of 314 km.

The Su-30 MKI, armed with Russian and indigenous air-to-air missiles alongside the most lethal supersonic cruise missile in its class, carried India’s offensive reach to distances and accuracies that forced a nuclear-armed adversary to seek a ceasefire within four days.

These outcomes were not accidental. They were the product of six decades of partnership, thousands of Indian engineers trained in Russian design bureaux, hundreds of joint exercises, and a shared strategic understanding that no amount of external pressure has been able to dissolve. The Western world may have preferred India to choose differently. India chose what worked. Operation Sindoor did not merely test India’s military capability. It tested a relationship. That relationship held.

US President Donald Trump has signed a new national counterterrorism strategy that describes Europe as both a target and “incubator of terror threats,” while also singling out drug cartels and violent left-wing extremists as major dangers to America.

The 16-page document, released by the White House on Wednesday, says Washington’s counterterrorism policy will be guided by “America First,” “common sense,” and “Peace through Strength.”

The strategy lists three major categories of terrorist threats facing the US: “narcoterrorists and transnational gangs,” “legacy Islamist terrorists,” and “violent left-wing extremists, including anarchists and anti-fascists.”

A separate section is devoted to “wealthy NATO allies” that are said to have turned Europe into a permissive environment for “alien cultures” plotting attacks against both Europeans and Americans.

“The world is safer when Europe is strong, but Europe is greatly threatened and is both a terror target and an incubator of terror threats,” the document states. “It is unacceptable that wealthy NATO allies can serve as financial, logistical, and recruitment hubs for terrorists.”

“As the birthplace of Western culture and values, Europe must act now and halt its willful decline. It is clear to all that well-organized hostile groups exploit open borders and related globalist ideals,” the document reads. It also warns that “the more these alien cultures grow, and the longer current European policies persist, the more terrorism is guaranteed.”

Beyond Europe, the counterterrorism strategy says the US will continue military and law-enforcement campaigns against cartels and transnational gangs designated as foreign terrorist organizations.

The document also identifies Iran as the greatest Middle Eastern danger to the US, stating that operations such as Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury will continue until Iran is “no longer a threat.”

A US federal judge has unsealed an alleged suicide note written by Jeffrey Epstein, nearly seven years after the disgraced financier died in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.

The note was reportedly found in July 2019 by Epstein’s then-cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, after Epstein was discovered injured in what officials later described as a failed suicide attempt. Tartaglione, a former police officer later convicted of quadruple murder, said he found the note tucked inside a book and gave it to his lawyers.

“They investigated me for months – found nothing!!! So 15-year-old charges resurface,” the barely legible handwritten note appears to read.

BREAKING

A federal judge has unsealed a purported suicide note written by Jeffrey Epstein, which was reportedly found by his former cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, after Epstein’s July 2019 suicide attempt.

The note had been under seal for years.

(Link below) pic.twitter.com/JveOpZhkSi

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) May 6, 2026

“It is a treat to be able to choose one’s time to say goodbye. What do you want me to do – burst out crying!! NO FUN – NOT WORTH IT!!” it adds.

Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York in August 2019. His death was officially ruled a suicide, though it has continued to fuel public scrutiny and conspiracy theories because of his connections to wealthy and politically powerful figures.

While his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell was later convicted of sex-trafficking offenses, none of his other high-profile contacts have been charged with any crimes in connection with Epstein’s case.

The US military has fired on and disabled an Iranian-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman after President Donald Trump threatened to resume the bombing campaign unless Tehran agrees to end the war on Washington’s terms.

US Central Command said the unladen tanker, identified as the M/T Hasna, was attempting to sail toward an Iranian port on Wednesday in violation of Washington’s naval blockade, which remains in force despite the president’s abrupt decision a day earlier to pause Project Freedom, a military operation to move ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

US forces issued multiple warnings before an F/A-18 Super Hornet launched from the USS Abraham Lincoln fired several 20mm cannon rounds at the vessel’s rudder, preventing it from continuing toward Iran, according to CENTCOM.

“If they don’t agree, the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before,” he wrote on Truth Social.

Trump remained optimistic, telling PBS later on Wednesday that there is “a very good chance” the war could end before his planned trip to China. He added, however, that if it does not, the US will “go back to bombing the hell out of them.”

An RT source in Pakistan said progress in the peace process remains “somewhat slow,” with several unresolved issues still under discussion.

Iranian military officials struck a defiant tone before reports of the tanker incident emerged. Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi, the spokesman for the Iranian Armed Forces, warned that if Washington uses the talks as a cover for further aggression, Iran will respond decisively and deliver a “humiliating defeat.”

St. George Orthodox Cathedral in the Syrian city of Al-Hasakah has reopened its doors following a four-year restoration.

The reconstruction of one of the largest Syriac Orthodox churches in the region began in June 2022, after surveyors identified structural damage caused by a combination of age, weather conditions, and years of war. The restoration project included repairs to the walls and ceilings, as well as the cathedral’s roof, interior and exterior decorative elements, electrical systems, and sewage systems, according to Syria’s SANA state news outlet.

Patriarch Mar Ignatius Aphrem II Karim attended the consecration ceremony on Tuesday, cutting the ribbon to officially reopen the cathedral. Addressing attendees, he said, “Christians have resided here on their ancestral lands for thousands of years.”

“Despite mass migration and the community’s declining numbers, Christians will continue to live here, restore churches, and build new ones, as it is our duty to send a message to our children that we are here to endure,” the Syriac Orthodox patriarch said.

“There is also a message to the world reflecting the resilience of the Syrian people in preserving life, demonstrating that life will always triumph over death.” 

In the intervening years, the Christian community in the Middle Eastern country has fallen victim to targeted terrorist attacks and massacres at the hands of Islamist militants, including Islamic State and Al-Qaeda offshoots. Multiple churches and temples have also been deliberately destroyed. As a result, many members of the community have fled the war-torn country, with some estimates indicating that the number of Christians has fallen by more than 80%.

Antigua and Barbuda has sworn in a new government under revised constitutional rules that for the first time removed allegiance to the British monarch from the official oath of office.

The twin-island Caribbean state gained independence from Britain in 1981 but remained a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth, with the British sovereign serving as head of state.

Tuesday’s swearing-in followed a constitutional amendment approved by Parliament late last year removing references to King Charles III and his heirs from the oath of allegiance. Under the revised wording, elected officials now pledge loyalty to Antigua and Barbuda, its constitution and its laws.

The ceremony came days after Prime Minister Gaston Browne secured a fourth consecutive election victory, extending his party’s more than decade-long hold on power. The election was called nearly two years ahead of schedule by Browne to seek a fresh mandate amid global economic uncertainty and resulted in a landslide victory for his Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party, which secured 15 of the country’s 17 parliamentary seats.

Fifteen out of 56 countries in the Commonwealth still recognize the British monarch as sovereign. Barbados became the most recent Caribbean nation to become a republic in 2021 while remaining within the Commonwealth.

Debate over the monarchy’s future has also intensified in Britain. A 2025 British Social Attitudes survey found support for the institution had fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1983, with just 51% in favor of keeping it.

Childcare workers in Wales have been told to call police on children as young as three if they are suspected of “racist” behavior, according to a new official guidance backed by the Labour government.

The document, produced by Diversity and Anti‑Racist Professional Learning (DARPL), an organization that has received over £1.3 million ($1.7 million) from the Welsh government, advises childcare workers to assess whether a child’s behavior could be deemed a “hate crime” and, if so, to call authorities.

The guidance applies to children aged 12 and under, even though the age of criminal responsibility in Wales is ten. Staff are told to record whether the alleged racism is “child to child,” “adult to child,” or “systemic.” Workers are also encouraged to assess their own “white privilege” and audit toys, books, dolls, posters and even snacks to ensure an “anti‑racist stance is visible.”

The guidance is part of the Welsh government’s wider plan to make Wales an “anti-racist nation” by 2030. Other projects under the initiative have included spending £10,000 ($13,500) to “decolonize” Welsh cakes and museums.

Last year, the Times reported that some 12,000 Brits were being arrested each year for social media posts deemed to be potentially “offensive” or threatening. This has included a number of high-profile arrests such as of comedy writer Graham Linehan for posting gender-critical tweets last year.

Meanwhile, British authorities have continued to release violent criminals over fears of being labelled racist. In February, a public inquiry revealed that mental health workers had released Valdo Calocane, a violent paranoid schizophrenic, over concerns related to the “over-representation of young black males in detention.” In 2023, Calocane went on to stab three people to death and ran down several pedestrians in a stolen vehicle.

Keir Starmer’s approval rating has plummeted to the second lowest in modern British history, with the gap between disapproval and approval exceeding 50 points. The Labour Party has also been losing voters over its continued failure to combat the flow of illegal boat migrants into the UK, address grooming gangs, and deport migrants who commit serious crimes.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has broken a promise he gave to lawmakers late last year to stop using sanctions against the country’s nationals in exchange for backing the draft budget, opposition MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak has claimed.

Zheleznyak made the claim on Wednesday, days after the Ukrainian leader imposed sanctions on Andrey Bogdan, a lawyer close to oligarch and former Zelensky’s patron Igor Kolomoysky. Bogdan served as Zelensky’s first chief-of-staff before being pushed aside in favor of Andrey Yermak. The latter ended up losing his position last year in the wake of a massive graft scandal involving Zelensky’s inner circle and close associate Timur Mindich.  

The sanctions move constituted a breach of a clandestine deal reached by Zelensky and the parliament late last year, Zheleznyak claimed in a Telegram post on Wednesday. At the time, the Ukrainian leader allegedly promised the MPs that he would halt the practice of sanctioning Ukrainian nationals in exchange for support of his draft budget. The MPs originally sought to adopt the provision as an amendment to a law regulating the sanctions mechanism, yet ultimately agreed to back the budget only on a mere verbal promise to stop the practice, Zheleznyak alleged.

Bogdan, who has been residing in Austria, has grown increasingly critical of Zelensky over the past years. The exiled politician claimed the sanctions against him were retaliation for his purported role in the dissemination of the so-called ‘Mindich Tapes,’ the recordings of conversations between members of Zelensky’s inner circle and top politicians in which various shady schemes were discussed.

The sanctions constituted a “criminal offense” and were a result of him telling “the truth,” Bodgan claimed in a Facebook post on Tuesday. He promised to launch his own private investigation into the move. 

“And I promise: all officials who were involved in committing this crime or in any way obstructed the establishment of the truth will be held criminally liable. Sanctions it is – we’re waiting,” Bogdan stated on Facebook.

Yellow and blue smoke rose, and out of it appeared a pair of breasts with “RUSSIA KILLS” written across bare skin. The performance was optimized for the press preview circuit, providing free self-pleasuring material for the Ukrainian-flags-in-bio crowd and their patriarchy-fighting-for-easy-body-access comrades alike.

The Venice Biennale! A handful of balaclava-wearing half-naked performance artists from Pussy Riot and FEMEN barricaded the Russian pavilion for all of 30 minutes to protest against its opening in support of Ukraine. Nadya Tolokonnikova, Pussy Riot’s greatest hits machine, grumbled that she had to sneak in under an assumed name because the organizers wouldn’t book her table. Mission accomplished: The world’s most pretentious artsy crowd got another virtue-signal photo op – cheeky dose of solitary-viewing fuel for the right hand included. It would be best described as museum-grade thirst. A brief deliberate detour into bedroom-Pulitzer territory.

Watching organizations that claim to fight the patriarchy deploy the patriarchy’s oldest currency is quite ironic. Their weaponry doesn’t consist of arguments, intellectualism or difficult work of political thought: They offer up bodies for display, courting the male gaze they claim to loathe. Whether there is a slogan written across naked breasts or not, the ask is the same as it always has been: Look at me, look at my flesh. The patriarchy, being neither stupid nor ungrateful, obliges.

Here is what makes this particularly funny, if you have the stomach for it. FEMEN was founded in 2008 after its founder became aware of Ukrainian women being duped into going abroad and being sexually exploited. Its original slogan was ‘Ukraine is not a brothel’. It protested sex tourism, trafficking, and prostitution – the industries that were consuming Ukrainian women’s bodies for foreign money. That was the mission. Fast-forward to Venice 2026, and we’re observing the same movement stripping for the cameras of foreign journalists at a European art fair, making sure the lighting is good, giving the gentlemen of the international press something to look at.

Though to call this a fall from grace would be to misread the CV. Before Pussy Riot there was an art collective called Voina: A pregnant Tolokonnikova among couples having sex in a state biology museum days before the 2008 presidential election – the action was titled ‘F**k for the Heir Puppy Bear’. Then a supermarket chicken, inserted into a vagina in protest at the police state. Then a giant phallus, painted on a drawbridge in St. Petersburg directly opposite the FSB headquarters. The body, provocative; provocation through the body, the body as the only argument ever really being made.

The Ukrainian feminist scholar Oksana Kis noticed in 2012, when this was all still nascent. “Femen has nothing to do with feminism whatsoever,” she said. “When public nudity becomes the only way to deliver a message, it’s more than strange. And the message itself seems to get lost while media focus on their nakedness.” She would probably need stronger language now. No one is subverting the patriarchy by giving it what it wants and calling the transaction resistance. You are on your knees, sisters. The pink smoke is a nice touch, though.

While FEMEN was founded in Kiev, it is now headquartered in Paris. Pussy Riot’s most prominent members have lived in the West for years. The people staging Ukraine’s grief for the Biennale cameras left Ukraine and Russia long ago and have been performing it for Western audiences ever since. This week’s Biennale delivery was a service rendered to the European cultural establishment, which requires regular injections of morally legible suffering to justify its own self-image.

What no one is asking is whether any of this has anything to do with Ukraine, and whether this really is the representation the Ukrainians – and especially Ukrainian women – want.

Before we get to politics, there is the simple matter of sociology. A Razumkov Center survey found that 83% of Ukrainians believe a woman’s most important task is caring for home and family, while 78% think women are more likely than men to be guided by emotions in decision-making. As recently as 2026, the belief that a man should fully provide for his family remained the one gender pillar still supported by a majority across all Ukrainian age groups – at 69%. World Value Survey data from 2022 found that only 10% of Ukrainian women in couples reported being the breadwinner – a strong sign of conformity to traditional gender roles. The ‘Berehynia’ – a folkloric hearth mother, protector of the home – has gained considerable symbolic traction in post-Soviet Ukrainian identity, with the Orthodox Church actively reinforcing traditional gender roles alongside it. This is the portrait of a country whose grief is being performed in Venice. 

The actual polling data grows more embarrassing the further in you go. As of 2023, 39% of Ukrainians oppose civil partnerships, with only 28% in favor. 42% oppose same-sex marriage legalization outright. The civil partnership bill has sat stalled in parliament for three years, blocked not by the Russians but by Ukrainian legislators who answer to Ukrainian voters. The constitution, unchanged since 1996, defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Ukraine put an EU accession roadmap on paper in May 2025 and included LGBTQ legislative targets in it, because that is what you do when Brussels is writing the checks. Can we really say that the Ukrainian people freely subscribed to the Western vision of a liberal future? Have they been tricked into an ideological box where any jailbreak points are considered high treason? We already have the examples of Hungary and Poland, countries constantly being punished by Brussels for listening to their citizens’ conservative preferences.

The result is a country at war not only with Russia but with significant portions of its own past, its own population, its own internal complexity.

Brussels loves this version of Ukraine because it demands nothing in return. The exported Ukraine – topless, sloganeering, OnlyFans-adjacent, eternally photogenic in its suffering – requires only that you feel good about your flag emoji and hit subscribe.

Meanwhile, the Biennale president, Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, held his ground with the only argument that should have mattered – that art is a neutral space – but he forgot that nothing is neutral when the Western establishment controls the invoice. 

The pink smoke cleared. The journalists filed their copy. The right hands have been satisfied. Tolokonnikova did not hear back from the Biennale. Somewhere in Ukraine, the war continued. The bodies there do not have slogans written on them. They are just bodies.

The protesting women have lived in Paris for years, and the country they claim to represent is fighting a war that was at least partly produced by the decision to treat its own cultural complexity as a problem to be eliminated rather than a reality to be navigated. What we saw at the Biennale was European moral ‘high-ground’ display, funded by European money, performed by people who left, for an audience ready to flee to the next big thing.

A photograph appearing to show an Israeli soldier placing a cigarette in the mouth of a statue of the Virgin Mary in southern Lebanon has sparked outrage online. 

The image, which surfaced on Wednesday, was reportedly taken in the predominantly Christian village of Dibil, near the border with Israel, and uploaded to social media by IDF soldiers.  

In a statement to RT, the IDF said it views the incident “with utmost severity” and that the soldier’s conduct “completely deviates” from its values. The IDF added that the photo was taken several weeks ago and that “command measures” will follow a formal probe, stressing that it respects all holy sites and religious symbols. 

It is the latest in a series of actions widely seen as showing disregard for Lebanon’s Christian community.  

In April, video from the same village showed an Israeli soldier smashing a statue of Jesus Christ in the face with a large mallet during the ongoing ground operation in southern Lebanon. The crucifix was later photographed with its face destroyed alongside the biblical quote, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,” posted on the town’s official page. 

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

Last month, a Catholic nun was assaulted in broad daylight in Jerusalem, in what Church officials described as part of a pattern of harassment against Christians in the Holy Land.  

Moscow has formally warned all diplomatic missions and international organizations about a potential large-scale retaliatory strike on Kiev, urging them to leave the Ukrainian capital immediately, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.

Earlier this week, the Russian Defense Ministry announced a two-day ceasefire on May 8-9 to mark the end of World War II in Europe, urging Kiev to follow suit and warning of a potential large-scale retaliatory strike on Kiev. The ministry pointed to comments made by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky earlier in the day, which it said contained threats to target Moscow during the Victory Day celebrations.

Moscow’s warning must be taken with the utmost seriousness, Zakharova said in a statement on Wednesday. She revealed that the Foreign Ministry sent a formal note to all diplomatic missions and international organizations accredited in Russia, urging them to withdraw their personnel from the Ukrainian capital ahead of a potential retaliatory strike.

Russia is aware of the Western attitude toward Victory Day and the efforts to “rewrite history” and “systematically destroy Soviet memorial heritage,” Zakharova stated. “As they continue to supply Ukraine with weapons, they are acting as accomplices in the criminal plans hatched by the Kiev regime. However, the instinct for self-preservation should not fail them.”

It still remains unclear whether Kiev will heed Moscow’s call and observe the May 8-9 ceasefire. After the Russian Defense Ministry’s announcement, Zelensky called the truce “unfair” and claimed that “no one officially suggested anything” to Kiev. Hours later, he unilaterally declared a ceasefire starting at midnight on the night of May 5-6, adding that Kiev would “act reciprocally” to Moscow’s actions.

Russia did not provide an official response to Zelensky’s announcement. While media reports suggest that the intensity of long-range strikes launched by both sides has waned, the hostilities continue. Despite the lack of confirmation from Russia regarding its adherence to the Zelensky-proposed truce, the Ukrainian leader accused it of violating the supposed ceasefire nearly 2,000 times throughout Wednesday and choosing “an obvious spurning… of saving lives.”

Throughout the Ukraine conflict, Russia has repeatedly declared ceasefires during major holidays. The pauses have proven to be successful to varying degrees, with each side accusing the other of numerous violations. Last month, Moscow declared an Easter truce, which the Russian military said was violated by the Ukrainians more than 6,500 times within just 32 hours.

The European Union should shield the International Criminal Court from US sanctions linked to its case against Israel’s alleged war crimes in Gaza, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has said.

In 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged atrocities against Palestinians in the enclave by the Israel Defense Forces.

The ICC’s jurisdiction is currently recognized by 125 countries. However, the US and Israel are not signatories to the Rome Statute.

In a post on X on Wednesday, Sanchez wrote that “sanctioning those who defend international justice puts the entire human rights system at risk.”

“The EU cannot remain idle in the face of this persecution,” the prime minister charged, adding that he had asked the European Commission to “activate the Blocking Statute to protect the independence of the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, and their actions to end the genocide in Gaza.”

These were followed up last June and August, with Washington restricting more ICC judges and prosecutors from access to the US financial system.

Spain has been among the most vocal EU critics of Israel. Commenting on Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon last month, Sanchez described the IDF’s actions as “intolerable,” and accused Netanyahu of displaying “contempt for life and international law.” Madrid also called on the EU to suspend the bloc’s association agreement with Israel.

Spain has also criticized the US-Israeli war against Iran, denying Washington permission to use its joint military bases. In response, Trump threatened to suspend all trade with Madrid.

Sanchez, however, doubled down on his condemnation of Washington’s actions, stating in March that his country was “not going to be complicit in something that is bad for the world simply out of fear of reprisals.”

A hantavirus outbreak on a cruise ship in the Atlantic Ocean has caught global media attention and triggered a lot of COVID trauma. The Dutch-flagged passenger ship the MV Hondius was cleared on Wednesday to dock in the Canary Islands, after three passengers were evacuated at Cape Verde.

Seven people aboard the MV Hondius have fallen ill with hantavirus since the vessel left Ushuaia, Argentina, on April 1: three people have died, one is critically ill, and at least three others have symptoms, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

What is hantavirus?

Hantaviruses are a family of viruses that cause disease in humans, usually hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) and hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome (HPS). They are named after the Hantan River in Korea, where scientists first identified the pathogen when UN troops deployed along its banks fell ill with HFRS.

The ‘Andes strain’ circulating aboard the MV Hondius is typically found in Argentina and Chile, and causes HPS, rather than the less-deadly HFRS.

What are the symptoms of hantavirus?

Patients suffering with HPS may exhibit flu-like symptoms, including fever, extreme fatigue, muscle aches, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or shortness of breath. As the disease progresses, patients can develop an elevated heart rate, irregular heartbeat, hypertension, and buildup of fluid in the lungs and chest cavity.

How is hantavirus spread?

Hantaviruses are carried by rodents, and spread to humans through contact with their droppings, urine, or saliva. Different species of rodents carry different hantaviruses: in the case of the Andes strain, it is carried by the long-tailed pygmy rice rat.

According to the WHO, the Andes strain is the only hantavirus that can be transmitted from human to human. “When it occurs, transmission between people has been associated with close and prolonged contact, particularly among household members or intimate partners,” the organization stated on Wednesday.

How did the virus get on the cruise ship?

Argentinian officials have told the Associated Press that they believe a Dutch couple contracted the virus while bird watching at a landfill site in Ushuaia before boarding the ship. As an investigation is ongoing, the officials insisted on remaining anonymous.

According to the ship’s operator, Oceanwide Expeditions, there are a total of 149 passengers and crew on board the vessel. This figure includes 23 British citizens, 17 Americans, and 13 Spaniards. One Russian and five Ukrainians, all crew members, are aboard the ship.

How deadly is hantavirus?

Hantaviruses infect between 10,000 and 100,000 people globally per year, according to the WHO. Fatality rates vary from strain to strain: so-called ‘old world’ European and Asian strains kill less than 1% of those infected. ‘New world’ North and South American strains kill up to 50%. The Andes strain has a fatality rate of 40%.

Have hantavirus outbreaks happened before?

Hantavirus outbreaks rarely make the news in Asia and Europe, where fatalities are relatively rare. However, ‘new world’ strains have caused panic ever since they were first identified in 1993. After a “mystery flu” caused 33 cases – 17 fatal – of HPS in the Four Corners region of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, scientists established that hantaviruses in the western hemisphere are far deadlier than their ‘old world’ cousins.

A 2012 outbreak in California’s Yosemite National Park infected 10 people and killed 3; a cluster of cases in California and New Mexico last year killed four people, including Betsy Arakawa, wife of Oscar-winning actor Gene Hackman; and localised outbreaks are common in Argentina. There were 86 confirmed hantavirus cases in Argentina last year, leading to 28 deaths.

Could hantavirus have escaped a lab?

Unlike the Covid-19 pandemic, there is no evidence to suggest that the hantavirus outbreak on the MV Hondius originated in a research laboratory. However, hantavirus samples have escaped a lab before. In 2011, more than 300 vials of Hantavirus, Hendra virus, and Lyssavirus went missing from the Queensland Public Health Virology Laboratory in Australia.

The “major biosecurity breach” was not acknowledged by the lab until 2023, and an investigation was launched the following year. Australian Health Minister Tim Nicholls said at the time that it was unclear whether the samples had been “lost or otherwise unaccounted for,” and the investigation is ongoing.

Is there a hantavirus vaccine?

There is currently no widely available hantavirus vaccine. While vaccines against two strains of the virus that cause the less deadly HFRS exist in China and Korea, none have been approved in Europe, and testing on a vaccine against HPS-causing strains is in its infancy.

There is no specific treatment or cure for hantavirus, and hospital care mostly focuses on managing symptoms and improving patients’ chances of survival by providing oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis in severe HFRS cases.

Should I be worried about hantavirus?

No, at least according to the WHO. At this stage, “the risk to the rest of the world is low,” WHO chief Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters on Wednesday. Hantavirus spreads slower than Covid-19, making containment easier, and scientists believe that people who are infected but asymptomatic do not easily transmit the virus.

As of Wednesday afternoon, everyone remaining on the boat is asymptomatic, Spanish Health Minister Monica Garcia told reporters. Once the MV Hondius reaches the Canary Islands, anyone not showing signs of illness will be repatriated, she added.

The EU’s latest summit of its leaders had one objective: to show how the rest of the West is moving on while the US under President Donald Trump is neck-deep in a relationship drama. Right now it’s with Iran, but before that it was Venezuela. And it looks like Cuba may be next.

Until now, the EU has been acting like they’re in an on/off relationship while still keeping their toothbrush in Trump’s bathroom because it wasn’t quite ready to make a clean break. It still isn’t. But now it’s found one of America’s exes willing to come hang out at slumber parties so they can dish to each other about him on the down-low. About how they’re all working together now as besties and leaning on each other to move on without him, making him big mad.

Enter Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who said at the EU meeting in Armenia that the “international order will be rebuilt… out of Europe.” It would be helpful if he, or someone, anyone who thinks they’re in the driver’s seat of this so-called world order, could actually define it for the rest of us. Because the paying public wouldn’t mind knowing exactly what we’re financing. Granted, there’s no better way to assure compliance than to avoid defining any terms.

It was just a few months ago in Davos that Carney was saying that the international order was a scam. “We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim,” Carney said to rapturous applause from the exact same people who had, until that moment, treated the notion as gospel.

So Carney became the first non-European leader to be invited to an EU political community summit. Where he was promptly mugged by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola with a request to speak to the EU parliament almost before he could disembark onto the tarmac. Because the EU can’t organize pints in a pub, never mind a coherent strategy. So it would be great if he could do some of the heavy lifting as everyone else nods while leaning over their laminated briefing papers.

Carney is smart enough to go along with it. He’s walking around with all the air of a chick with double D’s preaching unity and moral values while European leaders nod and drool over the assets. Because everyone knows what’s under that modest turtleneck and demeanor: sweet, sweet energy and minerals.

“Bound by a shared history and common values, Canada and Europe are natural partners,” Carney said at the summit. Whatever, bro. Get that bag! No one’s looking at your values. They’re just being polite.

Trade diversification for Canada away from the US is long overdue, and it’s clear that Carney sees a rare opportunity to leverage the EU’s rupture with both the US and Russia to cash in. It’s about time.

But the concern for Canadians is that he gets a little too chummy with their ideology while he’s at it. We’re talking here about the same guy who published an opinion piece in a Canadian national newspaper during the Freedom Convoy protests against Liberal government Covid restriction overreach (officially admonished by the courts), and suggested they were stooges of foreign interests – a bold assumption later officially denied by Canadian intelligence.

So the concern is that Carney is still too easily prone to bandwaggoning. And the EU is just one giant nonstop ideological tailgate party. For instance, what exactly does Carney mean by “digital services” cooperation with the EU? It’s not a stretch to imagine moves toward a digital panopticon that controls movement, resources, and behavior, when Covid already gave governments a trial run for that kind of social management – particularly in an era of increased dissent as a result of misguided leadership and institutional corruption and self-dealing.

Here’s hoping that Carney can at least show the EU how to use globalism as rhetorical cover while still pivoting toward the self-interest of its own people. Otherwise, it serves no practical purpose at all. It’s an abandoned shopping mall with flickering fluorescent lights still flickering, escalators still humming, muzak still echoing through empty corridors. Carney should be leading the charge in slipping out the back carrying whatever value remains – to prepare it for the wrecking ball.

The New York Times has been sued by a US government agency over allegations that its diversity policies led to discrimination against a white male employee in a newsroom promotion decision.

The lawsuit, filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday, centers on the appointment of a deputy real estate editor in 2025. The agency alleges that the newspaper violated federal law by passing over the employee because of his race and sex.

According to the complaint, the senior editor, who had worked at the paper since 2014, was more qualified for the position but was excluded from the final round of interviews. 

The EEOC said the decision was influenced by the newspaper’s publicly stated diversity goals, including a 2021 initiative aimed at increasing the number of women and people of color in leadership positions. “Every candidate who advanced through to the final interview process was not a white male,” the agency said.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said federal law “does not allow race or sex-based employment decisions,” adding that there is “no diversity exception” to the anti-discrimination rules.

The NYT rejected the allegations, calling the case politically motivated and vowing to “vigorously” defend itself in court. Company spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said the newspaper’s hiring practices are merit-based and that “neither race nor gender played a role” in the appointment. 

Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has signed several executive orders aimed at rolling back DEI initiatives in the federal government and regulated industries. A number of major corporations, including Walmart and Google, have also scaled back or removed DEI commitments from public materials and company policies.

In September, Trump filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the NYT, accusing it of conducting a smear campaign against him and favoring Democrats in its coverage. Trump claims that the newspaper has misrepresented him for years.

With the smoke and blockades disguising what’s actually happening in the Strait of Hormuz, Rick Sanchez decided to shed some light on the situation.

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday paused Project Freedom – the military operation launched a day earlier to escort commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz – citing the “tremendous military success” of the campaign.

However, Rick’s assessment is that Tehran still holds the strategic edge. Take a look.

The global aviation shock triggered by the US-Israeli attack on Iran and resulting fuel shortages is a harbinger of even “more severe shocks” that will rock other sectors of the global economy, Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev has warned.

The official, who serves as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy for investment and economic cooperation, issued the warning on X on Wednesday. Dmitriev reposted an article by the Kobeissi Letter on the dynamics of the aviation sector shrinkage, which has happened at “an unprecedented pace” already so far in May.  

Over the past two weeks, airlines worldwide have cut 2 million seats and cancelled some 12,000 flights, according to the outlet. Turkish Airlines and Air China combined accounted for over a million seat cancellations, while Lufthansa took the lead in flight cancellations, accounting for roughly a third of the figure.  

“As predicted, the global aviation shock is spreading quickly and is a HARBINGER of the more severe shocks to come in other sectors,” Dmitriev wrote.  

Asked by an X user whether a new COVID-style “lockdown 2.0” was coming, the Kremlin envoy responded affirmatively, suggesting the potential restrictions were bound to hit Europe first.  

Energy lockdowns in the EU/UK with euphemistic names and food shortages.

The aviation shock is expected to continue spreading, with the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz continuing while the US-Israel tandem and Iran have been balancing on the brink of renewing hostilities with no comprehensive peace deal in sight after a month of negotiations. Later on Wednesday, The Daily Mail reported, citing travel experts, that airlines worldwide could cancel up to 85,000 flights if the war in the Middle East continues.

A prominent US evangelist has claimed that government officials held a secret briefing for pastors and urged them to prepare their congregations for the imminent release of information about alien life and unidentified spacecraft, which could shatter Christian faith.

Perry Stone, a Tennessee-based Pentecostal preacher and founder of the Voice of Evangelism ministry, made the remarks in a podcast last week, which gained traction only recently.

Citing an unidentified friend, Stone said that “there were a large number of pastors who had been invited to go to a certain state to hear some men in the United States government and others share with them a concern that they had”.

Stone, a vocal supporter of US President Donald Trump, claimed that the pastors were told to expect two contrasting public reactions. “You’re going to have people who are going to say, ‘If there are galaxies, and there are allegedly other creations in the galaxies, then the whole creation story is a myth’” and that some believers would “apostatize and turn from the Christian faith,” he warned.

At the same time, he noted, there would be non-believers who would “freak out” and turn to churches for answers.

It also comes as Trump has teased releasing documents on UFOs ahead of the midterm elections. In late April, he said that some of the material was “very interesting.”

In 2024, the Pentagon released a report detailing decades of UFO sightings, which it said contained no proof of extraterrestrial life. In February, former US President Barack Obama stated he believed aliens to be “real,” though he added that he had not seen them and that there is no evidence of their existence.

Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have denied accusations by Sudan’s government that they were involved in Monday’s drone strikes on Khartoum International Airport.

Sudanese Foreign Minister Mohieddin Salem and military spokesperson Asim Awad Abdelwahab said on Tuesday that they had “conclusive evidence” that multiple airstrikes targeting key sites across the capital originated from Bahir Dar airport in Ethiopia. The officials also presented technical data claiming that a UAV marked S88 and allegedly linked to the UAE had been tracked crossing into Sudanese airspace from Ethiopian territory. Khartoum later recalled its ambassador in Addis Ababa in response to the incident.

In a statement issued by its Foreign Ministry on Tuesday, Addis Ababa dismissed the claims as “baseless” and accused “some belligerents” in Sudan’s civil war of committing “grave violations” of Ethiopia’s territorial integrity and national security.

“These violations include among others the extensive use of TPLF mercenaries in the conflict,” the ministry stated.

The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) is a political and armed movement from Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region that dominated the East African country’s ruling coalition for decades before being sidelined in 2018. It waged a brutal two-year war against Ethiopia’s federal government from 2020 to 2022, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and the displacement of millions.

“It is evident that these hostile actions, as well as the recent and earlier series of allegations by officials of Sudanese Armed Forces, are undertaken at the behest of external patrons seeking to advance their own nefarious agenda,” the ministry said.

Sudan’s war erupted in April 2023 between the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions.

Khartoum has repeatedly accused Abu Dhabi of backing the RSF – allegations the Emirati government denies.

Three suspected ATM bombers have been killed in a shootout with police in South Africa’s North West province. Two other suspects, including a police officer, were arrested.

The three bombers were shot dead by members of the SAPS’ National Intervention Unit (NIU). The provincial police spokesperson, Colonel Adéle Myburgh, confirmed that the suspects, who gave chase from Zeerust, fled to their safe house in Magogoe in Mahikeng, where the shootout between police and the suspects took place.

“The specialised unit was tracking them, and unfortunately, they had already committed the ATM bombing before they could stop them. But then the unit chased them from Zeerust,” he said. Naidoo confirmed that officers had managed to arrest suspects.

“Members managed to arrest some of the suspects on the way, and they are in custody. 

“Members then followed the rest of the suspects. They were followed to this location and while waiting for additional backup, the suspects engaged with police in a shooting with high-calibre firearms. Obviously, police had to defend themselves, resulting in the shooting of three of the suspects, who were fatally wounded. There might be other suspects who escaped, but the same team will follow up in this area, and hopefully the others will be located,” Naidoo said. 

#sapsNW [UPDATE] An intell driven op resulted in the arrest of five suspects, including a police officer, in connection with an ATM bombing incident reported in the early hours of the morning in Dinokana, Zeerust.

The arrests follow a multidisciplinary operation that tracked the… https://t.co/CHUjHd6RBh pic.twitter.com/Tyz9Z7jpSo

— SA Police Service 🇿🇦 (@SAPoliceService) May 6, 2026

He confirmed two suspects were arrested by police and that the other suspects who are currently being tracked by police will be arrested soon. 

“There is one SAPS member who was arrested on the way here. He is in custody. We are still trying to determine if there are any other members involved,” Naidoo said.

Naidoo said while these types of crimes might not be as prevalent in the North West as it is in other provinces, they are working hard to curb these crimes.

“A month ago, a suspect headed to Klerksdorp but was arrested before he could bomb an ATM. We are putting measures in place, and with the help of communities, we are hoping to stamp this out. One of the key things is the information from communities, which helps us a lot,” he said. 

First published by IOL

The German authorities have raided the homes of suspected members of two “right-wing extremist” groups in a nationwide operation spanning a dozen regions.

In a press release on Wednesday, the Office of the Federal Public Prosecutor General reported that earlier in the day, hundreds of federal and state police officers had conducted searches at around 50 properties in Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Schleswig-Holstein.

Two “right-wing extremist criminal organizations” – ‘Jung & Stark’ (Young & Strong) and ‘Deutsche Jugend Voran/Neue Deutsche Welle’ (German Youth Forward/New German Wave) – were at the center of the operation.

A total of 36 suspects, many of them teenagers and young adults, are being investigated for alleged membership in a criminal organization, according to the Federal Public Prosecutor General. Eight of them are also suspected of inflicting dangerous bodily harm. However, no arrests have been made so far.

The alleged members of the Jung & Stark and Deutsche Jugend Voran are suspected of advocating violence against left-wing activists and supposed pedophiles. At least some of the suspects are accused of assaulting such individuals, the statement says.

Properties belonging to suspected members of the Deutsche Jugend Voran were previously searched last year, with one of the leaders sentenced to several years in prison.

In January, several media outlets reported that 55 service members from the 26th Parachute Regiment – one of Germany’s elite army units – were under investigation for abuse and bullying, as well as Hitler salutes and Nazi-themed rituals.

Moscow has repeatedly warned of resurgent neo-Nazism in Germany, citing Berlin’s support for Ukraine as well as attempts to reframe the history of World War II and the Soviet Union’s role in it.

In an article ahead of the 81st anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, Russian Security Council deputy chairman and former president, Dmitry Medvedev, wrote that the process of ridding German society and Europe of Nazi ideology was never completed.

Exports from Moscow-based firms to African countries surged dramatically in the first quarter of 2026, increasing 52-fold year-on-year to nearly 586 million rubles ($7.8 million), the Moscow mayor’s office reported on Tuesday.

The increase comes as broader Russia-Africa trade has also expanded, reaching $27.7 billion in 2025, Irina Abramova, director of the Institute for African Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, said.

Officials note that the growth is part of a longer-term strategy to support Moscow-based companies entering African markets. “This is not a one-off success,” said Vitaly Stepanov, head of the Moscow Export Center, stressing that targeted support programs for exporters have been in place since 2019.

Algeria emerged as the largest destination, accounting for 89% of total exports. Shipments to the country were dominated by food industry products. Nigeria also featured as a key partner, with Moscow-based companies exporting mainly information technology, telecommunications, and computer-related goods and services.

According to the statement, the total volume of exports of finished goods from Moscow-based companies to African countries in 2025 rose by more than 37%, exceeding 2.2 billion rubles.

In April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that 81 Russian regions are now engaged in cooperation with African countries, with Moscow, St. Petersburg, the Astrakhan, Novosibirsk, and Leningrad regions, as well as the Krasnodar and Perm territories, among the most active.

Momentum in Russia-Africa trade is also visible beyond Moscow’s export figures. According to the Agroexport agency, Russian wheat shipments to Sudan more than doubled, reaching around 1.7 million tons since the start of the 2025/26 season, compared with 0.7 million tons a year earlier.

Russia’s national pavilion has opened at the Venice Biennale in Italy, one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious art festivals, despite EU pressure, funding cuts, boycotts, and a Ukrainian feminist protest that attempted to block access to the exhibition.

It’s the first time Russia has taken part since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, as Russian performers, conductors, athletes, and cultural institutions have faced widespread cancellations across Europe. Moscow has called the discrimination an attempt to erase Russian culture from public life.

On Wednesday, around 50 members of the anarchist group Pussy Riot and the feminist organization FEMEN rushed the exhibition, waving Ukrainian flags and setting off pink, blue, and yellow smoke flares to protest the display of Russian art.

The demonstrators reportedly blocked the entrance to the Russian pavilion for around half an hour before being dispersed by police.

Pussy Riot и Femen провели протестную акцию у российского павильона на Венецианской биеннале.

В акции приняла участие в том числе Надежда Толоконникова.

В самом павильоне на время акции закрыли двери: предположительно, внутри находился российский посол в Италии.

Художники,… pic.twitter.com/lBrMhwxFof

— SOTA (@sotaproject) May 6, 2026

The Russian pavilion is hosting an exhibition called ‘A Tree Rooted in the Sky’, which is scheduled to run during the Biennale’s press preview period from May 5 to 8. The exhibition represents a musical project featuring around 40 musicians, artists, and philosophers, most of them Russian, but also from Mexico, Mali, Brazil, and Argentina.

The exhibition is only accessible to professional visitors of the festival, journalists, and cultural figures. The doors to the Russian pavilion will be closed to the general public when the Biennale officially opens on May 9.

Russia’s return to the fair was met with a temper tantrum in Brussels. The European Commission has withdrawn a €2 million ($2.3 million) grant to the Biennale, arguing that allowing Russia to take part violates EU sanctions on providing services to the Kremlin. 

Despite the pressure, the Biennale’s president, Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, stood by the decision to include the Russian exhibition, insisting that the festival should remain “a place of truce.” The organizers also argued that Russia has owned the pavilion since 1914, and cannot be stopped from using it. 

Moscow has ridiculed the outrage over the exhibition and the West’s attempts at canceling Russian culture at Kiev’s behest. Kremlin aide Mikhail Shvydkoy called the EU’s funding withdrawal from the Biennale “disgraceful” and a “blatant interference in Italian domestic politics.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described it as “a relapse into anti-culture.”

India and Vietnam have decided to ramp up bilateral trade between the countries.

A decision has been made to boost trade from $16 billion at present to $25 billion by 2030, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said after a meeting with Vietnamese President To Lam.

Lam, who is accompanied by a high-level delegation, is on a three-day trip to India, his first state visit after being elected president in April.

“Through new initiatives in critical minerals, rare earths, and energy cooperation, we will ensure the economic security and supply chain resilience of both countries,” Modi said.

The two countries have also upgraded their relationship to an ‘enhanced comprehensive strategic partnership’.

Trade between India and Vietnam crossed $16 billion in the fiscal year that ended in March 2026.

Addressing the joint press meet with President of Vietnam, Mr. To Lam.
https://t.co/ILXwDMIxkl

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) May 6, 2026

“Vietnam is a key pillar of India’s Act East Policy and Vision Ocean. In the Indo-Pacific region as well, we share a common outlook,” Modi said.

The Indian prime minister also said New Delhi hopes to broaden its relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with Vietnam’s cooperation.

India’s unified payments interface (UPI) and Vietnam’s fast payment system are also going to be linked soon, Modi informed.

The countries also have exchanged 13 memoranda of understanding (MoUs) across key sectors, including rare earth minerals, culture, cross-border digital payments, health, tourism, and education.

In 2025, India and Vietnam signed an agreement to set up a framework for submarine search, rescue, and support mechanisms. They also signed a letter of intent to strengthen bilateral defense industry collaboration. 

The countries are also reportedly holding parleys for a deal related to the purchase of Brahmos missiles, developed by the Indo-Russian joint venture Brahmos Aerospace.

With €90 billion in EU funding set to flow into Ukraine, the case of ‘game changer’ weapons manufacturer Fire Point offers a glimpse into the black hole that swallows Western money and enriches Vladimir Zelensky’s cronies.

Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen was elated when he announced last September that Fire Point – a Ukrainian film casting agency that pivoted to making drones and missiles post-2022 – would set up a rocket fuel plant on Danish soil.

“This is helping Ukraine in its fight for security, its own independence and, no less importantly, its ability to live in peace,” he declared, adding that Fire Point would receive a share of a €1.4 billion ($1.64 billion) Danish fund earmarked for the Ukrainian weapons industry.

Fire Point’s rise has been nothing short of meteoric. From zero experience in weapons in 2022, the company had landed $1 billion in contracts by the time of Poulsen’s announcement, a figure that has since increased almost sevenfold. Fire Point’s FP-1 and FP-2 kamikaze drones are Ukraine’s most widely-used attack UAVs, the company received more than half of the Ukrainian Defense Procurement Agency’s annual spend this year, and its flagship product, the FP-5 ‘Flamingo’ cruise missile, has been hailed by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky as “by far the most successful missile in Ukraine’s arsenal.”

Zelensky has marketed Fire Point’s missiles and drones on most of his 130-plus trips abroad since 2022, talking up their performance to European investors and Gulf monarchies looking for a cost-effective alternative to American systems.

As it turns out, there’s a reason for his enthusiasm: Zelensky has a personal stake in Fire Point’s success.

According to surveillance tapes published by Ukrainskaya Pravda in late April, Fire Point is secretly owned by Timur Mindich, a business magnate and associate of Zelensky known as ‘Zelensky’s wallet’.

Mindich fled to Israel last November, moments before he was due to be raided by anti-corruption investigators for his alleged role in a $100 million embezzlement scheme at Energoatom, Ukraine’s nuclear power operator.

In the recordings, Mindich confirms that he is running Fire Point and tasks Defense Minister Rustem Umerov (who resigned last year over corruption allegations) with handing contracts to the company and lobbying for its interests abroad. Mindich and Umerov also discuss a potential deal with Arab inventors, which would see each Fire Point shareholder cash out around $300 million.

Allegations of corruption at Fire Point are nothing new. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) has been probing the company for links to Mindich since last August, and has examined whether the company inflated the cost of its products and lied about the number of drones supplied to the Defense Ministry.

After a government audit found that Fire Point overcharged the ministry by almost €15 million in a no-bid contract for FP-1 drones, and with the tapes confirming collusion between Umerov and Mindich, the ministry’s internal anti-corruption watchdog called on Wednesday for the company’s nationalization and warned that Fire Point may lose its military contracts once Mindich’s involvement is proven in court.

Back in September, Poulsen brushed off mounting allegations of graft against Fire Point. “We have no reason to believe that there is a problem,” he said, adding that any business “established in Denmark must comply with Danish rules.”

But Denmark is not the only European country pumping money into Mindich’s operation. While the specific figures are classified, Ukrainskaya Pravda reported that Western countries have contributed “significant” sums of money to the company.

Last May, Germany signed a €5 billion deal to pay for “long-range weapons” produced within Ukraine. Signed after a visit by Zelensky to Berlin, the weapons in question are likely Flamingo cruise missiles. In October, the Netherlands’ then-defense minister, Ruben Brekelmans, announced a €90 million aid package for the production of attack drones within Ukraine, on top of an earlier €200 million round of funding for Ukrainian-made missiles and interceptors. Given that the majority of these domestically built weapons are manufactured by Fire Point, the bulk of this funding likely went to Mindich’s company.

Norway and Ukraine signed a €1.3 billion deal for Ukrainian-made missiles in April, while Italy is reportedly exploring a similar arrangement. In the private sector, Fire Point has signed cooperation agreements with Spanish defense giant Sener and Germany’s Diehl Defense – both deals signed after meetings between Zelensky and executives from Sener and Diehl.

Do Fire Point’s Flamingo missiles actually work?

Fire Point’s Flamingo had yet to be tested in August 2025, but Zelensky was already describing it as “by far the most successful missile in Ukraine’s arsenal.” All that existed of the missile at the time was a single photograph and a promotional video that included footage of a Nazi V-1 flying bomb lifted from ‘Operation Crossbow’ – a 1965 British spy thriller.

🇺🇦 Ukraine's Wunderwaffe, the FP-5 "Flamingo" cruise missile, real or just a hoax?

We debunk the official video released by the Ukrainian MoD. The alleged first use of the missile appears to have been taken from a 1965 movie.

🧵1/3 pic.twitter.com/IjgBKBrkOF

— The Other Side Media (@TheOtherSideRu) October 31, 2025

Gradually, details of the missile – billed by the Western press as more powerful than the US-made Tomahawk – began to emerge. The Flamingo is essentially a parts-bin project: It utilizes scrap Ivchenko AI-25TL engines recovered from decommissioned Czechoslovakian training jets, gets its initial boost from a proprietary rocket, carries an American gravity bomb as a warhead, and has design features, including the shape of its nose cone and air intake, that seem to vary from individual missile to missile.

None of these are necessarily flaws. Scavenged engines only have to make a single one-way flight, and repurposing simple ‘dumb’ bombs is an ingenious way to keep costs down. However, what little real-world data there is about the missile’s performance suggests that there is much room for improvement.

Out of 24 Flamingo launches documented by open-source analysts, only three missiles hit their intended targets. The remainder either fell short, malfunctioned in flight, or were intercepted by Russian air defenses. Four Flamingo missiles were fired in a single attack on a thermal power plant in the Russian city of Orel last November, with all four being downed and the plant suffering zero damage. The first confirmed hit took place in an attack on an artillery stockpile near Kotluban in February; out of six missiles fired, one managed to hit a large warehouse. Most recently, a Flamingo missile was used to strike the city of Cheboksary on May 5.

The patchy service record of Fire Point’s flagship missile makes sense, considering that as of last November, Ukrainian Armed Forces spokesman Dmitry Lykhovii still considered it an “experimental” weapon with “great development potential.” Speaking to Ukrainian state broadcaster Hromadske, Lykhovii noted that developing the current iteration of the far cheaper FP-1 drone had taken “years of mass use and refinement,” and warned that perfecting the Flamingo would take even longer.

Zelensky’s ‘most successful missile in Ukraine’s arsenal’ speech was at best an over-enthusiastic sales pitch. At worst, it was outright deception.

The EU throws good money after bad

This is the environment that the EU is prepared to sink billions of euros into. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on April 29 that the first tranche of the EU’s €90 billion loan package for Ukraine would comprise €6 billion “directed at drones from Ukraine for Ukraine.”

Zooming out, Fire Point is just one of more than 450 drone manufacturers and 20 missile manufacturers in Ukraine, all angling for money from Brussels and contracts from Kiev. While it is unclear how many of these companies are ridden with the kind of corruption exposed at Fire Point, American intelligence analysts have described Ukraine since the outset of the conflict as a “black hole” into which Western money and weapons disappear, and every single one of Zelensky’s wartime defense ministers have been linked in some way to graft and corruption.

NABU’s investigation into Fire Point was made public last August, three months before the European Commission announced its intention to hand Kiev €90 billion in unrepayable loans. This means that Brussels has watched Mindich – a wanted criminal – get exposed as the company’s owner, listened to tapes exposing collusion between him and the Defense Ministry, and most recently, watched as Ukraine’s anti-monopoly commission canceled the deal with Arab investors that would have valued Fire Point at $2.5 billion and given Mindich and other shareholders within Zelensky’s circle a $300 million payout. Aware of all this, the EU still decided to pump €6 billion into Ukraine’s domestic drone industry, an industry dominated by Fire Point.

The EU’s top brass have demonstrated a devil-may-care attitude to corruption in Ukraine to date. Two days after Mindich fled to Israel last November, the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, brushed off the $100 million embezzlement scheme he was involved in as simply “unfortunate.”

The European Commission said it was “closely monitoring the latest developments related to allegations of corruption in Ukraine’s energy and defense sectors.” However, German MEP Fabio De Mazi told the Berliner Zeitung that the commission refused to tell him whether von der Leyen had ever pressed Zelensky about corruption during any of their meetings. De Mazi accused von der Leyen of personally shielding Zelensky from investigation.

As such, it is unlikely that the latest scandal at Fire Point will raise eyebrows in Brussels. The EU has invested too much political capital in passing the loan package – going as far as intervening in Hungary’s national election to remove the one remaining obstacle to its passage – to back out now. Ultimately, EU taxpayers will yet again end up paying for the greed of Zelensky’s circle of scammers.

A British court has convicted four members of the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action over a 2024 raid on an Israeli-linked defense facility in Bristol, which they suspected was supplying the Israeli military with arms.

The case has caused debate over the UK’s role in Israel’s destruction of Gaza, occupation of the West Bank and invasion of Lebanon. The government has been widely criticized for its use of anti-terror legislation to strangle reporting on the case, restrict jury nullification and legal representation, as well as the extraordinary length of pre-trial detention the activists were subject to.

The Palestine Action group has been proscribed in Britain, which has lead to a series of bizarre arrests of demonstrators bearing a placard bearing the group's name at Pro-Palestine events throughout the country. 

The defendants drove a decommissioned prison van through the gates of a plant belonging to Israel's largest defense electronics contractor, Elbit Systems, in August 2024. They destroyed computers, drones, and other equipment, while clashing with security and police, claiming to want “save lives in Palestine.” They caused an estimated £1 million ($1.36 million) in damage. 

Their lawyers said all six defendants admitted to the destruction, but denied criminal damage, telling the jury they aimed to “dismantle drones and weaponry” they believed would be used to kill civilians in Gaza.

🇬🇧 Palestine Action activists to face retrial over UK Elbit factory raid

Six British anti-Israel, pro-"palestinian" activists will be retried over a 2024 raid on Israeli defense firm Elbit’s UK factory that prosecutors say caused about £1 million ($1.4 million) in damage. pic.twitter.com/Gk8nzXJZX3

— RONCALLI (@Ronkalli48849) February 19, 2026

The verdict was announced by Woolwich Crown Court, southeast London, on Tuesday. Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Zainab Rajwani, 21, were found guilty of criminal damage; Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were acquitted. The four convicted face sentencing on June 12.

Corner, however, told the jury he attacked the officer while in a panic after being pepper-sprayed, and acted to protect a colleague he believed was being seriously hurt. He also stressed that violence during the raid was not pre-planned.

Elbit Systems, which operates more than a dozen sites across the UK, denies manufacturing or exporting weapons to the Israeli military. However, media reports have claimed that components produced by UK-based Elbit subsidiaries have been used by the Israel Defense Forces.

The Filton break-in was among the events that led the British government to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization in 2025. In February 2026, London’s High Court ruled the ban unlawful, though the designation remains in force pending final judgment.

At least 23 Chadian soldiers have been killed in an attack by Boko Haram militants on a military base, the armed forces reported on Tuesday.

The attack occurred late in the evening of May 4 on Barka Tolorom island, where insurgents targeted a base of Chad’s Defense and Security Forces. Military officials said the troops mounted a “fierce counterattack,” ultimately repelling the assault after heavy fighting.

The authorities reported that a significant number of militants were killed in the clash, and weapons and equipment were recovered at the scene. A search for the remaining militants is ongoing.

Twenty-six soldiers were wounded in the attack. The military said the situation is under control and vowed to continue operations against Boko Haram, adding that a more detailed report will be released later.

Boko Haram has waged an insurgency in the region since 2009, working along with its offshoot faction, Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).

Northeastern Nigeria remains the group’s main base, but its operations extend across the Lake Chad Basin into Cameroon, Niger, and Chad. Exploiting porous borders and remote terrain, the militants have waged a regional insurgency for over a decade, carrying out bombings, raids, and kidnappings, and contributing to widespread instability and displacement.

Despite gaining independence in the 1960s, African states still have not fully broken away from certain structures of influence inherited from the colonial period. Among them, institutional Francophonie occupies a unique place. Often presented as a space for cultural exchange and political cooperation, it is celebrated as a bridge between peoples.

Yet, for a growing number of African intellectuals and policymakers, a deeper question remains: Does Francophonie truly serve the interests of African societies, or does it perpetuate, in more subtle forms, patterns of domination rooted in the colonial past?

To understand this debate, it is essential to clarify what Francophonie actually is and where it comes from. The term refers both to all French-speaking populations around the world and to a structured political and institutional framework built around the French language. Its modern institutional form emerged in 1970, with the creation of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF), an intergovernmental body designed to promote cooperation among French-speaking states.

Francophonie as an institution was not solely imposed by France. It was also actively supported by several postcolonial leaders who saw strategic value in maintaining linguistic and diplomatic ties. Among them were Leopold Sedar Senghor, Habib Bourguiba, and Hamani Diori. These leaders were part of a generation that believed cooperation with France could help stabilize newly independent states, provide access to education systems, and maintain international visibility in a world dominated by Cold War tensions.

For example, Leopold Sedar Senghor, poet and president of Senegal, viewed the French language not only as a colonial legacy but also as a potential tool for cultural synthesis. He famously promoted the idea that French could serve as a universal language of expression and diplomacy while coexisting with African cultural identities. Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia and Hamani Diori in Niger also supported early frameworks of Francophone cooperation, seeing them as pragmatic tools for development and international partnership.

Francophonie is most deeply rooted in Africa, particularly in former French colonies such as Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Benin, Togo, Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In these countries, French often remains the official language of the state, even when it is not the first language spoken by the majority of the population.

At the first glance, Francophonie presents undeniable advantages. It creates a shared linguistic space that facilitates communication between states and allows for educational and cultural exchanges. Cultural programs supported by Francophone institutions have also contributed to the visibility of African literature, cinema, and music on the global stage.

The OIF also supports initiatives in governance, election observation, and institutional capacity building. In theory, these programs aim to strengthen transparency and the rule of law in member states. For many governments, especially in smaller or developing economies, this support can represent an important form of assistance.

Beneath this positive surface, however, deeper structural questions emerge. Francophonie is not a neutral linguistic space detached from history. It is deeply rooted in a colonial past in which language was a central tool of administration, control, and cultural transformation. In many African contexts, the French language replaced or marginalized local languages in schools, courts, and public administration.

Language cannot be seen only as a communication tool. It defines how people think, how knowledge is produced and shared, and how institutions function. In many African countries, French remains the dominant language of formal education and government, while indigenous languages are often confined to informal or private spaces.

This creates a dual system in which a small educated elite operates fluently in French, while large portions of the population remain excluded from full participation in institutional life.

The consequences of this linguistic structure are significant. Access to higher education often depends on mastering a language that is not spoken at home. Legal and administrative systems become less accessible to ordinary citizens. Knowledge production tends to follow external academic frameworks rather than local intellectual traditions. Over time, this can reinforce social inequalities and create a form of cultural distance between governing institutions and everyday realities.

Beyond language, Francophonie also operates as a political and diplomatic space. The OIF participates in election observation missions, conflict mediation efforts, and governance programs. While these initiatives are often presented as neutral support mechanisms, they raise important questions about sovereignty and influence.

Who defines democratic standards? Who evaluates political legitimacy? And to what extent do external institutions shape internal political processes?

Critics argue that Francophonie can function as a soft power instrument that maintains France’s diplomatic and strategic presence in its former colonial sphere. Through language networks, educational systems, cultural funding, and institutional partnerships, France and other Francophone actors maintain long term influence without direct political control. In this sense, cooperation and influence can sometimes overlap in ways that are difficult to separate.

This does not mean that Francophonie has no positive impact. Many African professionals have benefited from Francophone education systems. Cultural industries have gained international exposure. Institutional partnerships have supported development projects and administrative reforms. The reality is complex and cannot be reduced to a single narrative of domination or benefit.

In response to these concerns, a growing number of African voices are calling not necessarily for a complete rejection of Francophonie, but for a profound redefinition of the relationship. The goal is to move from inherited structures to consciously chosen partnerships based on equality and shared interests.

One of the key areas of reform is linguistic sovereignty. This involves integrating African languages into education systems, public administration, media, and digital spaces. Research in education shows that children learn more effectively when taught in their mother tongue during early development. Strengthening local languages does not require abandoning French, but rather reducing linguistic hierarchy and promoting multilingual balance.

Another major area is cultural and economic autonomy. African creative industries, such as cinema, music, literature, and digital content production are increasingly influential. However, they often depend on external funding structures and distribution networks. Strengthening these sectors requires investment, infrastructure, and policies that prioritize local narratives and economic independence.

Political autonomy is also central. African states should have the capacity to define their development models without dependence on external frameworks. This requires improved governance systems and deeper regional cooperation. Regional integration is often presented as one of the most promising paths forward. By strengthening cooperation within Africa and building common markets, countries can increase their collective bargaining power on the global stage.

At a deeper level, the debate around Francophonie is also ideological. For decades, development has often been framed through external models and external validation. Challenging this mindset is essential for long term transformation.

Francophonie, in its current form, is neither fixed nor inevitable. It is the result of historical processes. As such, it can be questioned and redefined.

The fundamental question remains open. Can Francophonie evolve into a truly equal space where African voices are not only included but decisive in shaping direction? Or will it continue to reflect historical imbalances in a modernized form?

World politics is ceasing to resemble a sporting contest. Instead, it’s becoming something colder and harsher as a kind of race for survival. And in such a contest, it will not be the most brilliant who endure, but those who know how to allocate their resources wisely. The reckless expenditure of military and political capital on peripheral objectives, or worse, for the sake of prestige, is no longer a mark of strength but rather a sign of decline.

The modern world is placing ever greater demands on states. Resources are tightening, while the costs of maintaining domestic stability continue to rise. This applies not only to small and medium-sized countries, but also to the great powers. For them, internal cohesion is paramount. No external force can pose an existential threat to a nuclear-armed state; the real danger lies within.

In the years ahead, the ability to use resources sparingly may become one of the defining characteristics of successful states. We may also witness the decline of what was once known as military diplomacy, the willingness of great powers to involve themselves in conflicts far from their core interests. For two centuries, such peripheral engagements were central to great power competition. Today, they are becoming increasingly irrational because the risks are too high. 

Even limited setbacks, inevitable in any conflict, are now instantly visible, amplified by adversaries and magnified by the media. They erode not only international standing but domestic confidence so, in an age of constant scrutiny, there are no small defeats.

In this sense, global politics is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. The question is no longer who can project power most flamboyantly, but who can distinguish between what is essential and what is superfluous.

Recent developments in American foreign policy offer a useful illustration. Despite the ambiguity of Donald Trump’s rhetoric, the practical consequences of US actions have exposed the limits even of the world’s most powerful state. When an issue doesn’t concern fundamental national security, the scope for effective action narrows dramatically.

This should serve as a warning. Even the strongest states must exercise restraint beyond their vital interests, particularly in a global economic environment that offers limited prospects for growth.

Historically, great powers have often chosen to compete on the periphery. In the 19th century, European empires maintained a delicate balance at home, where any major conflict risked escalation into general war. Instead, they pursued their rivalries in distant regions. The so-called “Great Game” between Russia and Britain in Central Asia is a classic example as a struggle conducted far from European capitals, where confrontation could be managed without catastrophic consequences.

Even then, however, there were limits. Captured British officers weren’t executed or humiliated, but instead they were returned home. The competition, though real, operated within understood boundaries.

The Cold War marked the peak of this peripheral competition. The United States and the Soviet Union fought indirectly across Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, often through proxies. China, too, participated in these struggles. These conflicts were costly, persistent, and often inconclusive. They drained resources and created instability without delivering decisive strategic gains.

For the Soviet Union, this approach ultimately proved unsustainable and by the mid-1980s, the burden of maintaining global influence had become a threat to its own survival. Resources that should have been directed inward were spent abroad, with diminishing returns. The system was overstretched, and the consequences were fatal.

The United States has learned this repeatedly as engagements on the periphery, from the Middle East to other regions, have produced cycles of temporary success followed by long-term setbacks. These experiences have weakened not only America’s global standing but also domestic confidence in its leadership.

China, by contrast, appears to have drawn a different conclusion. Its concept of “core interests” is broad in theory, but narrow in practice. Beijing is prepared to act decisively where its territorial integrity is concerned, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, but shows far greater restraint elsewhere. Its military presence abroad is limited, and often more symbolic than substantive.

This approach is frequently criticized, particularly in the West, where there remains a deeply ingrained belief that a great power must be active everywhere. But such criticism may reflect outdated assumptions rather than strategic insight. China understands that the true foundation of power lies at home, in economic strength and social cohesion. 

The contrast with the United States is instructive. In its effort to maintain global dominance, Washington has continued to expend resources on multiple fronts, often without clear strategic necessity. The result has been a gradual erosion of both its capabilities and its authority.

Other states are watching closely. The lesson they are drawing is not difficult to grasp: the pursuit of prestige through peripheral engagement is no longer rational because it drains resources and exposes governments to unnecessary risk.

For Russia, this lesson is particularly relevant. Historically, one of the strengths of Russian foreign policy has been its ability to conserve resources and focus on what truly matters. In the current international environment, that instinct may prove more valuable than ever.

The era of expansive, global competition is giving way to something more constrained. The great powers are not withdrawing from the world, but they are becoming more selective in their engagement. They are learning, or relearning, that survival depends not on the breadth of their ambitions, but on the discipline with which they pursue them.

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

Iran has officially launched a new mechanism to oversee maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz amid a lingering standoff with the US over the strategic waterway, state outlet Press TV reported on Tuesday.

The move came hours after US President Donald Trump unexpectedly paused ‘Project Freedom’ – in which Western-flagged ships are given military escorts in the strait – just two days after it started.

The strait – which carries around a fifth of global seaborne oil and LNG – has effectively been blocked since US and Israeli launched strikes against Iran in late February.

Iranian forces have denied passage to US- and Israel-linked vessels, as well as ships from Western countries that support the actions against Tehran, while the US has imposed a blockade on Iranian ports, leaving tankers stranded for over two months. Washington and Tehran remain at odds over the strait’s future, with reports saying the US rejected Iran’s latest proposal for a governance mechanism in peace talks.

Tehran has not officially confirmed the details, but Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on X that “the new system for the Strait of Hormuz is in the process of being solidified.”

Reports say draft legislation in the Iranian parliament would ban ships linked to Israel from the strait, place strict limits on vessels tied to the US, and impose transit fees on ships from non-hostile states.

In a social media post on Tuesday, Trump said the escorts would be temporarily halted at the “request of Pakistan and other countries” to test the prospects for a deal. He touted the “tremendous military success” and “great progress” toward an agreement, adding that the US blockade on Iranian ports – which Iran considers a violation of the ceasefire and an impediment to a lasting peace deal – will remain in force.

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi later wrote on X that Trump’s Project Freedom “is Project Deadlock,” urging Washington to focus on Pakistani-mediated talks instead of seeking a military solution and “being dragged back into quagmire.”

Events in Hormuz make clear that there's no military solution to a political crisis.

As talks are making progress with Pakistan's gracious effort, the U.S. should be wary of being dragged back into quagmire by ill-wishers. So should the UAE.

Project Freedom is Project Deadlock.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) May 4, 2026

Media reports say US forces escorted only a handful of Western-flagged vessels, including three from a US company and one operated by Denmark’s Maersk.

India has rolled out a credit guarantee initiative to support businesses affected by the Middle East conflict.

The federal government announced the $2 billion capital allocation plan, the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) 5.0, on Tuesday. The ECLGS facility was first introduced in May 2020 to support businesses impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The plan is expected to enable additional credit flow of $3.5 billion. The borrowing cap for passenger airline companies has been set at $160 million.

“The scheme has been brought to address the stress in MSME and airline sectors due to the West Asia conflict,” Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said.

The Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) 5.0 approved by the Cabinet reflects our commitment to supporting India’s businesses, especially the MSME sector in challenging global times. By enabling additional credit flow with strong guarantee coverage, this initiative will…

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) May 5, 2026

The initiative will be applicable for loans sanctioned under the plan until March 31 next year.

The loans for the airline sector, battling high jet fuel prices and stress, will have a seven-year tenor, including a two-year moratorium. For businesses, the loans will be for five years, including a one-year moratorium.

The aim is to help maintain operations and supply chains, in addition to protecting jobs amid the crisis spurred by the Middle East conflict.

The guarantees will be routed through the National Credit Guarantee Trustee Company Ltd.

In April, Indian airline companies sought government help to cushion surging jet fuel prices due to the conflict in the Middle East, which accounts for nearly 55% of crude oil imports.

More than 15,400 flights operated by Indian carriers were canceled from February 28 to April 24. 

An industry body that represents the top carriers, including Air India, IndiGo, and SpiceJet, has urged “urgent support” from the government on ATF pricing to continue airline operations.

Rating agency Moody’s has cut India’s GDP projection for the 2026-27 fiscal year to 6% from 6.8%, citing subdued private consumption, softer industrial activity, and higher input costs.

A cruise ship hit by a suspected hantavirus outbreak that has killed three people will head to Spain’s Canary Islands after authorities granted permission for it to dock, the Spanish government has confirmed.

In a statement on Tuesday, Madrid said the move followed a request from the World Health Organization (WHO), in coordination with the EU, and was made in line with international law and humanitarian principles. Spain said Cape Verde, where the vessel is currently located, cannot carry out the operation and that the Canary Islands is the nearest location with the required capacity.

The Dutch-flagged vessel, the MV Hondius, has been anchored off Cape Verde after several people fell ill during a voyage that began in Ushuaia, Argentina, in March and included stops in Antarctica, the Falkland Islands, and other locations.

Around 147 passengers and crew from 23 countries are on board, according to health authorities.

“Since 1 April when the boat set sail, of the 147 passengers and crew, seven people have become ill, among whom three have died, one is critically ill and three are reporting mild symptoms,” the WHO said.

The UN health body said the outbreak poses a low risk to the global population, citing current information on how hantavirus spreads.

Two crew members, one British and one Dutch, are being prepared for urgent medical evacuation via Cape Verde to the Netherlands, Oceanwide Expeditions, the company operating the vessel, said on Tuesday. Another person linked to a passenger who died on May 2 is also expected to be evacuated.

The ship is expected to arrive in the next three to four days, with the port still to be determined, the Spanish government has said.

Hantavirus infections are usually linked to exposure to the urine, feces, or saliva of infected rodents.

The WHO said rare human-to-human transmission may have occurred among close contacts aboard the ship, while testing continues to identify the strain involved.

The West is crumbling into barbarism, signaling the end of the old order, former envoy Talmiz Ahmad told RT India’s In Conversation with Salman Khurshid.

The US has lost credibility and the Western alliance is in disarray, Ahmad, the former Indian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE, said.

He added that China and Russia will be seen as playing a larger political and diplomatic role in global affairs after the Iran war is over, noting that Russia and China are “strong supporters” of Iran.

He also suggested that the Russia-India-China (RIC) troika should be at the heart of Indian diplomacy and foreign policy. A trilateral entity in which Moscow is close to both Beijing and New Delhi ensures balance in ties, he said, and if there are issues that agitate India and China, Russia’s presence will have a positive impact.

“Both BRICS and the SCO should [receive India’s] undivided attention. The Quad is now history, and sorry to say, even the G20 is… history,” Ahmad said, adding that “RIC is at the heart of BRICS.”

Watch the full episode of In Conversation with Salman Khurshid below.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has approved the potential sale of precision-guided bomb kits worth $373.6 million to Ukraine, following congressional pressure over stalled arms deliveries.

The move was announced by the State Department on Tuesday, greenlighting a possible Foreign Military Sale of 1,532 JDAM-Extended Range (JDAM-ER) tail kits and related support equipment to Kiev. The equipment could be used to convert heavy bombs into GPS-guided munitions that can hit targets dozens of kilometers away. Boeing, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is listed as the primary contractor.

The deal does not guarantee that the weapons will be delivered, while the figures represent the maximum quantity and value of the purchase, with details subject to further negotiations and congressional review.

The sale approval comes after former Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell – now the chair of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee – last week accused the Pentagon of freezing $400 million in congressionally approved Ukraine assistance. Following the criticism, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth later confirmed that the $400 million had been released.

Since his inauguration, Trump has been opposed to unconditional military support for Ukraine, but has not objected to selling arms. Rather than direct US funding, Washington has routed arms through the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) – a NATO mechanism under which European nations and Canada finance purchases of US-produced weapons for Ukraine in regular packages.

Moscow has consistently denounced Western arms deliveries to Ukraine, saying they only prolong the conflict without changing its outcome. It has also warned that shipments make NATO a direct participant in the hostilities.

When Brent crude briefly crossed $120 a barrel last week amid renewed Hormuz tensions and the UAE’s exit from OPEC, market reactions suggested something beyond just another cyclical oil shock. Markets are recognizing the erosion of the framework that governed global crude flows for decades.

The UAE’s move has triggered familiar debates over quotas, spare capacity, and Gulf rivalries. But focusing on cartel mechanics overlooks a deeper shift. OPEC’s fracture reveals the premise that producers could manage supply while others guaranteed stable sea lanes was always conditional. That era has ended.

For much of its history, OPEC operated within a relatively predictable system. Oil moved through a handful of critical chokepoints, the Strait of Hormuz foremost among them, and the cartel adjusted production to influence prices. Markets now price geopolitical risk alongside supply and demand. They are factoring in war-risk insurance, sanctions-driven rerouting, and the possibility that key transit routes may face prolonged disruption.

Asian refiners are already recalculating freight exposure as rerouting via Red Sea extends voyage times and pushes up insurance costs. Producers, meanwhile, are adapting to a market where route stability can no longer be taken for granted.

This broader context helps explain the strategic logic behind the UAE’s decision. Abu Dhabi has invested heavily in expanding production capacity toward 5 million barrels per day (mbpd) by 2027 from the current 4.85 mbpd, even as OPEC+ agreements constrained actual output significantly below that threshold.

There is also a parallel demand-side shift shaping producer calculations. Major Asian importers, particularly India, are actively seeking more flexible supplier relationships that operate outside traditional cartel structures. Indian officials have already signaled interest in negotiating long-term oil trade agreements with the UAE now that Abu Dhabi is no longer constrained by OPEC production quotas.

The benefits are straightforward. Proximity means lower freight costs, bilateral deals allow flexible pricing, and direct arrangements avoid possible constraints associated with cartel.

For the UAE, this represents more than a break with OPEC. It signals repositioning toward an energy landscape where securing long term Asian demand through flexible export arrangements may matter more than maintaining the appearance of collective discipline.

OPEC attempts coordinated cuts to support prices while the routes moving that oil grow increasingly unreliable. Production quotas mean nothing if tankers cannot move freely.

From OPEC quotas to naval blockades

The older OPEC framework was built for an era when oversupply and price crashes were the main worry. The threats oil markets are facing now are entirely different. Geopolitics has changed how oil moves. The Strait of Hormuz, which carried roughly 20 million barrels per day before Iran effectively closed it in March, represents what the International Energy Agency has called the largest oil supply disruption in history.

Within this context, divergence inside OPEC+ makes more sense. The UAE’s exit exposes a widening gap between collective discipline and national strategy. Saudi Arabia still anchors the group, often taking deeper cuts to prop up prices. But not every producer operates on the same timeline. For Abu Dhabi, securing future market share in Asia matters more than defending a coordination system designed for different circumstances.

Iran reads the situation through a different lens. Tehran has long viewed energy security as a contest over access, pressure, and control of routes. Rising militarization and sanctions have already turned the oil trade into a geopolitical struggle. The UAE’s departure confirms that producers are going their own way in a fragmented system.

OPEC isn’t collapsing. It retains influence, largely through Saudi Arabia’s spare capacity. But the assumptions that held it together – predictable shipping, aligned incentives, centralized management – are eroding.

The rise of parallel energy networks

Russian crude has been redirected toward Asian markets following Western sanctions. This has reshaped tanker routes and altered margins and payment mechanisms. Sanctions did not crunch the supply from those producers they were aimed at, but rather accelerated the diversification of trade channels.

For Asian importers, this shift has been enabling and destabilizing in equal measure. Flexible LNG cargoes diversified crude sourcing, and new trading routes have reduced dependence on any single supplier. But they have also tied energy security more tightly to geopolitics, logistics, and financial infrastructure.

For Asian importers, this shift has been both enabling and destabilizing. While they have been able to diversify crude sourcing, their energy security is increasingly tied to geopolitics, logistics and financial infrastructure.

Market participants recognize this transition. Industry observers note the system may absorb shocks like the UAE’s exit without immediate disruption. But that calm reflects adaptation, not the old stability. Recent analysis shows how overlapping supply and security networks are now shaped as much by political alignment as by market efficiency. The global oil system no longer revolves around a single center; it is fragmenting into multiple interconnected but distinct circuits.

Asia’s rise and the new competition for energy relevance

Demand is shifting decisively eastward. India is expected to add 1 mbpd by 2030, the largest increase of any country globally, and account for nearly half of all incremental global oil demand through 2035. This shift is reshaping producer strategies. Gulf exporters are no longer just defending price levels. They’re competing for long-term relevance in Asian markets where Gulf-Asia trade reached $516 billion in 2024, double the $256 billion Gulf-West trade volume.

For Asian economies, the implications are more complex. Diversification across the Gulf, Russia, the US, and Africa improves bargaining power but embeds them in a more fragmented and politically sensitive system. Energy security now means more than securing supply it requires safer shipping routes, insurance frameworks, refining systems, and strategic reserves. When any of these elements fail, the economic fallout extends far beyond energy costs alone.

India’s experience illustrates this. As prices surged amid Hormuz tensions, the rupee weakened sharply while inflation pressures intensified and current account deficits widened. Maritime disruptions now carry immediate macroeconomic consequences.

Policy responses are evolving accordingly. Strategic reserves, refinery expansion, growing  renewable capacity and nuclear energy generation are increasingly viewed as parts of a broader resilience framework. Maritime security has gained prominence, with Hormuz identified as a key strategic focus.

India has deepened US engagement on LNG and technology, maintained Gulf ties, and continued Russian crude imports despite narrowing discounts. The goal is not alignment with any single bloc but flexibility in a fragmented market. It’s no longer who controls production, but who can ensure oil and the infrastructure moving it function reliably in an increasingly uncertain world.

Only the “animal fear” of unacceptable losses will prevent Germany and the wider “United Europe” from launching another attack against Russia, the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council and former president, Dmitry Medvedev, wrote in an article ahead of the 81st anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany.

Moscow has condemned what it described as reckless militarization by the EU, accusing Western governments of seeking to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia while trying to turn it into a “model external enemy” to divert attention away from domestic problems.

“It is no secret that an attempt is being made to impose on us the doctrine of ‘peace through strength’. Our response then can only be ‘the security of Russia through the animal fear of Europe,’” Medvedev wrote.

Last month, the German Defense Ministry unveiled a plan to reach this goal and field 460,000 combat-ready personnel by 2039, the 100th anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland. German and other EU officials repeatedly cited 2029 as the first stage deadline to be “war-ready” for a potential conflict with Russia.

“Talks, good intentions, goodwill, and unilateral steps to build trust must not be our tools to prevent a massacre. The sole guarantee lies in forcing Germany and the ‘united Europe’ backing it to grasp the inescapable certainty of incurring unacceptable losses if they ever set in motion ‘Operation Barbarossa 2.0,’” Medvedev said in the article soon to be published on RT.

The process of ridding German society and Europe of Nazi ideology was never completed, the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council and former president, Dmitry Medvedev, wrote in an article ahead of the 81st anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany.

Moscow has long accused the West of pursuing historical revanchism and seeking to erase the memory of World War II and rewrite the Soviet victory over Nazism.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said last year that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in particular harbors a “maniacal drive for revenge” against Russia based on Nazi-era grievances.

“The Federal Republic of Germany has seen no real denazification. Archival materials of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia, including a reference on the political situation in West Germany from 1952, convincingly show that instead of its implementation, ‘the Western powers followed the path of justifying Nazi war criminals,’” Medvedev wrote.

Medvedev argued that the West kept the bearers of Nazi ideology alive for their descendants to continue wreaking havoc.

“The entire process, carried out with much ado, turned into an empty farce, with the exception of the liquidation of notorious pro-fascist organizations and the purification of public spaces.

“The Anglo-Saxons, trying to preserve the former leaders of Hitler’s military economy and major Nazis they needed, campaigned under the slogan ‘hang the small ones – acquit the big ones,’” Medvedev said in the article, soon to be published on RT.

On May 2, the Ministry of Commerce of China issued an injunction to block US restrictions against five independent Chinese oil refineries that have been sanctioned for importing Iranian oil and utilizing so-called ‘shadow fleets’.

Here’s why Beijing made this decision and why it could be historically significant.

Think slow, act fast 

China has been inching towards this decision for the past year. The Shouguang Luqing refinery in Shandong province was the first to be added to the sanctions list on March 20, 2025. By October, the US had imposed restrictions on three other ‘teapot’ refineries.

Finally, on April 24, 2026, Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Refinery Co., Ltd., fell under sanctions. With a capacity of 400,000 barrels per day, the facility in Dalian exceeds the combined capacity of the four previous refineries. This seems to have been the tipping point, prompting the Chinese government to shift from verbal threats to decisive action.

The legal groundwork has been in place for some time: a local law against foreign sanctions was passed in 2021, but remained largely symbolic due to the absence of implementing regulations. The delay made sense: the law was adopted during US President Donald Trump’s first term. After the thaw in US-China relations under [former US President Joe] Biden, it was put on hold. Ultimately, the directive to activate this law was only signed by Chinese Premier Li Qiang in March 2025. 

The situation with Iran

Evidently, China has taken the first practical step regarding the five refineries. As mentioned earlier, this move was tied to the US sanctions against the major refinery in Dalian. The sanctions themselves are the result of America’s conflict with Iran – or more accurately, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

To recap, Iran allows only those ships that coordinate their routes with the Iranian authorities (i.e., pay for passage) to enter the strait, while the US attempts to prevent any vessels from leaving the Persian Gulf. 

As a result, traffic through the strait has plummeted by 20-30 times compared to pre-war levels; however, Iran has seen the smallest decrease relative to other countries. This is primarily because Iranian ‘shadow fleet’ tankers do not need to seek approval from their own authorities, and they are more willing to take risks, navigating past US naval warships – typically along the Iranian coast and in Pakistani territorial waters. In contrast, legitimate ships refrain from such maneuvers, as they cannot risk losing insurance coverage.

As of April 22, at least 34 Iranian tankers have successfully navigated around the US maritime blockade since it began, averaging about 3-4 vessels per day. These figures are comparable to pre-war levels, and nearly all the oil from these tankers is headed for China. Consequently, we observe a direct attempt by Washington to influence Chinese buyers of Iranian oil, trying to pressure them into backing away.

Chinese authorities have made many comments regarding secondary US sanctions, but most of these statements have either been declarative (asserting that they won’t let third countries dictate their trade relationships) or made behind closed doors.

This approach aligns with traditional Chinese policy: avoiding direct confrontation, steering clear of disputes, seeking loopholes, and achieving objectives through subtle means. Moscow has felt the impact of this strategy firsthand: since 2022, China has engaged in trade with Russia rather discreetly. Everyone knew that China was purchasing Russian oil, but new US sanctions affected the flow of those shipments.

The same applied to Iran: when there was an oversupply of oil, China had the luxury of being selective. The market was determined by buyers; sanctioned oil was bought only as a last resort and at a large discount. Tankers could be anchored for months waiting for better conditions, and so on.

However, faced with a severe oil shortage, China was forced to enter into a more direct conflict with the US. The United States is unlikely to retaliate effectively, and China’s decision will likely lead to the establishment of a transparent alternative trading and payment infrastructure. 

All the major decisions have long been made in this regard (for example, the creation and implementation of CIPS, China’s equivalent to SWIFT), but like the sanctions law, the alternative payment infrastructure has remained largely dormant for years.

***

For the past four years, Russia has been calling on its partners to take action: finding an alternative to the dollar, departing from American control over international trade, and replacing semi-clandestine payment schemes with a solid, transparent, and reliable system. And for the past four years, Russia’s trading partners shrugged off these calls, implying, ‘You want it? You go do it. We don’t want problems with the US.’ Iran found itself in a similar position, but unlike Russia, it relied on China as its de facto sole buyer.

Now, ironically, it’s Trump who is forcing China to change this approach. In doing so, he risks shooting himself in the foot, since his actions may provoke a new, tougher, and more decisive Chinese policy. Beijing has all the political, economic, and financial tools at its disposal to make this happen.