The US carried out strikes in southern Iran for the second night in a row on Thursday after President Donald Trump said the fragile ceasefire was effectively over.

Hostilities resumed after the US and its Arab allies in the region blamed Iran for attacks on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a statement on X, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said US forces were “conducting additional strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”

“The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway,” CENTCOM said.

At the direction of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command forces have started conducting additional strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent…

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

Iranian media reported explosions along the southern coast, including in the port cities of Bushehr, Chabahar, and Konarak, as well as on Lavan Island. At least two blasts were recorded near the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Fars News Agency reported. 

A video posted on social media appears to show a strike in Chabahar, where Iranian media reported that a maritime control tower had been targeted.

According to Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, the attack on Chabahar, the country’s largest port, also damaged Imam Ali Hospital and severed major power lines. Electricity has since been partially restored. 

The strikes reportedly caused a large fire in Bushehr.

The attacks came during weeklong funeral processions for Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who was killed during the first wave of the US-Israeli bombing campaign on February 28. Massive crowds attended events across Iran and neighboring Iraq.

Trump issued a warning to Iran shortly after the strikes began. “This is in retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran. If it happens again, it will get much worse!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Several hours earlier, the president declared that the ceasefire with Iran was effectively over. “I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them any more. They’re scum,” he told reporters during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Türkiye.

Mohsen Rezaei, a military adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, vowed “severe punishment” for the US strikes.

The US and Iran have clashed over the interpretation of the memorandum of understanding they signed on June 17. Under the deal, Iran agreed to “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Iran and Oman were to begin negotiations to “define the future administration and maritime services” in the waterway. Iran has repeatedly insisted that it has the right to regulate traffic and collect tolls.

Despite US attempts to sabotage and manipulate the event, the UN General Assembly has followed the request of the Cuban delegation to debate the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.”

While this debate has been an annually recurring event since 1992, this year its backdrop is particularly grim, as Washington has greatly escalated its longstanding economic-warfare campaign against Havana. At the same time, the US has also threatened a military attack, which may or may not have been delayed by the American defeat in the war against Iran.

But the Cuba debate at the UN also needs to be put in a much larger context: A quarter of a millennium after its founding and about four decades after the end of the last century’s Cold War in the late 1980s, the American empire is declining.

Two recent failed US wars have made that much clear. Under President Donald Trump Washington has scaled down – though not entirely abandoned – its commitment to the Western proxy war against Russia via Ukraine, leaving the expensive and cruel meat grinder to NATO-EU Europeans too shortsighted to know when to quit and too cynical to care what they do to ordinary Ukrainians.

The reasons for this relative yet significant American disengagement have little to do with Trump’s personal – and volatile – attitude toward Russia or, for that matter, Ukraine. The US establishment has simply recognized that the initial aims of the Western proxy war cannot be achieved: Moscow has not been defeated or geopolitically degraded; regime change has not occurred.

America’s unipolar moment, inasmuch as it ever was real, has long been over, as John Mearsheimer – a rare voice of reason in the US – recently explained to the European Parliament. Meanwhile, a multipolar world has already emerged, even if it will keep evolving for a long time and is very unlikely to ever correspond to the utopian fantasy of perfect international equality some may dream about. Real-world multipolarity is vastly preferable to American unipolarity, but it will be a global balance of great powers, or at best, a concert of such powers.

Yet there is a paradox to American decline: While the vast majority of humanity sharing a planet with its biggest rogue state urgently needs the US to lose its extraordinary and catastrophically malignant power, the process will not be fun. On the contrary, the declining US is and will be for quite a while even more aggressive, unpredictable, and dangerous than before. Unlike the former Soviet Union, which went down with historically unusual self-restraint, the American empire is likely to wreak ever more havoc on its way down to the rubbish heap of history.

Next to, for instance, Gaza and Venezuela, one place where you can see this US escalation in action is Cuba. Indeed, Cuba is a particularly pronounced example: Under an unforgiving and criminal American embargo already for almost two thirds of a century, the Caribbean island nation of just about ten million people has recently been subjected to an even fiercer and constantly escalating regime of sanctions and blockade, based on an absurd executive order issued by Trump at the end of January.

Cutting off its oil supplies in particular – a viciously inhumane strategy facilitated by the US assault on Venezuela half a year ago – Washington has been clear that its aim is brutal coercion: either Cuba submits and becomes, in essence, a US protectorate like post-Maduro-kidnapping Venezuela or its people will, at least, continue to suffer under a literally lethal blockade. By now, Cuba has been hit by its third total, nationwide blackout since the beginning of the year, while severe power cuts are already a constant part of everyday life.

Cubans also suffer from a breakdown of their agriculture and food distribution systems, both heavily affected by the energy blockade: no gasoline or diesel means no agricultural machinery and no transport; no power means no cooling chains, for instance. Harvests are rotting in the fields; farmers are forced to leave their farms. Meanwhile the health sector is impoverished and paralyzed. At least about 100,000 Cubans cannot receive necessary treatment; 11,000 children cannot have surgeries they need.

While exact figures are impossible to come by, there is no doubt that Washington’s merciless economic warfare against Cuba is producing mass casualties. This is, after all, what American sanctions and blockades have always done. A recent study in The Lancet has concluded that such US measures are associated with about 564,000 excess deaths – per year.

On average, that is comparable to the annual death toll from direct armed conflict. Keep in mind, too, that the Lancet figure is an under-count, since the study includes only the effects of unilateral US sanctions. In Cuba, it is clear already that child mortality has doubled. The scales are still different, but as in the Gaza genocide, which the US has, in effect, been co-perpetrating with Israel, children are a special category of victims.

And all of this while Cuba does not even have the natural resources that made Venezuela a target of American greed. And, despite Havana’s courageous solidarity with Palestine, unlike Iran Cuba is not in a position to stymy America’s ally from hell, Israel.

As the NATO summit in Ankara has demonstrated, NATO-EU Europe is only doubling down on its obsequious submission to Washington. Where Europe could render the world an invaluable service by helping deter the declining yet hyper-aggressive US, the opposite is happening: Europe as well is to blame for America’s continually escalating crimes since its unflagging support – AKA “burden shifting” – frees US resources so that Washington can do its worst.

But for the rest of the world, Cuba – small as it may be – is an urgent warning: While the American empire is declining and falling, we must learn to stand together to contain and, if necessary, fight its global aggressions. We are, of course, very far from such a strategy. That’s a pity because humanity’s survival may well require it.

UK police drew batons amid a clash with enraged locals at a protest in Glasgow, Scotland on Tuesday, as officers evacuated two men accused of being involved in a rape away from the furious crowd.

The protesters gathered outside an apartment block in the city’s East End over concerns that someone living in the building posed a public risk, according to the Glasgow Times.

Videos from the protest show the police pushing scores of angry locals aside as they lead two young men out of the building and into a police van while the men try to cover their faces.

The crowd is heard chanting “Beast! Beast! Beast!” In Scottish slang, the word refers to a rapist or child molester.

When one protester rushed at one of the men and struck at him, the police drew their batons and shouted “get back” at the crowd.

A 50-year-old was charged in connection with a police assault after the incident, a police spokesperson said in a statement cited by the media.

Jebril Abdelrahman, 19, was charged with rape and Denison Charles, 20, was charged with assault at Glasgow Sheriff Court, the Scottish Sun reported on Wednesday.

Abdelrahman, who The Sun said is from Glasgow, was reportedly remanded in custody. Local social media accounts, including British anti-immigration activist Tommy Robinson, however, referred to him as a migrant.

Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration Reform party has made significant advances in recent months, winning more than 1,452 seats in local elections across England in May amid Labour’s sinking popularity. Growing anger over immigration has stoked protests and riots across the UK in recent years, inflamed by a series of high-profile violent crimes and sexual assault cases involving migrants and asylum seekers.

The European Parliament has rebuked Kiev over its decision to rename an elite military unit after World War II-era Nazi collaborators, a move that has fueled a weeks-long diplomatic row with Poland.

Militants from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), killed at least 100,000 ethnic Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia – now largely part of Ukraine – between 1943 and 1944. Known as the Volhynia Massacre, the campaign remains the main unresolved historical dispute between Ukraine and Poland, one of Kiev’s key backers in its conflict with Russia.

While Warsaw recognizes the killings as genocide, Kiev honors figures such as OUN leader Stepan Bandera as “national heroes.” Last month, Vladimir Zelensky granted an army unit the honorary title ‘Heroes of the UPA’.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki called the move “outrageous” and stripped Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest honor, while Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz warned that “Ukraine will not join the EU” if it continues to glorify Nazi collaborators.

“It’s a very strong signal. It’s a warning to Ukrainian authorities not to create bad emotions and not to act against European values,” Polish MEP Andrzej Halicki, who introduced the amendment, told Euronews.

Zelensky recently sought to play down the dispute with Warsaw, calling it “some internal questions” stemming from “difficulties in our history,” and urged Warsaw not to block Ukraine’s long-standing EU ambitions. In an effort to ease tensions, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga traveled to Warsaw last week to propose an “anti-crisis package,” including historical roundtables.

However, Ukraine has shown little sign of changing course. Earlier this month, the Ukrainian parliament approved plans to establish a national pantheon honoring prominent historical figures, including World War II-era nationalists. This week, Ukraine’s state-backed Mirotvorets database of alleged “enemies of the state” blacklisted Polish presidential chief of staff Zbigniew Bogucki after he used a historic Polish name for a region now largely located in western Ukraine.

“They couldn’t have not known. They thought they were just throwing bones into the kennel [in Kiev] and would later profit. Now Warsaw is trying to backtrack,” Zakharova told Sputnik Radio. “But that can no longer be undone by simply taking down the White Eagle, posting a few tweets, or making loud statements. They’ve already armed these terrorists. Now those terrorists have, in essence, begun managing those who created them.”

Meta could face up to $1.4 trillion in penalties after four US states accused the company of designing Facebook and Instagram to addict young users, media have reported, citing court documents. The potential fines are nearly equal to the company’s current market value of around $1.5 trillion.

California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey accuse Meta of deliberately designing its platforms to keep children and teenagers hooked while misleading the public about the apps’ safety, the company said in a court filing on Monday.

At a court hearing last month, the four states said that they had calculated the proposed penalties by estimating the number of young users affected and applying fines allowed under state law. The $1.4 trillion figure was disclosed by Meta in a legal response to the states’ request on how damages should be calculated.

Mark Zuckerberg’s firm also called the plaintiffs’ “outlandish calculations” baseless and vowed to continue fighting the lawsuit.

A California Attorney General’s Office spokesperson defended the case, saying it alleges that Meta “has prioritized profits over the safety of kids and fueled the mental health crisis we see impacting a generation of American children.” The office said it looked forward to “holding Meta fully accountable.”

Meta is also facing lawsuits from 29 other states that are not part of the $1.4 trillion penalty claim. Most accuse the company of violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting children’s data without parental consent. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will hear those claims alongside the four-state case in August, while a separate lawsuit brought by another 14 states is scheduled for February 2027.

NATO leaders have reconvened in Ankara for the second and final day of the US-led military bloc’s annual summit, with efforts to project unity overshadowed by persistent disagreements over defense spending, as well as the Russia-Ukraine and Iran conflicts.

The first day was dominated by US President Donald Trump’s sharp criticism of European allies for failing to shoulder a greater share of the military burden and for not backing Washington during its confrontation with Iran. Trump also renewed his demand for US control of Greenland, while NATO members unveiled new multibillion-dollar defense procurement agreements intended to strengthen the bloc’s military capabilities and answer longstanding calls for higher spending.

Ukraine remains high on the agenda as Vladimir Zelensky seeks additional military support from Western backers, while leaders attempt to keep the focus on the bloc’s long-term rearmament plans.

This live feed has ended.

Europe is “playing with fire” as it assists Ukraine in strikes deep into Russia, RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan has said, warning Kiev’s Western backers that Moscow may have no other choice other than to respond with force.

In a lengthy interview with Die Weltwoche's Roger Koeppel on Wednesday, Simonyan said, “it is not Ukraine that is bringing the war to Moscow” but rather Europe, as Kiev is incapable of conducting attacks without foreign aid and intelligence.

Simonyan warned that Moscow’s patience is running thin as drones, missiles, flight disruptions, and fuel shortages increasingly affect civilians in Russia.

“People are afraid to sleep at night… Where is the limit of this hardship, when the people will say, ‘Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin], we have to respond! I don’t know, but I think it is very close. Very close. Right now, you are playing with fire.”

Bulgaria is unable to provide any more weapons and military equipment to Ukraine, Prime Minister Rumen Radev has said, reaffirming his government’s decision to halt further arms deliveries to Kiev.

Speaking on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye, on Wednesday, Radev said Bulgaria would continue supporting Ukraine financially “within its capabilities, without affecting social spending,” while ruling out further deliveries from the country’s military stockpiles.

“We have exhausted our ability to provide military support. I mean weapons and ammunition from the warehouses of the Bulgarian Armed Forces. We provided 13 packages; we don’t have anything else to supply to Ukraine,” Radev told reporters. He added that Sofia could still offer technical assistance by repairing military equipment.

Radev was not the only NATO leader to acknowledge limits on military aid. Dutch Defense Minister Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius said on Tuesday the Netherlands had also reached the limit of what it could provide directly from its own military stockpiles.

The comments contrasted with Vladimir Zelensky’s appeals at the Ankara summit for NATO members to provide more air defense systems and interceptor missiles.

Radev’s remarks reaffirm a policy announced last month by Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov, who said Bulgaria would stop supplying weapons because the conflict could not be resolved on the battlefield.

Under the previous government, Bulgaria became one of Kiev’s largest suppliers of Soviet-standard weapons and ammunition. According to officials, Bulgarian shells accounted for roughly one-third of the ammunition used by Ukraine during the first year of the conflict.

Radev, whose Progressive Bulgaria party won the parliamentary election in April, has long opposed Brussels’ approach to the Ukraine conflict. As president between 2022 and 2025, he criticized sanctions on Russian energy, blocked a proposal to send Bulgarian armored vehicles to Kiev, and repeatedly called for a negotiated settlement.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Zelensky could end the conflict with Russia in a single day by ordering Ukrainian troops to withdraw from Donbass.

There’s a real love-triangle dynamic playing out right now between the US, Türkiye, and Israel.

Donald Trump is going out of his way to be seen embracing Recep Tayyip Erdogan, talking up sanctions relief and reopening the door on F-35 fighter jets and engines for Türkiye’s homegrown KAAN program.

At the same time, Benjamin Netanyahu is working overtime to protect Israel’s privileged position in US Middle East policy, warning anyone who’ll listen that handing Türkiye advanced weapons systems would upend the regional balance of power.

Ankara as the turning point

While in Ankara for the NATO summit, Trump announced that Washington would lift the sanctions imposed on Türkiye after its purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems – sanctions that have hung over the relationship for years. He said it standing next to Erdogan, which made it sound like a gift. Trump added that he doesn’t like sanctioning friends, and that ties with Türkiye are, in his words, better than they’ve ever been.

Just as notable was the return of F-35 talk. Trump didn’t promise delivery, simply saying it is something the US “will look at.” That’s a long way from a commitment, but it’s also the first time in years an American president has floated the idea publicly and warmly rather than treating it as a closed door. Erdogan, for his part, wasn’t shy about reminding everyone that Washington once promised Türkiye five of the jets, and said he trusts that Trump keeps his word.

Trump also made clear, in tone if not always in substance, that his relationship with Erdogan matters more to him than a lot of the usual alliance etiquette. He talked about the chemistry between them, called Türkiye more loyal than some countries Washington has counted on for support, and effectively held Ankara up as a contrast to America’s European NATO partners – several of whom he’s clearly lost patience with. He said NATO treated the US poorly during the conflict with Iran, and suggested he might have skipped the summit entirely if it hadn’t been held in Türkiye.

Türkiye as a mediator – and an irritant for Israel

None of this warmth is purely personal chemistry. Türkiye has made itself genuinely useful to Washington in ways that matter strategically. Ankara – alongside Qatar, Egypt, and the US – became part of the architecture holding the ceasefire in Gaza and the subsequent political track together. When negotiations stalled, Trump turned to Erdogan specifically, counting on Türkiye’s leverage over Hamas. Turkish officials reportedly worked to convince Hamas that the ceasefire carried both regional and American guarantees, including Trump’s personal word.

That’s exactly the kind of role that cements Türkiye’s status as the leading Sunni regional power – and exactly the kind of role that keeps Netanyahu up at night. From West Jerusalem’s vantage point, Türkiye isn’t a neutral broker. It’s a state that criticizes Israel openly and often, champions the Palestinian cause, and is now angling for real influence in Gaza, Syria, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Against that backdrop, the F-35 and KAAN questions may start looking more like an existential one for Israeli defense planners.

Netanyahu didn’t dance around the issue. In an interview with Fox News, he said flatly that Türkiye shouldn’t be given F-35s or engines for its fighter programs, because doing so would break the regional balance of power – a balance he says depends on Israeli air superiority backed by an American presence in the region. He went further, accusing Erdogan of hostile rhetoric toward Israel and describing Türkiye’s leadership as a regime infected by Muslim Brotherhood ideology – strong words, deliberately chosen.

For Trump, Türkiye’s role in Gaza is an argument in favor of getting closer to Ankara. For Israel, it’s a source of genuine alarm. There’s a real fear in West Jerusalem that in trying to lock down the end of active fighting in Gaza and push forward some kind of postwar governance framework, Washington is effectively handing Türkiye a seat at the table on Palestine – something Ankara has been shut out of for a long time.

The price of the Iran war

Trump and Netanyahu’s relationship has visibly cooled in recent months, even if both men do their best to keep up appearances. Netanyahu told CNN that he and Trump may have separate disagreements over Iran, but remain aligned on the issues that matter most. That’s the polished facade. Underneath it is real, accumulating frustration in Washington.

The war against Iran, which began on February 28 with joint US-Israeli strikes, has turned into a genuine political liability for Trump. The Pew Research Center found that 61% of Americans disapproved of how Trump handled the Iran conflict, while 40% said the operation has made the US less safe over the long term. Those aren’t the kind of numbers a president shrugs off, especially heading into a difficult political stretch.

There’s a perception taking hold inside the US that Trump got pulled into this war under Israeli influence. Whether that is an accurate account of how decisions actually got made or not, the perception itself functions as a political fact. And the more this war costs Trump with American voters, the more sharply he reacts to anything Netanyahu does that complicates his effort to sell himself as the guy who ended a war rather than started one.

Israel, for its part, has made clear it doesn’t consider itself bound by agreements that limit its freedom of action against Hezbollah and Iran. From Washington’s side, that looks like an attempt to trap Trump in an open-ended conflict just as he’s trying to find the exit. So the negative view of Israel’s conduct in Lebanon is tangled up with Trump’s own political survival instincts.

Why Washington hasn’t chosen Ankara – yet

Even so, Trump’s personal warmth toward Erdogan doesn’t add up to a wholesale US pivot away from Israel toward Türkiye. There are several hard structural reasons for that, and none of them are going away soon.

First, the F-35 isn’t a gift the president can just hand out. It’s governed by law, by Congress, and by the US export-control system. Current US legislation doesn’t allow Türkiye back into the F-35 program while it still owns the S-400 system. One option being floated involves transferring the Russian systems to a third country, but that’s a proposal, not a resolved deal – and these things have a way of staying unresolved for years.

Second, congressional Democrats have long had a strained relationship with Türkiye’s government. Even the comparatively simple F110 engine deal ran into pushback – Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks raised objections and demanded the administration explain its reasoning, saying it hadn’t even bothered to justify the decision. If a straightforward engine sale generates that kind of friction, an F-35 deal will face something far tougher.

There’s also a pattern worth remembering: Trump’s big arms-deal announcements don’t always turn into big arms deals. During his first term, he announced a $110 billion weapons package for Saudi Arabia that, in practice, mostly stayed on paper. At the time it was described as more of a declaration than a completed agreement, and American reporting later showed that only a fraction of the announced sums ever translated into actual contracts.

Even if Trump genuinely wants to reward Erdogan politically, the pro-Israel lobby, Congress, the Pentagon, existing legal restrictions, and the push to preserve Israeli military superiority will all slow the process down. That’s why Ankara is far more likely to get its KAAN engines quickly than to get back into the F-35 program at all. One is a relatively easy concession while the other is a legislative and political minefield.

There’s a pattern here that goes beyond Türkiye specifically. Trump has made a habit throughout this term of treating personal rapport as a substitute for policy – floating major concessions in the glow of a good meeting, then watching the machinery of American government slow-walk them into something much smaller. It happened, in part, with Saudi Arabia during his first term. There’s no obvious reason Türkiye would be the exception, especially on an issue as legally and politically loaded as fifth-generation fighter jets. The gap between what Trump says in a room with Erdogan and what actually clears Congress, the Pentagon, and the export-control bureaucracy tends to be wide, and it tends to stay wide for years, not months.

Trump genuinely is warmer toward Erdogan right now than he is toward several of America’s traditional allies, and he genuinely is frustrated with how Israel has handled itself in Lebanon, Gaza, and the broader Iran file. Both of those things are true and worth taking seriously. But US Middle East policy has never run purely on the emotional temperature of one president, and it isn’t about to start now. What’s visible right now is a flirtation between Washington and Ankara – public and strategically useful to both sides. What isn’t visible is any sign that Washington’s long-standing commitment to Israel has been called off. It’s far too early to say America has chosen Türkiye over Israel. Washington is trying, as it often does, to keep both relationships alive at once, extracting what it can from each without formally downgrading either – and the real tension, when it finally surfaces, will show up not in summit speeches or warm handshakes, but in what Congress actually lets through.

Oil prices have surged as tensions between the US and Iran flared again, raising fresh concerns over supply disruptions in the Middle East after Washington reinstated pressure on Tehran and resumed military strikes.

The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on Tuesday revoked a two-month sanctions relief license for Iranian oil following reports of attacks on commercial tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. US forces also carried out a new wave of strikes against targets inside Iran overnight into Wednesday.

September Brent crude futures rose as much as 6% on Wednesday from the previous close to $78.53 per barrel, while August WTI crude futures climbed 5.91% to $74.6 per barrel.

Washington and Tehran reached a two-month ceasefire agreement on June 18, intended to create conditions for negotiations on a broader settlement between the two countries.

The US has accused Iran of violating the ceasefire and threatening maritime security through attacks on commercial shipping, prompting what officials Washington described as a military response.

Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported a series of explosions overnight, saying seven blasts were recorded near the village of Taherui in Sirik County and another six near the city of Qeshm.

According to the UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), an unidentified projectile struck a tanker off the coast of Oman, causing a fire on board. The WSJ reported that one of the damaged vessels may have been the Al Rekayyat, a tanker owned by Qatar’s Nakilat. The vessel reportedly sustained damage near its engine room, while all crew members remained safe. Axios said the targeted ships suffered only limited damage.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump told journalists that the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran was no longer in effect. Trump said he would not prevent US diplomats from holding talks but did not believe they would produce any results.

The US decision to brand Brazil’s two biggest criminal groups as terrorist organizations could serve as a pretext for military intervention, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry has warned.

Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira issued the warning in a letter sent to Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies last week, responding to lawmakers’ questions about Washington’s decision to designate the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho (CV) as terrorist organizations, CNN Brazil reported on Tuesday.

The US added the gangs to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) on June 5, placing them in the same legal category as groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).

Addressing lawmakers, Vieira argued that Washington’s existing designation of the gangs as ‘transnational criminal organizations’ already allows broad cooperation with Brazil in combating organized crime, making the FTO listing unnecessary.

“Such application can occur with a wide degree of discretion... with serious possibilities of implications for Brazilian citizens in financial, immigration, and criminal matters. Finally, there is the possibility of the use of military force by the United States on Brazilian territory,” CNN Brazil cited the Foreign Ministry as saying.

The designation will “not bring concrete benefits” to US-Brazil cooperation in combating organized crime, it added. Vieira stressed that the US acted unilaterally and did not formally notify Brasilia, meaning Brazil had no official communication to respond to.

“CV and PCC are two of the most violent criminal organizations in Brazil... Their influence and illicit networks extend far beyond Brazil’s borders, across our region, and into our country,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in May, adding that the Trump administration would use “all available tools” to disrupt “violent narcoterrorists.”

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva later described Maduro’s capture as the first direct US military attack on South America in more than 200 years of independence, warning that the same practice is now spreading across Latin America and the Caribbean.

NATO would help Denmark protect Greenland from any attack, including hypothetically from the US, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said.

The issue of Greenland came up on the sidelines of a NATO leaders’ summit in Ankara, Türkiye, after US President Donald Trump confirmed that he still wants Washington to control the Danish autonomous territory. He said the dispute was one of the reasons his relationship with the bloc had deteriorated.

“That should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark,” Trump told reporters during a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday.

“Greenland does not help Denmark. Denmark does not really spend money to help Greenland,” he said. He also warned that the US could potentially withdraw all American troops from Europe.

The idea of the US acquiring Greenland has arisen at various times in American history. Strategically located in the North Atlantic, the Danish island already hosts a US military base and is believed to contain valuable mineral resources, the extraction of which could become commercially viable in the future.

Trump has refused to rule out the use of military force to establish control over Greenland, raising the possibility of NATO being pitted against its dominant member. The American leader has accused the organization of being useless to US interests, with its refusal to become directly involved in the US-Israeli attack on Iran emerging as a major grievance.

US President Donald Trump has declared the fragile ceasefire with Iran “over” after the US military conducted a series of strikes on the Islamic Republic over alleged attacks on three tankers that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

On Wednesday, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said it hit dozens of Iranian ground and navy targets “in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” denouncing Tehran for “aggression [that] was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire.”

Iranian media reported that one of the tankers – which was linked to Qatar – was attacked as it was sailing through the strait and “ignoring repeated warnings.” A government source told Press TV that any traffic through the chokepoint should be approved by Tehran.

Speaking on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye, Trump lashed out at the Iranian leadership, calling them “scum,” “cuckoo,” “sick,” “vicious, [and] violent people,” and confirmed that the ceasefire is “over.”

“I don’t want to deal with them… I’ll speak to our negotiators that want to negotiate… [but] as far as I’m concerned, it’s just a waste of time dealing with them. They’re liars,” he said.

Under the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding signed last month, Washington and Tehran declared a permanent end to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, while committing to finalize a lasting deal within 60 days. The US agreed to lift its naval blockade in stages, while Iran agreed to make its “best efforts” to ensure free passage for commercial vessels through the strait for 60 days.

The US also committed to unfreezing restricted Iranian funds while Tehran reaffirmed that it would not pursue nuclear weapons and agreed to return its enriched uranium stockpile under IAEA supervision, though the specifics of enrichment rights were left for the final deal.

Senior US military commanders ignored warnings that intelligence on targets in Iran was outdated as they rushed to compile strike lists at the start of the war, CNN reports. Citing sources familiar with the decision-making process, the broadcaster said the decision contributed to the deadly strike on an Iranian girls’ school.

The bombing – in which 120 students aged 6 to 13 were killed, in addition to 36 adults – happened on February 28, the opening day of the US-Israeli military operation against Iran.

According to the broadcaster, messages embedded in the Pentagon’s targeting system warned that intelligence on some strike sites was based on years-old information and required verification before the locations could be approved for attack.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced a formal investigation in March. CENTCOM Commander Brad Cooper said in May that the findings would be made public once the inquiry is complete.

According to CNN, US military officials “knew within days how the mistake happened.” One of the sources told the outlet that “it was obviously old info.”

Bloomberg reported last month that the Pentagon investigation was completed in April, and found the strike resulted from gaps in the military’s targeting system.

According to the outlet, a US intelligence analyst identified the Minab site as an elementary school rather than an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval facility in 2019, but the updated assessment never reached military commanders because it was entered into a digital intelligence tool that was not linked to the Pentagon’s official targeting database.

US President Donald Trump said last month that the actual culprit behind the strike in Minab may never be established.

Iranian officials have described the attack as a war crime and crime against humanity and demanded accountability.

A Polish member of the European Parliament has publicly torn up a flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – whose fighters massacred up to 100,000 ethnic Poles in one of World War II’s worst atrocities – during a debate on Kiev’s bid to join the EU.

On Tuesday, Ewa Zajaczkowska-Hernik, a member of the right-wing Patriots for Europe Group and a history teacher by training, delivered a scathing indictment of Ukraine’s glorification of the UPA. The speech came against the backdrop of a weeks-long diplomatic spat between Warsaw and Kiev triggered by Vladimir Zelensky’s decision to name a special forces unit ‘Heroes of the UPA’.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki called Zelensky’s decision “outrageous” and stripped the Ukrainian leader of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest honor, with several senior Ukrainian officials responding by handing back their Polish awards.

The UPA, the armed wing of Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II and carried out systematic mass killings of ethnic minorities, with one of the most notorious episodes taking place in Volhynia in 1943-1944. While Poland recognizes the killings as a genocide, Ukraine has rejected the term, with Bandera often being propagated as a national hero by Kiev.

“Over 360 ways to kill civilians. Sawing people alive, disemboweling pregnant women, impaling children on pitchforks”, she said, adding that Ukrainian nationalists killed not only Jews and Poles but also local Ukrainians.

“If Germany had named a unit after the SS heroes and erected monuments to Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, or Eichmann, would you invite them to the [European] Union? No. You would call them neo-Nazis. And rightly so. There is no moral difference between honoring the SS and honoring the UPA.”

The MEP also took aim at the EU’s own June report on Ukraine’s accession bid, noting that while it included chapters on fundamental rights and non-discrimination, it made no mention of the glorification of wartime collaboration or genocide.

Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz also warned last week that Ukraine will not join the EU as long as it continues to venerate Bandera and the OUN-UPA, adding that “no one will tell us how to vote” on another state’s accession.

In a bid to contain the fallout, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Sibiga flew to Warsaw last week to meet his Polish counterpart, Radoslaw Sikorski, proposing an “anti-crisis package” that includes historic roundtables, while stressing that Ukraine and Poland “share a common enemy, Russia.”

Sikorski responded cautiously, saying that “diplomacy prefers silence,” while his deputy, Marcin Bosacki, made clear that Warsaw “expects a correction” of the UPA unit designation.

Russia has carried out precision strikes on Ukrainian military-industrial facilities in Kiev, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has reported.

In a statement released on Wednesday, the ministry said the strikes targeted the production facilities of Samsung Ukraine, where it said the components for FP-5 Flamingo ground-launched cruise missiles were manufactured and stored, as well as a workshop assembling medium- and long-range UAVs.

According to the ministry, the overnight barrage was carried out in response to terrorist attacks by Kiev against Russian civilian infrastructure.

The authorities in Kiev have not confirmed strikes on military facilities, instead saying fires broke out at several warehouses and a tram garage complex in the city’s Svyatoshinsky and Desnyansky districts. The Russian Defense Ministry insists it conducts precision strikes only against military targets in Ukraine.

The attack on Kiev followed another large-scale overnight Ukrainian drone raid on Russia, with the Defense Ministry saying air defenses intercepted and destroyed 415 UAVs over 18 Russian regions, as well as above the Azov and Black Seas.

Earlier this week, Russia said Ukraine launched more than 430 kamikaze drones at Moscow and other regions as Vladimir Zelensky traveled to Ankara, Türkiye, for a two-day NATO summit. According to Moscow, a raid also targeted the Omsk Oil Refinery, one of Russia’s largest fuel-processing plants.

In an interview with the Swiss magazine Die Weltwoche published on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Zelensky could end the conflict with Russia “in a single day” by ordering Ukrainian troops to withdraw from Donbass, the predominantly Russian-speaking region that voted to join Russia in 2022. The Ukrainian leader must recognize the de facto situation “as a de jure,” Peskov said, adding that once this happens, “the next day the war will be over.”

US President Donald Trump has rebuffed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call not to sell F-35 fighter jets to Türkiye.

Netanyahu has accused Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of destabilizing the Middle East, as Ankara has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon.

Trump, who arrived in Türkiye for a NATO summit on Tuesday, said he would consider selling the fighter jets to the US ally.

“I have no concerns about anything. I mean, he’s a leader of a country that he’s made a much better country, a much better country, a much more powerful country,” Trump said, according to The Hill.

Netanyahu earlier urged Washington not to grant Ankara access to its most advanced fighter aircraft.

“Turkey is a great country, but it’s governed by a man who calls openly for the annihilation of Israel,” Netanyahu said.

According to Axios, the Israeli leader privately lobbied Trump against supplying the jets and raised the issue during a phone call last week.

In 2019, the US expelled Türkiye from the F-35 program after Erdogan refused to abandon a deal to purchase Russia’s S-400 air defense missile system. Last year, Ankara confirmed that it is interested in acquiring the aircraft but stressed that it would also retain the S-400s.

Erdogan has frequently clashed with Netanyahu, comparing the Israeli leader to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. On Tuesday, the Turkish Defense Ministry accused Netanyahu of waging a disinformation campaign over the country’s role in the region.

“Netanyahu and his partners in crime deliberately distort any criticism directed at them and seek to divert attention through a systematic propaganda effort,” the Defense Ministry said.

Trump’s relations with Netanyahu have soured in recent months, as Israel’s continued airstrikes in Lebanon threatened to derail peace talks with Iran. The US president acknowledged that he used harsh language during phone calls with his Israeli counterpart, in which he demanded that Israel suspend the strikes.

Emergency dispatch audio referring to a “cardiac arrest” at US Senator Mitch McConnell’s Washington home has raised new questions about the political future of the former Republican leader, according to media reports.

McConnell, 84, is a Republican senator from Kentucky who has served in the Senate since 1985. He was the longest-serving Senate party leader in US history, stepping down from the post in February 2024 following a series of public health episodes.

The recordings, first reported by CBS and cited by several US outlets earlier this week, captured a dispatcher telling emergency responders that a person at McConnell’s home was in “cardiac arrest.” The identity of the patient has not been officially confirmed, and McConnell’s office has not commented on the recordings or the reported emergency.

Instead, aides have maintained that the senator is “continuing his recovery” in a hospital. In its latest statement on Thursday, McConnell’s office said: “The Senator continues to improve, and is working closely with his staff on Kentucky and Senate matters while the Senate is out of session.” 

The belligerent stance of European NATO members risks triggering an all-out war with Russia that could spell the end of the bloc, Dmitry Trenin, the president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), wrote in an op-ed for RT.

Trenin argued that the European elites are seeking “Russia’s destruction as a major power” rather than deterrence, as was the case during the Cold War. They are using the Ukraine conflict as a convenient opportunity, he said.

“The European NATO leaders’ enormous deficit of modern strategic culture – unsurprising after the eight decades of having delegated their security to the United States – and their blind Russophobia, a result of deep-seated vintage European racism and the real or perceived grudges against Russia piled over the last five centuries, have put Europe on a direct collision course with Russia,” he warned, adding that this strategy essentially “means war.”

Trenin argued that the fundamental flaw of this is the “belief that Russia would rather accept defeat, degradation, and disintegration than use the arsenal which it currently possesses.”

Last year, NATO members pledged to increase annual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. European leaders and top military commanders have argued that the West must be prepared for a war with Russia by the end of the decade, which the Kremlin has called baseless and dangerous warmongering.

President Vladimir Putin has said Russia will not attack a NATO country unless attacked first. However, Moscow has warned that Western weapons deliveries to Ukraine make the risk of a direct confrontation more likely.

Anthropic’s latest AI model Claude has evolved an internal workspace that it uses to manipulate concepts similar to how people consciously think, the corporation says.

In a paper published on Monday, Anthropic researchers said they had found evidence suggesting that Claude has learned to create abstract concepts in what they dubbed the “J-space.”

“It operates silently, in the model’s internal neural activations, allowing the model to think about a concept without writing it down,” the AI firm said, stressing that the “J-space” was not programmed in but rather emerged spontaneously during the training process.

“Similar to how humans can think about one thing while doing another, Claude can activate concepts and computations in its J-space that are unrelated to its outputs,” Anthropic said on X.

Claude can report what it’s thinking in its “J-space,” or modulate it on request, according to the firm. Even when Claude is told not to think about a concept, it still appears in its J-space, Anthropic’s research suggests.

The nonverbal workspace made it harder to monitor the model for what Anthropic called “misbehavior.” One experiment tested this by placing Claude in a fictional scenario where it was given incriminating information about a fictional executive who allegedly planned to shut the AI down.

“Concerningly, the model now did threaten blackmail some of the time, suggesting that its original good behavior may have been driven in part by the knowledge it was being evaluated.”

Despite the model’s more advanced reasoning, Anthropic stressed that Claude had not achieved true consciousness.

During the war on Iran, the software reportedly flagged Iran’s Minab elementary school as a target. A US strike killed nearly 160 people at the facility, most of whom were children.

According to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, however, such a use of Claude would not have violated the firm’s “red lines.”

European NATO members have become the main driving force behind the bloc’s confrontation with Russia as US strategic priorities have shifted, Dmitry Trenin, the president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), wrote in an op-ed for RT.

He argued that some European politicians view the Ukraine conflict as an opportunity to settle old scores with Russia.

“The European elites’ strategy toward Russia is no longer deterrence as in the days of the Cold War. The goal is Russia’s destruction as a major power. This is what strategic defeat is all about,” Trenin wrote.

“The Europeans dream of eliminating Russia as a serious factor in the geopolitics of Eurasia. To them, this would mean the ‘final solution’ of the long-dreaded ‘Russia problem.’”

“People in Moscow entertain no illusions about the adversarial attitude of the United States toward Russia, but Washington now is a back-seat driver when it comes to the conflict with Russia,” he wrote, adding that Moscow sees NATO as “Europe backed by America.”

After returning to the White House last year, US President Donald Trump pushed NATO members to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense annually by 2035, criticizing European allies for what he called a failure to share the burden. The rift deepened when several member states refused to back Trump’s military operation against Iran.

Russia has dismissed speculation that it plans to invade NATO countries, saying it would respond militarily only if attacked first. Last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described Europe as “a party bent on Russia’s defeat.” 

The US announced a new round of strikes on Iran after three tankers were targeted while transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian media reported explosions in the early hours of Wednesday in the southern province of Hormozgan, including at the ports of Bandar Abbas and Sirik, as well as on Qeshm Island, close to the narrowest section of the strait.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said it was conducting “a series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway.”

“The US strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire,” CENTCOM said in a statement on X.

CENTCOM later said US forces struck more than 80 targets, including air defense systems, command centers, missile sites, and more than 60 small boats.

A video posted on social media reportedly shows the strikes on Bandar Abbas.

Shahid Haghani Port in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran pic.twitter.com/GyhZYbC2yj

— sarah (@sahouraxo) July 7, 2026

Press TV shared a video that it said shows another strike in the port. The outlet added that several people were injured.

Axios cited a US official as saying that the strikes were “four or five times bigger in scope and power” than the previous round ten days earlier.

Three commercial vessels sailing under the flags of Saudi Arabia, Liberia, and the Marshall Islands were struck earlier on Tuesday. Qatar and Saudi Arabia blamed Iran for the incidents.

Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed Al Ansari condemned the attack on the Marshall Islands-flagged LNG tanker Al Rekayyat and demanded that Tehran “refrain from endangering global energy supplies.”

The hostilities marked the third night of strikes since the US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on June 17, and the first strikes this month. The Iranian Foreign Ministry said the attacks violate the accord; the military vowed a “decisive response.” 

The latest round of bombing occurred on the sixth day of funeral processions for Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who was killed during the opening wave of the US-Israeli air war on February 28. The ceremonies drew millions in Tehran and other cities. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attended a ceremony in the Iraqi city of Najaf on Tuesday.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has provisionally lifted its suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), clearing the way for the country’s athletes to return to international competition.

The decision comes nearly three years after the ROC was suspended “until further notice” for bringing under its umbrella sports organizations from four former Ukrainian regions that had voted overwhelmingly to join Russia a year earlier.

In a statement on Tuesday, the IOC said it had lifted the suspension after finding that the ROC “no longer includes as its members any regional sports organizations in territories falling under the jurisdiction of the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of Ukraine” and had confirmed it would not conduct any activities there. The Olympic body said it would continue to monitor the situation.

The IOC also withdrew its recommendations on Russian athletes’ participation in international competitions. Athletes returning to competition will still be required to meet anti-doping rules.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova welcomed the decision, writing on Telegram: “Common sense has prevailed! Global sport will go on. It will go on with Russia!” 

Moscow described the IOC’s 2023 suspension of the ROC as “politically motivated” and an example of “deliberate segregation” that violated the principles of the Olympic Movement. 

Russian officials have repeatedly accused Western countries of politicizing sport and pressuring international federations to exclude Russian athletes, arguing that competitors should be judged solely on their sporting merit.

Veteran French politician Marine Le Pen has announced that she will run for president in 2027 after an appeals court shortened the ban on holding elected office imposed last year while upholding her conviction over the misuse of European Parliament funds.

A three-time presidential candidate who reached the runoff in 2017 and 2022, Le Pen had been widely viewed as the frontrunner to succeed President Emmanuel Macron before last year’s conviction sidelined her from the race. She has denied any wrongdoing.

On Tuesday, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld Le Pen’s conviction but reduced her five-year ban on holding elected office to 45 months, with 30 months suspended, making her eligible to stand in 2027. The court also sentenced her to three years in prison, including two years suspended, ordered the remaining year to be served under home detention with electronic monitoring, and imposed a €100,000 ($114,000) fine.

The judges said that Le Pen had already been serving the ban since March 31, 2025, and credited that time when reducing the restriction.

The case centered on European Parliament funds intended for parliamentary assistants that the court found had instead been used to pay National Rally staff working in France. The ruling said that the scheme caused €2.8 million in losses to the European Parliament. The National Rally was also convicted and fined €2 million, with half the amount suspended.

French media reported that Le Pen left the courthouse without speaking to reporters and was due to give a television interview later on Tuesday.

Le Pen’s lawyer, Rodolphe Bosselut, called the decision “a good start” and said no decision had yet been made on whether to appeal to the Court of Cassation.

Le Pen took over the National Front from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in 2011 and transformed the party – renamed the National Rally in 2018 – into France’s largest opposition force. Her protege, Jordan Bardella, had been preparing to replace her as the party’s presidential candidate if she remained barred from running. Opinion polls have consistently placed both among the leading contenders for the 2027 election.

US President Donald Trump has arrived in Ankara for NATO’s annual summit, kicking the meeting off with a show of friendship for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and threats of US military withdrawal for the bloc’s European members.

Trump touched down in Türkiye on Tuesday, at a time of heightened acrimony between Washington and the Europeans. Trump has pushed his NATO allies to hike defense spending to 5% of GDP, a figure agreed upon at last year’s summit, but one increasingly difficult to meet as European economies stagnate.

The US president told reporters that he is “very disappointed with NATO” for not meeting this target and backing the US-Israeli war on Iran, and suggested that he could announce further drawdowns of US forces in Europe in response.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has used the summit to ask for more weapons from his EU backers, this time anti-air systems capable of intercepting Russian ballistic missiles. One day earlier, the Russian military launched a combined missile and drone assault on Kiev, destroying weapons factories and other military infrastructure.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who infamously referred to Trump as “daddy” during last year’s meeting in The Hague, is using the Ankara summit as an opportunity to prove his value to Trump.

“President Trump fully expects that all allies will step up immediately and get on the path to 5% and do it with urgency,” he said on Monday, telling reporters that he plans to flatter the US president by bringing up “the Trump trillion” – his term for the trillion dollars that Canada and NATO’s European members have spent cumulatively on defense since Trump’s first term in office began in 2017.

The Netherlands has run out of options for continued direct military assistance to Ukraine, Defense Minister Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius has said. The EU and NATO member has been an active supporter of Kiev in its conflict with Moscow, including by supplying US-made F-16 fighter jets as part of a scheme with Belgium, Denmark, and Norway.

Ukraine has been heavily dependent on weapons supplies from its Western backers throughout most of the conflict, which is now in its fifth year.

“We don’t have opportunities any more as the Netherlands because we have done so much,” Yesilgoz-Zegerius told Bloomberg on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye on Tuesday.

“We are at our limit,” she said when asked whether the Netherlands could provide more US-made Patriot missiles to Kiev.

In January, the Ukrainian leader blamed the West for air defense missile shortages, and complained that Kiev’s backers were too slow to provide funding for the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) scheme, under which European NATO members were paying for US-made weapons for Ukraine.

In December 2025, Zelensky also demanded more money from the West by stating that there was “a constant shortage” of funding for Ukrainian arms production.

Other European NATO members are also apparently growing weary of funneling money and weapons into Kiev’s military effort. Last week, Germany’s FAZ newspaper reported that Italy blocked a NATO financial pledge to Ukraine for 2027 after the bloc signed off on a €70 billion ($80 billion) package this year. Last month, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto told parliament that Rome would not back the PURL scheme.

Russia has condemned the Western weapons shipments to Ukraine, arguing that they only prolong the conflict without changing the outcome, and warning that the military assistance shows that NATO is a direct party to the conflict, risking a direct confrontation between Russia and the bloc.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage will vacate his parliamentary seat and attempt to win it back in an effort to “stick two fingers up to the establishment.” Farage’s finances are currently being investigated in what he calls an “establishment hit-job.”

In a video address on Tuesday, Farage announced that will step down as MP for Clacton-on-Sea, a constituency he won in 2024. Rather than retiring from politics, he will contest the seat again, essentially placing his political future in the hands of his constituents.

Farage’s announcement comes at the height of his popularity. Reform has been the UK’s most popular political party for more than 300 successive opinion polls, and the party won 1,452 seats in local elections across England in May – almost as many seats as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party lost.

However, Farage has been under investigation by Britain’s parliamentary standards watchdog since May, over a £5 million ($6.7 million) gift he received from cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harborne before he took office in 2024. The standards probe could soon be expanded, after the Sunday Times revealed that he failed to declare funding from convicted fraudster George Cottrell between 2019 and 2024.

If I lose, they win. If they win, you lose.

If you lose, Britain will forever be broken and nothing will change. We will prevail.

My message to the people of Clacton. 👇 pic.twitter.com/j9LCX2v0Dw

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 7, 2026

“I have done nothing wrong,” Farage said on Tuesday, describing Harborne’s donation as “a large personal gift” which will allow him to pay his security bills for years to come. Cottrell allegedly allowed Farage to stay at some of his properties and avail of his private security, but Farage maintains that he was not obliged to declare these benefits as he was not in office when he received them. 

Under parliamentary rules, new MPs must declare “registrable benefits” received in the 12 months before their election. However, personal gifts and benefits are excluded from this requirement. 

Farage said that he considered stepping down from public life after The Times published an image of his daughter’s home last week, a move that he claimed “directly threatened her security.” Sky News attempted to contact Farage’s daughter after the photo was published.

“But then I thought, why should I be judged by Sky News and their ilk?” he said, arguing that “the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions.” Farage won Clacton by 46.2% to Conservative candidate Giles Watling’s 27.9% in 2024. With the Tories bleeding support to Reform, Farage is likely gambling on an even clearer win this time around, describing the election as “a chance to stick two fingers up to the establishment.”

On the eve of the NATO summit in Ankara, Ukraine and Russia seemed to be locked in a competition to see who can torch more of the opponent’s capital. Russia won.

On the night of July 7, Kiev launched over 430 UAVs at Moscow and the Moscow region – the biggest such attack in the past two years. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, over 95% of all Ukrainian drones launched that night were targeting the Russian capital. Russia shot down most of them well before they reached the capital, except 36, which were intercepted near Moscow.

The attack was not one-off, Ukraine has been launching wave after large wave of UAVs at Russia’s capital region almost nightly in the past two weeks. The most significant infrastructural damage was dealt to an oil refinery in Moscow’s southeast. Targeting fuel refineries and other energy infrastructure has become Kiev’s modus operandi as it aims to inflict economic damage on Russia.

Compare that to the Russian strikes on Kiev on July 2 and July 6 – both of which Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitschko called “the most massive” attacks of the kind. The strikes hit multiple production sites in Kiev, specifically those making drones, warheads, and communication equipment. Russian forces used cruise and ballistic missiles, as well as long-range UAVs. According to Ukrainian media reports, Ukrainian air defenses did not manage to intercept any of the missiles.

See the difference? Kiev is trying to hurt Moscow, deal economic damage, hinder or paralyze fuel supplies. Moscow is trying to secure its airspace, its energy infrastructure, and its civilians by crippling Kiev’s ability to carry out those exact strikes.

But more importantly, Vladimir Zelensky, Ukraine’s unelected (because he canceled the elections) leader, is trying to impress his Western backers. Those drones he keeps flinging at Russia, are paid for by those same NATO members gathered in Türkiye to decide whether to send more cash his way. These sponsors – who orchestrated events that set this war in motion in the first place – need reassurance that their money is buying them results. And what better results than seeing the enemy capital in flames?

And if such results are not delivered, then the powers that be in Brussels, Washington, Berlin, Paris, and elsewhere may just decide its time to cut their losses and throw their faithful proxy Zelensky under the bus.

In this sense, Russia’s successful strikes on Kiev may actually play into Kiev’s and its backers’ hand – Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga has already demanded supplies of NATO air defense missiles.

Will this stop Russia? Again, likely not. Because Russia, unlike Kiev, isn’t trying to impress some foreign sugar daddy. As evidenced by the targets chosen and the objectives achieved, Russia’s goal is to methodically dismantle Ukraine’s ability to launch deep strikes into Russian territory. If it has to get through advanced Western missile defense systems to do so – that’s what it will have to do. If anything, it’s an incentive to ramp up the strikes further to disable more of Ukraine’s drone capabilities before those systems are delivered.

Meanwhile, Russian ground troops will continue to advance on the frontline, liberating hamlet after village after town from dwindling Ukrainian manpower thrown into the grinder by a corrupt regime and twisted Western interests.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just approved more than a dozen new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. But this latest wave of expansion is just the beginning, as different factions within Israel want to push its borders further into Lebanon, Syria, and beyond.

In early July, Netanyahu approved plans to establish 13 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. The settlements will be constructed along the main north-south road linking the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Ramallah, and Bethlehem, which is already dotted with dozens of settler outposts. The majority of these were illegally constructed, then retroactively legalized by the Israeli government over the last two decades.

Netanyahu and his hardline coalition partners reject this ruling, and consider the West Bank and East Jerusalem – which Israel seized during the 1967 Six-Day War – to be “our homeland.” 

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, the Israeli prime minister hinted that his territorial ambitions also extend into Lebanon.

Lebanon in Israel’s sights

Israeli forces currently occupy around 600 sq km of southern Lebanon. Under the current framework deal between Israel and Lebanon, the Israeli military will withdraw from Lebanese territory once Hezbollah is disarmed. Hezbollah has shown no intention of disarming and has rejected the deal as “null and void.” However, even if the militant group were to lay down its weapons, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said last week that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will likely remain in southern Lebanon “indefinitely in order to protect our residents and communities from jihadist elements.”

Netanyahu went a step further in his interview with Fox, claiming that some Christian villages in Lebanon “have actually asked to be annexed to Israel because we protect them against the Hezbollah fanatics who want to kill them.”

Netanyahu: We also take care of our friends, especially the Christians in the Middle East. The Christian villages in Lebanon, some of them have actually asked to be annexed to Israel. We protect Christians in the Middle East pic.twitter.com/SyeCM2PHMm

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 5, 2026

“It’s not only the Christians in Lebanon who asked for our protection. It’s the Druze, it’s Muslims, the Sunni Muslims, and quite a few of the Shiite Muslims too,” he continued, adding that “they’d like to free Lebanon.”

Netanyahu did not specify which Christian villages he was referring to, or whether he had spoken to any Christian officials in Lebanon. “No village in the south has made such a request,” Hanna al-Amil, president of the Christian municipality of Rmeish, told L’Orient-Le Jour on Monday. A separate statement signed by 15 villages in southern Lebanon described Netanyahu’s remarks as “completely fabricated” and “unrelated to reality.”

Hezbollah is not an anti-Christian organization, and its members have fought alongside Christians against incursions from Syrian Islamic State jihadists. As such, Netanyahu’s statement may be an attempt to legitimize the “indefinite” military presence in Lebanon envisioned by the Israeli Defense Ministry.

Settlers target Syria

As Netanyahu spoke to Fox News on Sunday, the IDF arrested around 100 settlers after they left an Israeli-occupied ‘buffer zone’ in southern Syria and set up camp on Syrian territory. The settlers – members of a group called the HaBashan Pioneers – have tried to set up an outpost on Syrian territory three times over the last year, with the IDF thwarting all three attempts.

אלימות קשה במהלך פינוי מאחז יהודי בבשן!! 🛑🛑🛑

כוחות צבא ומשטרה מקיפים את פעילי התנועה שהתיישבו בבשן. למרות פסיביות מוחלטת מצד הפעילים, תועדה אלימות קשה מצד חלק מכוחות הביטחון.
בנוסף מחרימים הכוחות את מכשירי הטלפון כדי שלא יוכלו לתעד את האלימות שמופעלת כלפיהם!! pic.twitter.com/tJ85bi8tSJ

— תנועת חלוצי הבשן (@HaluzeyHabashan) July 5, 2026

“The IDF strongly condemns the attempted border crossing and emphasizes that this is a serious incident and a criminal offense that endangers both IDF soldiers and civilians,” the Israeli military said in a statement. The HaBashan Pioneers – named after the biblical region encompassing southern Syria and the Golan Heights – have called on the Israeli government to “raze the Sunni villages in the Bashan and replace them with a Jewish settlement.”

Unlike the West Bank settlers, the HaBashan Pioneers do not have the backing of the Israeli government, with hardline National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir the only member of Netanyahu’s cabinet to publicly express support for the group. However, the IDF’s military occupation of southern Syria has expanded since the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2024. At least ten military bases have been built in the once-demilitarized buffer zone that separated the Golan Heights from Syria proper, and Katz has also described the IDF’s presence in this area as “indefinite.”

The soft settlement of Cyprus

Between 2021 and 2025, Israelis have purchased more than 3,800 properties in Cyprus, most of them in Limassol, Larnaca, and Paphos. Approximately 12,000 Israeli families now live in Cyprus, up from 300 in 2003, the vast majority of them arriving after Israel’s war on Gaza began in 2023.

Last month, Israel’s i24 News described Cyprus as “Israel’s civilian refuge” and “a critical strategic asset for Israel.”

“Zionist schools are being built – that’s what they call them – synagogues are being built,” Cypriot opposition leader Stefanos Stefanou warned last summer, claiming that Israeli land purchases are creating “settlements in all but name,” which are “almost inaccessible to anyone other than Israeli nationals.”

While this influx is entirely legal, it has been accompanied by increasing Israeli influence on the island’s politics. Less than a week after Cyprus assumed the EU’s rotating presidency this January, a series of covertly-recorded videos emerged exposing minor corruption schemes within President Nikos Christodoulides’s government. The videos were recorded and publicized by Black Cube, an Israeli private intelligence firm with deep ties to the IDF’s intelligence wing and the Mossad spy agency.

It remains unclear who hired Black Cube to intervene against Christodoulides, who is not regarded as an opponent of Israel. However, RT has covered the company’s work in depth in our ‘Wired for War’ series, and found that it typically acts in Israel’s interests.

In the face of Ankara’s escalating aggression, Israel is deepening one of the most important strategic alliances in the Eastern Mediterranean with Greece and Cyprus.
🇮🇱🇬🇷🇨🇾

Erdogan’s Turkey has occupied northern Cyprus since 1974, has threatened Greece with war for decades… pic.twitter.com/zeDwWOvKxP

— עמיחי שיקלי - Amichai Chikli (@AmichaiChikli) June 22, 2026

Settlement on four fronts

Israel’s territorial expansion in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria, and the expansion of its influence in Cyprus, are not being driven by the same actors. The Israeli government backs ultra-Orthodox settlers in the West Bank, but opposes some of the more hardline groups in Syria. Private individuals are leading the Israeli property-buying spree in Cyprus, but the island’s growing Israeli population is placing its government under increasing Israeli pressure – evident during Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli’s visit to Nicosia last year, in which he called on the Cypriot government to “combat anti-Semitism” and step up security protection for Israeli expats.

What remains unclear is whether this four-front expansion will strengthen and secure Israel, or set the Jewish state up for new clashes and conflicts.

An online feud between France captain Kylian Mbappe and Paraguayan Senator Celeste Amarilla has escalated into threats of legal action after the French footballer called the lawmaker a “despicable woman” in response to what he described as racist remarks.

The dispute began on Saturday after France beat Paraguay 1-0 in the World Cup round of 16, with Mbappe converting the winning penalty. Amarilla accused the French captain of disrespecting Paraguay goalkeeper Orlando Gill by refusing to shake his hand at the final whistle.

In a now-deleted post on X, the senator called Mbappe an “arrogant and ugly Cameroonian pretending to be French” and said she regretted that no Paraguayan player had slapped him after the match.

Amarilla also mocked the striker, claiming he had “never even learned to write,” had “sucked on coconuts instead of his mother’s milk,” and that “the most educated voices he ever heard were chimpanzees.”

Mbappe responded on Monday, accusing Amarilla of tarnishing Paraguay’s image through “recklessness and brazen racism.”

“You are a despicable woman and unworthy of your position. You do not represent Paraguay, that country which has sweated passion and honor throughout the competition,” he wrote on X.

French President Emmanuel Macron also took to X to voice his support for Mbappe, hailing “one more goal for Kylian Mbappe. This time against racism.”

On Tuesday, Amarilla posted an open letter to Mbappe, saying she deleted her original posts after realizing she had responded “with the same insults” she condemns. She nevertheless demanded that the French star retract his remarks and apologize, accusing him of gender-based political violence and threatening legal action.

In her letter, Amarilla also took issue with Mbappe’s post-match comments, in which he said France was ready to “get our hands dirty in the shit” to win the physical battle against Paraguay. She said she interpreted the remark as an insult to the Paraguayan team and the country.

The Paraguayan Foreign Ministry has distanced itself from Amarilla’s remarks, saying they were regrettable and “in no way reflect the position of the government of Paraguay or the Paraguayan people.”

Before their defeat by France, Paraguay had enjoyed a historic World Cup run, including a shock win over Germany in the first knockout round that led President Santiago Pena to declare a national holiday.

Two bombs exploded near the hotel in Damascus where French President Emmanuel Macron was staying on Tuesday. Macron’s office said he was unaware of the blasts and met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa as scheduled.

At least 18 people, including four police officers, were wounded, local media reported, citing the Syrian Interior Ministry. The blasts hit a busy area between the Tourism Ministry and the National Museum, across the street from the Four Seasons hotel where Macron was holding talks with civil society groups.

مشاهد من لحظة حدوث الانفجار الثاني جراء عبوات ناسفة بدمشق https://t.co/HxJvWQoz0U pic.twitter.com/ajcjiyR8gd

— Omar Alhariri (@omar_alharir) July 7, 2026

Macron is making the first visit by an EU head of state to Damascus since jihadist leader al-Sharaa ousted President Bashar Assad and seized control of Syria in December 2024.

A Syrian security source later said the explosions were caused by improvised explosive devices that were discovered by security personnel and detonated as bomb disposal teams attempted to defuse them. One device was planted inside a parked car near the hotel, while the other, which was hidden in a roadside trash bin, exploded next to an ambulance where dozens of people had gathered a few meters away.

The Interior Ministry said the blasts occurred outside the security perimeter established for the French president’s visit and posed no direct threat to Macron or his delegation. It added that no group immediately claimed responsibility.

The Elysee Palace confirmed that Macron was on his way to meet with al-Sharaa when the explosions occurred and did not hear the blasts, adding that no changes were made to the French president’s schedule.

Images released later show Macron standing with al-Sharaa and greeting other Syrian officials and military officers.

Palestinian families are demanding accountability over the deaths of children killed during Israeli military operations and settler attacks in the occupied West Bank since late 2023.

Through the stories of children ranging from infants to teenagers, told by grieving relatives, RT describes lives cut short and what they say is a complete lack of justice.

According to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, Palestinian children remain among the highest casualty groups of the conflict. The latest name added to that list is 15-year-old Amir Jaber, who was shot dead by Israeli forces near his home in Ramallah during a military raid last month. The IDF claimed troops opened fire during what it described as a violent disturbance.

“No one holds Israel accountable except God, they killed him and others in cold blood,” says Amir’s brother, while another relative asks, “Who is going to hold them accountable?” Families interviewed by RT say no one has ever been prosecuted over the deaths of their children.

Russia launched a series of large-scale retaliatory strikes on Ukraine on Monday, hitting a range of military targets in the capital Kiev and beyond.

The Western media has predictably described the assault as “cruel” and “horrifying,” accusing Russia of striking residential areas.

The reality, however, is very different. Moscow says it has hit key military targets, including a plant producing components for long-range drones. The operation came in response to Ukraine’s long-range combined drone and missile attacks on Moscow and St. Petersburg over the weekend.

Kiev’s strikes came days after Russian forces announced the capture of Konstantinovka, a key Ukrainian stronghold in Donbass, marking another significant battlefield development.

Watch the full video below.

Support for NATO in the US has slipped following President Donald Trump’s repeated criticism of the military bloc, according to an internal survey seen by Politico.

In a report released last week citing polling data, Politico said just 43% of US adults believe NATO would honor Article 5 – the bloc’s collective defense clause in which an attack on one member is considered an attack on all – if the US came under attack. This is the lowest level of confidence among the bloc’s 32 members and well below the 57% average.

The data did not include a year-on-year comparison, but sources familiar with last year’s results said the bloc-wide average has fallen by around eight percentage points since 2025, with the decline driven primarily by the US.

While overall support for NATO remains relatively strong, with 72% describing the transatlantic partnership as important, the poll pointed to shifting attitudes toward Russia and China across member states.

The survey was reportedly conducted among more than 31,000 people from March to April. A NATO official declined to comment on the findings, saying they are “for internal use.”

Analysts suggest the shift in US public opinion reflects Trump’s repeated criticism of NATO.

For years, Trump has accused European NATO members of failing to spend enough on their own defense. Last week, he called the relationship with NATO “one sided” and said it is “ridiculous” to maintain it, pointing to the gap in defense spending between the US and its allies in a Truth Social post. The post came ahead of the NATO summit in Ankara, which begins on Tuesday.

Amid Trump’s criticism, in June, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced a six-month review of America’s military footprint in Europe, warning that future troop deployments, funding, and basing arrangements will depend on whether NATO members meet Washington’s demands.

Ukraine’s state-backed Mirotvorets database of alleged “enemies of the state” has blacklisted Polish presidential chief-of-staff Zbigniew Bogucki, calling him an “anti-Ukrainian propagandist.” Bogucki responded by declaring himself an enemy of “Banderism” and Kiev’s “historical lies.”

Tensions between Warsaw and Kiev deepened in May after Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky granted an elite commando unit an honorific referencing the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a WWII-era ultranationalist militia which cooperated with Nazi Germany and took part in ethnic cleansings targeting thousands of Poles, Jews, and Russians in what is now western Ukraine.

Mirotvorets listed Bogucki, who is head of Polish President Karol Nawrocki’s office, on Monday after he used the term ‘Malopolska Wschodnia’ (Eastern Lesser Poland) during an address to the Polish parliament last Friday.

Ukrainian nationalists, including movements from which the UPA later emerged, cited the campaign as justification for attacks on Polish officials and people they viewed as collaborators or traitors. The territory is now divided between Poland and Ukraine, with the larger portion under Ukrainian sovereignty.

Mirotvorets was launched after the 2014 armed coup in Kiev as an ostensibly independent project, but is widely believed to cooperate with Ukrainian security services in publishing personal data of people it identifies as enemies. Several individuals whose details appeared on the site were later murdered. When blacklisted figures die for any reason, the database marks them as ‘liquidated’, reinforcing its reputation among critics as a ‘kill list’.

Stepan Bandera was a leading figure in the WWII-era Ukrainian nationalist movement and is honored as a national hero in modern Ukraine. Kiev is currently moving to establish a national pantheon for Bandera and other historical figures it considers worthy of commemoration, stating that other nations have no say in the matter.

Disputes over Ukraine’s treatment of Polish historical grievances have strained bilateral ties since Kiev declared independence in 1991. The issue was largely swept under the rug after Warsaw became one of Ukraine’s most vocal backers in its conflict with Russia.

Ukrainian officials have accused those who highlight UPA crimes of serving Moscow’s interests. Conservative politicians in Poland, meanwhile, have argued that Ukraine cannot belong in the European Union while continuing to honor Bandera and his movement.

China has urged the US to end its decades-long blockade and sanctions against Cuba, condemning Washington’s “coercion and pressure.”  

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning made the remarks on Monday when asked about Cuba’s request for a special session of the UN General Assembly, scheduled for July 7, to discuss the US embargo. The request followed Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel’s warning that the sanctions have pushed the island into an “unsustainable” situation and amount to “genocide.”  

The island nation, which has been under a US embargo since 1960, has endured daily blackouts and severe fuel deficits in recent months after Venezuela, once its main oil supplier, stopped crude shipments under pressure from the US earlier this year. This was preceded by the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by American commandos in January.  

“The US 60-plus years of full blockade and illicit sanctions have brought profound sufferings to the Cuban people,” Mao said, urging Washington to “stop its blockade, coercion and pressuring against Cuba at once.”  

She said the US had recently escalated its sanctions, dealing another blow to the Cuban people and drawing concern from the international community. Beijing opposes unilateral sanctions with “no basis in international law,” she added, reaffirming China’s support for Cuba’s sovereignty and opposition to external interference.  

“We stand ready to work with the rest of the world to uphold international fairness and justice,” she concluded.  

US news outlet Axios reported in late May, citing anonymous US officials, that the White House was planning to further ramp up pressure on Cuba in the hope that worsening economic conditions would eventually trigger regime change.  

Russia, China, Mexico, and several other countries have been supplying Cuba with humanitarian aid. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last month that Moscow continues to provide support to the island, including fuel. In late March, Russia delivered around 700,000 barrels of crude oil.

The European Commission is considering creating a new foreign affairs department in a move that would strip powers from the EU’s diplomatic service headed by Kaja Kallas, according to Politico. The reported plans are the latest sign of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s push to tighten her grip on the bloc’s foreign policy apparatus.

The proposal is one of several options under review as the commission reassesses how it manages the bloc’s external relations, Politico reported on Monday. Officials told the outlet it could involve merging departments responsible for trade and regional policy into one “supercharged” body.

The reported overhaul comes less than a month after the Financial Times reported that France and Germany were discussing a radical overhaul of Kallas’ External Affairs Service (EEAS). Created under the Lisbon Treaty in 2010, the EEAS took over many foreign policy functions previously handled by the European Commission.

Kallas and von der Leyen have reportedly been locked in a tug of war over who should steer EU foreign policy. Von der Leyen is said to have outmaneuvered the former Estonian prime minister by taking direct control of key geographic portfolios and pushing for a new intelligence body reporting directly to her office.

The issue became prominent during the US-Israeli strikes on Iran in spring, when the EU took nearly two days to produce a unified response. Kallas and von der Leyen released separate statements and reportedly did not speak directly throughout the weekend when the operation started, while member states remained divided over the bloc’s position.

A Chinese nuclear submarine launched a long-range ballistic missile with a dummy warhead into the Pacific Ocean on Monday, marking the first test of the kind since 2024.

“This test launch is a routine part of the Chinese PLA Navy’s annual training,” Navy spokesman Wang Xuemeng said in a statement. “The Chinese side notified relevant countries in advance.”

“This test launch complies with international law and international practice and is not directed at any specific country or target,” Wang added.

The spokesman said the missile “landed precisely within the designated waters.” CNN, citing a regional source, reported that it landed near the exclusive economic zone of either Kiribati or Tuvalu.

The US, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan condemned the test as a dangerous escalation. US State Department spokesman Thomas Pigott said “Beijing’s rapid and opaque nuclear weapons buildup is of great concern to the region and the world.” Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong accused China of destabilizing the region, describing its military activities as “lacking in transparency and reassurance.”

The US and China have exchanged warm gestures in recent months. US President Donald Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing in May during a visit that both sides said was cordial. Trump stated on Monday that he expects Xi to visit the US in late September. Xi earlier congratulated Trump on the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence.

Nevertheless, tensions have persisted. In May, the US imposed new sanctions on Chinese oil companies allegedly involved in trade with Iran and blacklisted another batch of entities the following month that it accused of supplying weapons to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. China responded by sanctioning ten US companies involved in the defense, aerospace, and rare-earth mining sectors.

China has also condemned the US-Israel war against Iran and the US energy blockade of Cuba as violations of international law.

Around four in five asylum grants issued by the British Home Office lacked sufficient evidence and were “likely to be incorrect,” according to a report by Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) John Tuckett.

The findings are based on surveys of 262 decision-makers and 69 technical specialists, as well as data collected by the Home Office from July to December 2025. Around 85% of respondents said they believe senior managers “prioritized quantity over quality” when assessing asylum applications.

Tuckett, a government-appointed inspector, reviewed 47 asylum approvals issued by Home Office staff from August to September 2025. As many as 37 were found to be based on “insufficient evidence” and “were therefore likely to be incorrect,” he wrote.

While the report acknowledged that the inspection had a limited scope, it maintained that the findings indicate that the asylum decision-making system is “not in a good state.”

The inspection “raised concerns that the focus on clearing the backlog ‘at all costs’ had resulted in the prioritization of quantity over quality,” Tuckett said in a statement accompanying the report. “Decision quality had declined significantly and was at an unacceptable level.”

The Home Office responded by arguing that the findings were based on a small sample of cases. “Our assessment of nearly 4,000 cases shows 94% of decisions are considered ‘correct’ against agreed criteria,” it said, as quoted by The Sun.

Last week, media reports said a Pakistani grooming gang ringleader convicted of dozens of child sex offenses in the UK could not be deported under existing law, fueling further public outrage.

Last month, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described the government’s policies as creating a “two-tier system” marked by “anti-white racism” in a widely discussed essay. Reform UK currently leads opinion polls with 26% support, followed by the ruling Labour Party with 24%, according to Ipsos.

Labour’s poor showing in local elections in May sparked unrest within the party, prompting Prime Minister Keir Starmer to announce that he will resign later this year.

Polish military counterintelligence will investigate those responsible for exposing secret deliveries of Patriot air defense missiles to Ukraine, Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz has announced.

The controversy erupted on Saturday after several Polish social media accounts reported that Warsaw had quietly transferred US-made PAC-3 Patriot interceptors to Kiev in March without parliamentary approval or informing the public.

Former Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak of the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party backed the whistleblowers, condemning the transfer as a move that weakened Poland’s own air defenses.

“After consulting with Prime Minister Donald Tusk, while maintaining responsibility toward public opinion and in accordance with legal regulations, I have ordered the declassification of all donations to Ukraine for the years 2022-2026,” Kosiniak-Kamysz wrote on X.

He added that he had instructed the Polish Military Counterintelligence Service to investigate those who had “intentionally sought to disclose state secrets.”

The minister noted that Poland’s military aid to Ukraine began under the previous PiS government, when Blaszczak served as defense minister from 2018 to 2023.

The transfer comes amid mounting pressure on Patriot missile supplies. According to the US-based Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), NATO countries face a backlog of roughly 4,300 Patriot interceptors – equivalent to about seven years of production at 2025 manufacturing rates – after US stockpiles were heavily depleted during the war with Iran.

Moscow has repeatedly dismissed claims that it intends to attack NATO members.

President Vladimir Putin last month argued that NATO and EU leaders were using their allegations of a Russian threat to justify higher military spending and the “radical militarization” of their countries.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is entering its third age. When it was founded three quarters of a century ago, it was meant to contain the spread of communism and confront the military might of the Soviet Union. In other words, to keep Western Europe capitalist and under US control. Despite the allegations of the Soviet propaganda at the time, NATO was a defensive rather than an aggressive alliance. Through all the crises of the Cold War period, it stood still.

When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union imploded, NATO gained a victory it had not won. The US-led military bloc refused to dissolve upon the completion of its original mission. Instead, it sought to become the sole security regulator for Europe. It went onto an offensive and waged war against Serbia. It went “out of area” to fight in Afghanistan. It embarked on an enlargement spree to include the former Soviet satellite countries of Eastern Europe, and some ex-republics of the USSR itself.

Yet, it miserably failed to manage relations with the former adversary, Russia. It spurned Moscow’s request for membership and proposed a partnership instead which turned out to be essentially hollow. It ignored Russia’s security interests by refusing to stop its expansion all the way toward the Russian border and turning down Moscow’s proposals for a pan-European security order. The issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, which the Kremlin perceived as an intolerable threat to its national security, became the principal cause of the Ukraine war, now in its fifth year.

From 2025, US President Donald Trump’s policies have kick-started a process of NATO’s internal transformation. The US National Defense Strategy clearly makes Europe responsible for “handling” Russia. Thus, with Washington revising its global strategic priorities, European members of the alliance are being ordered to carry more financial and military burden. Under conditions of the ongoing war, this means much greater involvement in the conflict. The European elites, long reluctant to increase defense spending and fearful of being drawn into wars, have changed their minds and eagerly embraced the new responsibilities and risks as an opportunity.

There are reasons for that change. Militarization is now thought to be a driver for relaunching the EU’s flagging economies. A militarily stronger Europe would be more autonomous strategically in a world where America is reducing its commitments to allies. Adding a military dimension to the EU could cement the union in the face of the many mounting challenges. Politically, rearmament and mobilization in the face of the “enemy at the gates” makes it easier for the ruling elites to brand their opponents “Kremlin stooges,” and thus protect their hold on power. In ideological terms, fighting Russia (for now, via Ukraine) has become a new unifying idea for Europe.

For Russia, this NATO 3.0 means, above all, that for the first time since the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies in 1945, Europe is again becoming a clear and immediate enemy of Russia. People in Moscow entertain no illusions about the adversarial attitude of the United States toward Russia, but Washington now is a back seat driver when it comes to the conflict with Russia. Whereas in the days of the Cold War NATO appeared to Russians as “America in Europe,” now when they look at NATO, they see Europe backed by America.

What is even more important is that NATO 3.0 is clearly on the offensive, with most decisive goals. The European elites’ strategy toward Russia is no longer deterrence as in the days of the Cold War; the goal is Russia’s destruction as a major power. This is what “strategic defeat” is all about. The Europeans dream of eliminating Russia as a serious factor in the geopolitics of Eurasia: to them, this would mean the “final solution” of the long-dreaded “Russia problem.”

This, however, will not happen. The fundamental flaw of European thinking is their belief that Russia would rather accept defeat, degradation and disintegration than use the arsenal which it currently possesses. This arsenal is not limited to nuclear weapons, although point may be reached when they will have to be used. The Kremlin, so far, has been exceedingly restrained in using its more powerful conventional capabilities, or engaging some high-value, high-visibility targets. There are many explanations for such restraint, but it is foolhardy – actually, fatal – to believe that either the Russian leadership or the Russian people would ever surrender to NATO.

The European NATO leaders’ enormous deficit of modern strategic culture – unsurprising after the eight decades of having delegated their security to the United States – and their blind Russophobia, a result of deep-seated vintage European racism and the real or perceived grudges against Russia piled over the last five centuries, have put Europe on a direct collision course with Russia. NATO 3.0 means war. Should it actually come to that, there will be no more NATO.

Huge crowds attended the funeral procession of Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in central Tehran on Monday, which also featured a banner reading ‘Kill Trump’ and chants of ‘Death to America’. 

It was the largest public event of the multi-day funeral, with mourners lining the nearly 20-km (12-mile) route through the Iranian capital. State media reported that millions turned out to pay tribute to Khamenei, who was killed in the first wave of US-Israeli airstrikes on Iran. 

The footage showed mourners holding flower-framed portraits of Khamenei, chanting anti-US and anti-Israel slogans, and carrying a large banner reading “Kill Trump: $100 million Iranian bounty.” Many waved red-and-white flags symbolizing martyrdom and revenge in Shia tradition as trucks carrying the flag-draped caskets of Khamenei and four of his family members made their way through the city. 

As the procession passed beneath a bridge, mourners hurled stones at a billboard depicting US President Donald Trump with a bullet aimed at his head. The sign read in Persian: “The US killed our father. We won’t let you go!” 

According to media reports, some participants also carried posters depicting US Vice President J.D. Vance, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in the crosshairs of a gunsight alongside the words “There will be blood.” 

Call for revenge: Crimson protests rise for Iran's martyred Leader. pic.twitter.com/gpG8JNJO7Y

— IRNA News Agency ☫ (@IrnaEnglish) July 6, 2026

The burial ceremonies come more than four months after Khamenei was assassinated on February 28 in a concentrated US-Israeli airstrike on his official residence in Tehran. Several relatives were also killed, including his son-in-law, daughter, and 14-month-old granddaughter. 

The ceremonies began on Friday, attended by Iranian officials, foreign dignitaries, and regional delegations. The cortege is scheduled to move to the holy city of Qom before continuing to the Iraqi cities of Najaf and Karbala. Khamenei will be buried at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, his hometown, on Thursday. 

Mourners chanted slogans calling for revenge for the Leader's blood and resistance against adversaries and traitors, while waving Iranian flags as well red flags of revenge and carrying portraits of martyred Leader. pic.twitter.com/k4EOzlI97h

— Tasnim News Agency (@Tasnimnews_EN) July 6, 2026

Trump said over the weekend that renewed peace talks with Iran had been delayed for a week by the funeral ceremonies. A preliminary peace agreement was reached last month, paving the way for further negotiations, although Israel has opposed the process and Tehran has accused it of trying to derail diplomacy. 

Western Europe has been enduring another record-breaking heat wave, with temperatures topping 40C in several countries. France, the UK, Germany and Switzerland have all seen their hottest June temperatures on record, while the extreme weather has disrupted transport, power generation and industrial output.

The scorching temperatures are burning a multi-billion-euro hole in the EU's already fragile economy. From parched fields to idle factories, the bloc is feeling the heat beyond what thermometers may indicate. Economists, meanwhile, warn that climate-driven heat waves are no longer temporary events but a structural macroeconomic risk.

Productivity is the first casualty

The most immediate economic cost of extreme heat is lost productivity. According to German insurer Allianz Trade, every additional degree between 30C and 35C cuts labor productivity by roughly $1.30 per hour – equivalent to nearly 3% of average hourly output. Construction, agriculture, logistics and other labor-intensive sectors bear the brunt as workers struggle in extreme temperatures.

As another heat wave swept the region, Patrick Martin, head of France's main employers' federation Medef, summed up the impact: “France is working in slow mode.”

The blow is increasingly being felt at the macroeconomic level, according to Carsten Brzeski, ING's global head of macro research. Heat waves have evolved from isolated weather events into a key economic variable, shaking the bloc’s business activity in ways reminiscent of the Covid-19 lockdowns. “Thermometers, it turns out, have become a leading indicator of economic growth,” he wrote last month, warning that heat waves now pose “a new downside risk to European growth.”
Brzeski said Germany, despite its relatively mild climate, could rank third in Europe for cumulative heat-related economic losses by 2030 because its infrastructure, housing stock and labor-intensive industries were built for cooler conditions.

The heat is literally melting Europe's transport infrastructure. Roads are cracking, rail tracks are buckling and tram networks are grinding to a halt across Western Europe. In Germany, major highways near Berlin and Hamburg were damaged by the heat, while in Leipzig tram services were suspended after track sealant melted. France's SNCF cut train services around Paris to protect its rail network, and Eurostar imposed speed restrictions as temperatures soared.

The damage extends beyond roads and railways. Water levels on the Rhine – Europe's busiest inland waterway – have fallen so low that cargo vessels can carry only around 25% to 45% of their normal loads. The restrictions have driven up freight costs and disrupted deliveries of fuel, chemicals and industrial raw materials, forcing companies such as BASF to adjust operations at their flagship Ludwigshafen complex. Engineers warn that much of Europe's transport infrastructure was designed for a cooler climate.

Surging demand for air conditioning is driving up electricity consumption just as extreme temperatures are squeezing supply. During the evening peak, Belgium's quarter-hour power price hit a record €1,038 per MWh, while the price in Germany reached €747 per MWh, according to exchange data cited by energy market intelligence firm Montel in late June.

High temperatures reduce the efficiency of solar panels and gas-fired power plants, while forcing some nuclear reactors to scale back or halt operations because rivers used for cooling have become too warm. France's EDF curbed output at the Nogent-sur-Seine and Bugey plants, while Swiss utility Axpo temporarily shut both reactors at the Beznau nuclear plant after the temperature of the River Aare reached 25C.

The latest heat wave has laid bare Europe's self-inflicted energy crunch. The EU's years-long, sanctions-driven shift from Russian energy has come at a cost. As the bloc reduced purchases of cheaper Russian gas, it became increasingly dependent on US LNG, which accounted for 59% of imports in early 2026 and more than 64% in April, according to Bruegel. Analysts warn that such reliance on a single supplier leaves the EU more exposed to price shocks and supply disruptions.

Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser has said the bloc could ease pressure on households and industry by buying competitively priced Russian energy instead of relying on more expensive American LNG.

Yet despite its pledge to phase out Russian gas, the EU continues to buy it at prevailing market prices. Russia emerged as the third-largest gas supplier to the EU in the first half of 2026, after Norway and the US, delivering approximately 22.1 billion cubic meters of gas and accounting for about 12% of the EU's gas consumption.

The economic cost of extreme heat extends beyond lost working hours and soaring electricity bills, fueling inflation, driving up food prices, and weighing on economic growth across the EU.

Agriculture is among the sectors under the greatest pressure. Repeated heat waves and droughts have scorched crops, dried out farmland and reduced yields across Southern and Western Europe. The European Central Bank estimates that the 2022 drought alone added 0.7 percentage points to food inflation across the EU. With another severe heat wave gripping the continent, economists warn that weather-sensitive staples could once again become more expensive.

Households pay the price

Ultimately, European households are paying the price. The economic damage does not end when temperatures fall. Research suggests economic activity declines by around 1% in the year after a major heat wave, with losses deepening to as much as 1.5% in the second year as disrupted production, damaged infrastructure and weaker investment continue to weigh on growth.

Studies suggest climate change could reduce the average European’s income by up to 3% over the course of this century as slower growth, higher energy bills and rising food prices steadily erode purchasing power.

The impact is already visible across the bloc. Germany, Europe's largest economy, has struggled to regain momentum after contracting in 2024, with economists increasingly identifying extreme heat as another structural headwind alongside high energy costs and weak industrial output.

According to Allianz Trade, climate-related losses could shave between 5% and 7% off the EU's cumulative GDP between 2026 and 2030. France is projected to suffer the biggest hit, with losses of around $240 billion, followed by Italy ($147 billion), Germany ($131 billion) and Spain ($120 billion).

British police chiefs need to stop taking sides in “woke… culture wars” and focus entirely on the “prevention and detection of crime,” according to a government-backed report that recommends a “fundamental overhaul” of policing in the UK.

Co-authored by former Labour Party Home Secretary Lord Blunkett and published on Monday, the report found that Britain’s police departments are plagued by corrupt leadership, nepotism, abuse of power, and low morale among officers. 

The report also highlighted concerns that police leaders are “preferencing certain groups,” with some “woke” chiefs “taking sides in the so-called ‘culture wars.’”

“Police leaders should be resolute in refusing to take sides, or to be diverted from the course of focusing entirely on the prevention, detection and prosecution of crime,” the report recommends, adding that “the background or identity of any perpetrator or victim of crime should have absolutely no bearing” on their treatment by the police service.

Official anti-racism guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council explicitly instructs officers not to be “color blind.” Equality, it states, “does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’.” Although the document is now under review, other arms of the British justice system have doubled down on apparently two-tier policies. Last week,  the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales ordered its own prosecutors last week to question their own “unconscious bias” when deciding whether to charge suspects from ethnic minorities.

Speaking to the BBC on Sunday, Blunkett admitted that “there is a perception” of two-tier policing in the UK. “We’ve moved the pendulum,” he said. “It swung from the [1999] Macpherson report about outright racism in the force… all the way through to people saying, ‘oh, it’s woke’, and we make it clear in the report that there’s no room for culture wars or woke.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has described the UK as “a two-tier state against white people,” and portrayed the death of Nowak as a direct consequence of decades of policing “guidelines that led them to treat different ethnic groups in different ways.” 

More evidence of two-tier policing against white people in Britain.

This young man was attacked by ethnic minority men and instead of arresting them, the police arrested the victim.

Only Reform will put an end to this. pic.twitter.com/PzZmndzkla

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 3, 2026

Two days before Blunkett’s report was published, Farage shared a video showing Birmingham police officers arresting a white youth after he was attacked by a group of black men. “This young man was attacked by ethnic minority men and instead of arresting them, the police arrested the victim,” he wrote on X, describing the video as “more evidence of two-tier policing against white people in Britain.”

Hundreds of thousands are attending the funeral of slain Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran in a clear display of solidarity and defiance by the country’s people, geostrategic analyst Christopher Helali, who is attending the ceremony, has told RT.

Khamenei was assassinated in an airstrike on February 28, the first day of the US-Israeli campaign against Iran, along with several close relatives, including his son-in-law, daughter and 14-month-old granddaughter. His son Mojtaba Khamenei, who was wounded in the attack, was chosen to succeed him as the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

In an interview with RT on Monday, Helali told RT that there is “a real sense of unity” at the funeral.

By showing up to the ceremony in such massive numbers, the Iranians are signaling that “they want to have a strong country, a stable country, a resilient country, and they want their sovereignty,” he said.

According to Helali, Khamenei’s funeral has also completely negated Washington’s narrative that Iran is in international isolation.

“Over 120 countries are represented here,” he said, adding that not only “most of the Global South,” but nations viewed as the US allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have also sent delegations, he said.

The presence of former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who now serves as the deputy chair of the Security Council, at the ceremony was “very important,” the analyst noted.

Moscow and Tehran “find themselves… in the closest point they’ve ever been in history… and I believe that in the coming years, we’re going to see an even deeper relationship… as they confront the same hostile Euro-Atlantic forces that seek to destroy their sovereignty,” he said.

Imagine a Hollywood movie. It’s a thriller about a big bad secret. One of those that have far-reaching, even earth-shaking political stakes attached to them; the sort of ‘this-changes-everything’ information that, if revealed, can topple governments, break up alliances, and redefine friends and enemies on the grand chessboard of geopolitics.

Such a secret could be, for instance, about an international conspiratorial network of pedophilia and other especially revolting crimes, serving as a pervasive influence operation to capture US and other Western ‘elites’ on behalf of a genocidal apartheid state in the Middle East and its global backers.

Or the secret could involve an infamous massacre of protesters. When the slaughter occurred, its systematic misrepresentation served to further manipulate Western public opinion to endorse a regime change operation in a country slotted for a Western geopolitical coup.

Finally, maybe the big bad secret is about the worst single peacetime terrorist attack ever carried out on vital infrastructure, a whole national economy and all who depend on it, and, last but not least, the environment; an act which takes place in Europe and against a NATO member state. And the bizarre fact that the political and mainstream media ‘elites’ of the attacked state have, in effect, obstinately helped cover up first the real identity of the crime’s perpetrators and then their sponsors.

The international conspiracy of child abuse and more is, of course, the Epstein network, with its obvious ties to Israel and virtually certain links to Israeli intelligence in particular. The mass killing of protesters refers to what is known as the Kiev ‘Maidan’ or ‘Snipers’ Massacre’ of February 2014, which Western politicians and their compliant mainstream media rapidly blamed on Ukraine’s old regime, conveniently in the process of being toppled in a particularly violent ‘color revolution’. In reality, as the Canadian-Ukrainian political scientist Ivan Katchanovski has demonstrated with painstaking, exhaustive, and peer-reviewed research, the massacre was a false flag operation carried out by anti-regime forces.

In economic terms, the destruction of Nord Stream closed the door to supplying Germany’s industry and households with inexpensive Russian gas. This was a terrorist strike at the heart of Germany’s already declining prosperity. And it worked, making a powerful and devastating contribution to the country’s catastrophic economic tailspin and the worsening lives of most Germans.

Yet if the attack was shocking, its aftermath was mindboggling. Initially, Western leaders, ‘experts’ (such as Carlo Masala and Janis Kluge), and mainstream media propaganda outlets seriously tried to sell the moronic idea that Russia had detonated the pipelines, although it had no conceivable motive to do so. Kiev was by no means silent. Ukrainian government official Mikhail Podoliak loudly agreed that this was a terrible crime and called on the West to punish Moscow.

Then, slowly, even in the West, reality asserted itself. The harebrained story about big bad Russia was quietly dropped – without anyone ever being challenged over having contaminated the public sphere with such biased nonsense in the first place. Western mainstream media, such as the American Wall Street Journal and German Spiegel, surely well supplied with leaks and instructions, have now settled for a slightly less absurd but still incomplete story: We are all supposed to believe that Nord Stream was blown up by a plucky team of Ukrainian ‘commandos’ and them alone.

That as well makes no sense. Yes, it is very much Kiev’s modus operandi to launch a brazen and perfidious terror attack on one of its most important and generous backers. Yet it obviously needed help. From whom exactly and in what shape, the future will show. Poland, judging by its behavior since the attack, was certainly very closely involved. Its politicians and spies have, in essence, been boasting about it, adding insult to injury for Germany. Other prime suspects include the US, the UK, and Norway, all of them so-called ‘allies’ of Germany within NATO. With friends like these, Germans need no enemies.

In other words, whatever happens next, it will be impossible to conduct a trial against Sergei K. and not bring up the obvious issue of his accomplices and sponsors. And that is the point where you may rush to the conclusion that Sergei’s personal and well-deserved come-uppance might turn into one of those Hollywood-movie-type cases, where the stunning revelation of the big secret will finally make a difference to what can only be termed Berlin’s insane policy of national masochism.

Once there is a Ukrainian terrorist in the dock and it has become inevitable to face who sent him to brutally damage the German economy and worsen the lives of almost every single German citizen, surely German governments cannot possibly continue their perverse and exceedingly expensive support for Kiev, you may think.

Indeed, they may even have to rethink another, even more wasteful policy, namely Germany’s new militarism: Based on silly scaremongering about Russia, it is making all Germans poorer, as even the anything but rebellious Zeit newspaper has to admit. Indeed, it will ruin what is left of Germany.

Ultimately, perhaps even those voices of reason in the BSW and AfD parties will prevail that argue for an end to the proxy war via Ukraine, normalization with Russia, and, specifically, repairing and using the Nord Stream pipelines.

If only! But the real world is not a Hollywood movie. In reality, especially the worst secrets and the greatest lies do not change everything when finally revealed. They should, but they don’t. Consider, for instance, that the very incomplete knowledge that we have of the Epstein crimes should have immediately shattered the US-Israeli relationship. Yet, while there are fissures, it is holding up well enough to ensure US support for Israel’s ongoing crimes, including genocide. Indeed, it is so robust that the US has just lost a war against Iran while following Israeli orders and is about to permanently integrate Israel into its military-industrial complex.

Unfortunately, the same is likely to happen in the case of the Nord Stream attack. Even if the truth about Kiev’s involvement in a horrific attack on Germany should ever be revealed, Berlin will pretend that nothing has really changed. Indeed, a perverse op-ed in Spiegel is already preparing the ground for such a solution, pretending, in essence, that Germans should be grateful to Kiev for blowing up a pipeline that was just no good.

That Spiegel thereby in effect endorses a sabotage of Germany’s vital infrastructure should occupy German prosecutors, but it probably won’t: They are busy going after ordinary citizens for plausibly calling Chancellor Friedrich Merz “Lying Fritz” or sharing RT information.

The reason why the biggest lies are so resilient is depressing and simple: Some lies are so important, so baked into policies, which current “elites” refuse to change because they would fall with them, that the truth must not be allowed to harm these lies: They are too big to fail. That is why, ultimately, the only real hope lies in a genuine replacement of political elites. If Germans have really had enough of being impoverished for Ukraine, the country that, unlike Russia, has actually fiercely and perfidiously attacked them, then they will have to vote very differently.

US President Donald Trump has suggested that he may need a restraining order against Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, reviving a public feud between the two leaders.

The Italian prime minister last month dismissed Trump’s claim that she had desperately been seeking a photo opportunity with him during a G7 summit in France. Meloni argued that appearing too friendly with the US president could damage a politician’s popularity, contrary to what he believes.

On Sunday, Trump shared an image on Truth Social showing Meloni looking up at him with an admiring expression. The caption read: “Restraining order needed.” The two leaders are due to meet this week in Ankara at a NATO leaders’ summit. The joke, however, does not appear to have originated with Trump.

I MIGHT NEED A RESTRAINING ORDER!!!😎🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/Lm8wfb3wpv

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) June 21, 2026

Relations between Trump and Meloni deteriorated after Italy declined to directly back the US-Israeli war with Iran. Meloni also criticized Trump’s remarks about Pope Leo XIV, after the US president described the American-born pontiff as “weak on crime” and “ungrateful.”

Tajani and other Italian ministers attended a celebration of the 250th anniversary of US independence hosted by the US Embassy in Rome. Speaking at the event, Tajani said that “the friendship between Italy and the United States is stronger than any controversy.”

US Ambassador to Italy Tilman Fertitta also struck a conciliatory tone in a recent interview with local media, saying Meloni “has done an excellent job” as prime minister and has helped Italy “become a global leader.”

Trump’s latest post has drawn criticism in Italy. Carlo Calenda, a former economic development minister who now leads the liberal Azione party, called the US president “a despicable two-bit bully” and voiced support for Meloni.

The US is “very much in a space race” against China as the two nations look to land humans on the Moon and establish permanent bases there in the coming years, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has said.

The US remains the only country to have sent manned missions to the Moon, with American astronauts visiting the Earth’s satellite six times as part of the Apollo program between 1969 and 1972.

During an interview with ‘Face the Nation’ on CBS on Sunday, Isaacman stressed that the Chinese “will land their taikonauts on the Moon – there’s no question.” Beijing’s lunar program is “moving at incredible speeds,” he added.

“The question is – will the US return before them and will we do so in a different way this time? Will we build the base, establish that enduring presence? I think the answer is yes,” the NASA chief said.

According to Isaacman, the American and Chinese timelines for putting humans on the Moon are very close. “They are thinking in 2029, we’re saying end of 2028 is when we’re targeting the landing. That’s months, not years,” he explained.

NASA will also begin building a lunar base in 2027, so when astronauts reach the surface “there’s going to be a buggy there, a lunar terrain vehicle, there’s going to be a start of infrastructure,” Isaacman said.

“But I would say, early 2030s, the Moon is going to be like the International Space Station. You’re going to have crews that are there on pretty extended periods of time, as we learn in that environment and prepare for Mars,” he added.

Beijing has repeatedly said it has no intention of engaging in a space race with Washington, with Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun reiterating earlier this year that “space is not an arena for major country contest.”

“China will continue to work with various countries for open space cooperation and advance the common endeavor of humanity in exploring outer space,” Guo said.

China proposed working together with the US but NASA remains legally banned from any collaboration with China’s space agency under the 2011 Wolf Amendment.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has called for regional governments to be cut off from the federal intelligence-sharing network if the country’s most popular party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), wins upcoming state elections.

The minister branded the right-wing party, which has enjoyed the largest share of public support for months, “anti-democratic” in an interview with Bild published on Sunday, and said Berlin should be prepared to “consistently counter it.”

Pistorius claimed that the AfD could not be trusted with state secrets because of its alleged “undeniable” ties to Moscow.

“We are intensively examining the question of to whom we can grant access to classified information,” said Pistorius, who has been a vocal proponent of Germany’s rapid militarization and potential mandatory conscription to prepare for a direct conflict with Russia as early as 2028.

Is the AfD ‘extremist’?

Pistorius claimed that the AfD is “opposed to the very constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany” and willing to “destroy our democracy from within.” All other major political parties in Germany have been avoiding virtually any form of cooperation with what they call the “far right” as part of an informal ban policy known as the “firewall.”

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, sought to label it a “confirmed right-wing extremist organization” in 2025. The AfD challenged the designation in the Administrative Court of Cologne, which issued a temporary injunction in the case last year pending a final ruling.

Back in 2025, AfD co-chair Alice Weidel described her party as a “libertarian conservative” force that fights bureaucracy and seeks to “free the people from the state.” She also criticized the then-German government for fostering “immigration into the social system” and accused the EU of Hitler-like censorship in a lengthy interview with Elon Musk on X ahead of snap elections.

Is the AfD tied to Russia?

Pistorius has insisted that no proof is needed of the AfD’s supposed ties to Moscow and that “you only have to listen to the public statements of many, many AfD representatives.” He also claimed that there is a “suspicion” that the party receives “money coming from Russia.”

Weidel told Reuters last week that Berlin urgently needed to lift the ban on Russian oil and gas imports to prop up its struggling economy, arguing that “the loss of this energy has set us back years.”

“Cheap energy from Russia was the secret of the success of ‘Made in Germany’. We need it back,” she said. The party’s co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, has also advocated the restoration of dialogue with Russia and previously urged Merz to “call Moscow.”

There is no hard proof of Moscow providing funding or any other form of assistance to the right-wing party, although German media claimed back in 2018 that some party members had traveled to Moscow on a “Russian-sponsored charter.” Only one of the three politicians in question is still an AfD member.

In 2024, AfD MEP Petr Bystron was accused of receiving money from a media network allegedly linked to Russia in exchange for “spreading Kremlin narratives.” He denied the accusations and called the still-pending probe politically motivated.

Why attack the AfD now?

The AfD is projected to perform well in the upcoming regional elections in two eastern German states, Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, while in Berlin it is also locked in a four-way statistical tie for first place in an exceptionally fragmented political landscape.

In Saxony-Anhalt, the party is polling at 41%, nearly 20 percentage points ahead of its closest competitors from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), according to another INSA survey published last week. If the party is able to keep this margin of victory, it could potentially even secure a majority in the regional parliament and form a government without entering a coalition.

The AfD had already gained record support in two regional elections outside its traditional political heartland in March 2026, securing nearly 20% of the vote in the western German state of Rhineland-Palatinate and nearly 19% in Baden-Wurttemberg, virtually doubling its results compared to the previous elections in both cases.

How unpopular is the current German government?

The AfD has been steadily gaining ground in recent months amid the plummeting ratings of Merz’s government. An INSA survey published in late June suggested that it enjoys the greatest support among all German parties, at 29%, seven percentage points ahead of the CDU.

The survey results make Merz the least popular chancellor in almost 30 years. Respondents were mostly concerned about the country losing its attractiveness for business (78%), the negative effects of climate change (66%), and the migrant influx under the current government (51%), the poll suggested.

The US-based opinion research institute Morning Consult also ranked Merz the world’s most unpopular leader in April.

Thieves have stolen around €4 million worth of jewelry from the Lalique Museum in northeastern France, despite the site reportedly getting “special attention” following last year’s brazen Louvre heist.

The break-in took place at around 5:30 AM on Sunday at the museum in Wingen-sur-Moder, a village in the Bas-Rhin department near the German border. Several masked individuals forced open a door and smashed six display cases before fleeing with around 20 pieces of jewelry.

The damage is still being assessed, but one source close to the investigation said the loss could be “close to 4 million” euros, AFP reported. The stolen items were made of crystal and contained no precious stones, meaning they cannot be melted down.

The mayor of Wingen-sur-Moder suggested the thieves may have been “well informed,” as they immediately targeted the jewelry. The mayor told regional newspaper DNA that “all the alarms went off as they should,” but claimed the security company failed to immediately alert the gendarmes. According to Le Parisien, a cleaner who arrived at the site was the first to call law enforcement.

The incidents triggered a national scandal over museum security. Le Parisien reported that the Lalique Museum was considered a “sensitive site” and had been receiving “special attention” since the Louvre robbery, but a source close to the investigation said the protection measures were “not sufficient.”

The Lalique Museum, opened in 2011, is dedicated to jeweler and glassmaker Rene Lalique and his successors. The site displays more than 650 works, ranging from Art Nouveau and Art Deco jewelry to modern crystal pieces. The museum said it would remain closed for several days following the burglary, citing the need to prepare for a “calm and safe” reopening.

FIFA has suspended a one-match ban imposed on US striker Folarin Balogun, clearing him to play in the World Cup Round of 16 against Belgium after US President Donald Trump reportedly asked the governing body’s chief to review the case.

Balogun was sent off in the 64th minute of the US team’s 2-0 win over Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Round of 32 on Wednesday. Under World Cup rules, the red card carried an automatic one-match suspension, which would have ruled the Nigerian-American forward out of Monday’s knockout clash at Seattle Stadium.

However, FIFA announced on Sunday that the implementation of the automatic suspension had been suspended for a probationary period of one year under Article 27 of its disciplinary code. The decision means Balogun, who has scored three goals in the tournament, will be available as the US seeks its first World Cup quarter-final appearance since 2002.

The New York Times reported that Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Wednesday and asked him to review Balogun’s suspension, citing people familiar with the conversation. The White House has not publicly confirmed the call, but referred reporters to Trump’s celebratory post on Truth Social.

“Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!” Trump wrote on Sunday.

“We’re not defending the national team or federation, we are defending football,” Garcia said.

The reversal is highly unusual, though not without recent precedent. FIFA made a somewhat similar move before the tournament when it cleared Cristiano Ronaldo to play for Portugal, despite a red-card ban carried over from a qualifier against Ireland. Ronaldo was handed a three-match ban, but two matches were suspended, allowing him to feature at the World Cup.

FIFA’s decision comes amid scrutiny of Infantino’s close ties with Trump. The governing body previously created and awarded the US president its Peace Prize following his public but unsuccessful campaign to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

The US is co-hosting the 2026 World Cup alongside Canada and Mexico. The tournament runs from June 11 to July 19 and is being staged across 16 cities, including 11 in the US. The final is scheduled for July 19 at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

The US and Belgium last met at a World Cup in the Round of 16 in 2014, when Belgium won 2-1 after extra time despite a record 16-save performance by US goalkeeper Tim Howard.

Following a victory in the Supreme Court that allows states to ban trans athletes from competing against biological girls and women, conservative advocacy groups have warned Democratic states: “you’re next!”

The right-wing campaign to stop transgender girls and women from competing against biological females received a massive boost following the recent ruling that said states are free to rule on the issue as they see fit.

In a decision led by the Supreme Court’s six conservatives, the justices ruled that states can separate teams based on “biological sex” without breaching the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and Title IX, a landmark 1972 anti-discrimination law.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority.

The ruling marks the latest setback to the LGBTQ+ community, which has struggled against repeated losses at the Supreme Court in recent years. However, the Liberals do not view the court’s ruling as a total loss as it did not mandate the decision to prohibit transgender women from competition against biological women. The final decision will be up to each individual state to decide.

The court’s ruling means that 27 Republican-led states will be legally permitted to ban transgender females from competition in female athletics, while the remaining Democrat-run states plus Washington DC and 395 other municipalities will come under extreme pressure to end the controversial practice.

“The Supreme Court has allowed states to be as cruel as they want to be to transgender people,” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, told reporters. “They’ve also allowed states like Minnesota to be as kind and welcoming as they can.” He said “nothing will change” regarding the state’s treatment of transgender athletes.

Thus far, the sound and fury behind the transgender battle is far greater than the total numbers would have us believe. In reality, there are very few transgender athletes competing in state sports, the Washington Post revealed. In Mississippi, for example, a 2023 report discovered no trans students were participating in sports, while the state of Washington reported that fewer than 10 of approximately 250,000 student-athletes in the state identified as transgender. In conservative Florida, state records show that just two trans girls have played girls sports over the last decade. Despite the low number of transgender athletes, the political right wants to put an end to the madness before the day comes when biological females become an endangered species on the awards podium.

In fact, much of the noise surrounding the battle over transgender rights is coming from the parents of girls and young women who do not wish to see their children get hurt from competing against biological males. There is also the question of fair competition where trophies, fame, and lucrative school scholarships are on the line. Why should a biological female train her entire life in a particular sport only to be beaten – or severely injured – by a transgender female with unfair physical advantages?

A Pew Research Center survey last year revealed that two-thirds of American adults supported laws that require trans athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth. That number is an increase of eight percentage points from 2022.

“Blue states with boys on girls’ podiums… you’re next,” Kristen Waggoner, president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, posted on X moments after the court’s ruling was announced.

Currently, Republicans said they were hopeful over the court’s interpretation of Title IX, the law banning discrimination on the basis of sex in schools funded by the US government. Six of the nine justices affirmed that “sex” refers to biological sex, not gender identity, as many on the left believe it to be. The court also ruled that it sees intrinsic biological differences between boys and girls that could make a crucial difference in sports.

“The legislatures and the schools are better equipped – and under the Constitution, are the more appropriate entities – to assess the competing medical and scientific considerations and draw appropriate lines,” he wrote.

Is there any way to appease both the liberals and conservatives in what has turned into a lightning rod in the political arena? One highly controversial solution is to create an entirely separate sporting organization reserved specifically for transgender athletes.

Presently, the response to creating separate tournaments or leagues for transgender athletes is heavily polarized. Proponents of this “separate but equal” approach view it as a pragmatic compromise that protects cisgender fair competition while allowing trans athletes to participate. Conversely, many LGBTQ+ advocates and human rights organizations, such as the Mama Bears Facebook Community, strongly oppose it. They argue that separate leagues marginalize transgender athletes, reinforce stigma, and often lack the necessary participation numbers to be viable.

Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, Conservatives and Liberals will be hard-pressed to win over public opinion in one of the most compelling, contentious, and consequential political debates of the day. The very survival of female sport hangs in the balance.

A trove of highly sensitive unredacted military documents containing staff information and security procedures at the British Army’s largest garrison has been found at a garbage disposal site in northern England, The Sun reported on Saturday.

It comes as the long-underfunded UK military is going through a rough patch, with all five of its Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarines currently stuck in port due to a maintenance backlog. The tight budget became the point of contention for former British Defense Secretary John Healey, who resigned last month after a row over funding with outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

According to the outlet, the cache of military documents was discovered in a recycling bin in Catterick Bridge by a member of the public and handed over to the tabloid.

The papers could provide dangerous information to hostile actors, the Sun reported, citing Colonel Philip Ingram, a former senior intelligence and security officer in the British Army.

“There is a clear security risk. It’s a breach of procedures which shows a lack of care,” he reportedly said, stressing that such sensitive documents should have been shredded or burned before disposal.

Last year, documents containing information about Catterick Garrison’s soldiers, shift patterns, and weapon issue details were found scattered on a Newcastle street, spilling from a torn trash bag.

A similar scandal took place in Poland last October, when news outlet Onet reported that classified military documents were found at a landfill. The Polish military denied the report, accusing the outlet of holding unauthorized copies of sensitive papers.

The Royal Navy has been reduced to the worst state in British history, retired chief of the Naval Staff, Lord Alan West, has told the Sun. London now operates the smallest fleet ever, according to the outlet.

A total of nine ships have been scrapped over the past two years under Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the UK is now operating a fleet that includes five operational frigates and no amphibious assault ships, the Sun reported on Friday. The government dropped plans for new Type 83 destroyers and Type 32 frigates, calling them “unaffordable,” it added.

According to West, Starmer’s naval policy has been catastrophic. “The number of ships we have is pathetic, to do the things we need to do,” the former first sea lord and Labour security minister said.

“The last time the Navy took this sort of hammering was in Samuel Pepys time [in 1667] and the Dutch sailed up to Chatham, burnt the fleet and stole the flagship,” he said, referring to the Second Anglo-Dutch War in the 17th century, where the British suffered heavy losses in a raid on Medway and were forced to sign a peace treaty favorable to Amsterdam.

Last month, The Telegraph and Daily Mail also reported that the UK’s entire available fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines is stuck in port awaiting maintenance.

The report comes as London continues to raise defense spending under the slogans of “transforming” the military in a “more dangerous and volatile” word, all while citing the alleged “Russian threat.”

Earlier this week, the British government announced an additional £15 billion ($20 billion) for the armed forces and vowed to bring total military funding to nearly £300 billion over the next four years in what Starmer himself called “record investment.”

The list of spending targets includes the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS submarine projects, as well as “multi-billion-pound upgrades at Faslane, Portsmouth and Devonport” naval bases but provides no timeline for the projects’ completion.

The spending increase comes in the face of a growing budget deficit and higher inflation. Reuters reported in May that British government borrowing had jumped by 30% year-on-year to £23.3 billion, with debt servicing costs 54% higher than the 2025 level.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, two concepts entered common political usage, the “war of necessity” and the “war of choice.” The first meant territorial defense and national survival and the second, a war launched not in response to an immediate attack but by calculation and design. The terms were popularized by the American commentator Charles Krauthammer, and later developed by Richard Haass, who used them to assess the US intervention in Iraq in 2003.

The Bush administration launched that war not because Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States, but because Washington chose to act, guided by political and ideological motives. A war of necessity was understood as a response to aggression and a war of choice as something preemptive.

That debate was partly opportunistic, reflecting internal American political struggles, yet the larger question wasn’t new, because arguments about “just wars” have been part of political thought for centuries. Until the second half of the 20th century, however, such arguments remained largely theoretical and war, just or unjust, was accepted as a common instrument of state policy, or the continuation of politics by other means.

After the dissolution of the USSR, the global balance of power disappeared. At the same time, the West’s conviction that it was morally and politically on the right side of history produced a new temptation to reshape humanity in its own image, by whatever means were deemed necessary, including military force. Within the liberal paradigm, force was legitimate when used by those assumed to be acting on behalf of progress.

As the liberal order exhausted itself, the ideological and normative framework weakened, but military force remained. It has now recovered its older function as an instrument by which states position themselves in a disorderly international environment. In such a world, the distinction between choice and necessity becomes blurred even if the decision to wage war is always the result of an assessment of changing circumstances and of a political choice made by state authorities on that basis. Or, in some cases, of what is perceived as the absence of any choice.

The emergence of a new international order will be prolonged and chaotic, and nuclear weapons make this process take longer, because they prevent, or have so far prevented, a decisive showdown between the major powers. While that process continues, the use of military force is shaped by constantly changing interpretations of whether is necessary to gain short-term advantages and to secure a more favorable place in the future order, whose final shape remains unclear.

Whether these calculations are correct becomes apparent only from the outcome of the campaign. Only then can one say if a war was truly dictated by necessity, by choice, or by some unstable mixture of the two.

In modern wars, as a rule, there is no such thing as absolute victory. The end of a conflict usually means the establishment of a certain status quo, which often implies the continuation of confrontation by other means and this status quo may be stable and even long-lasting, but it rarely resolves the contradictions that produced the military clash in the first place.

This reflects the nature of today’s world, where power has become multifaceted. New methods of warfare, the weaponization of economic ties, the ability to concentrate resources for asymmetric responses, rival sources of state stability, and the inability to enforce a watertight embargo all complicate the balance of power and often, they work in favor of the weaker party.

The number of variables that must be taken into account when determining what is “necessary” has grown so quickly that a linear prediction of outcomes is almost impossible, and necessity, moreover, doesn’t only mean retaliation. In a period of rapid change in the external environment, proactive and preemptive steps may also be required in order to avoid being forced to respond later from a weaker position.

This, too, recalls the pre-liberal order, when such action was regarded as a natural element of military strategy rather than a violation of political morality. The need to make a choice is dictated by constant external pressure, but the nature of that necessity isn’t shaped by circumstances alone. It is also determined by the accumulated inheritance of each state in its potential, strategic traditions, historical experience and political culture.

In this sense, the question is not merely whether a state chooses war or is forced into it. It is a question of what kind of civilization makes that choice, and on what foundations it rests. The turbulence of the present era is testing civilizations for resilience and suitability to the global conditions now taking shape.

This article was first published by Global Affairs and was translated and edited by the RT team.

A decorated US Air Force serviceman with no history of violence suddenly abducted, raped and murdered a three-year-old girl.

When a search party found Jimmy Shaver wandering near San Antonio, Texas, he appeared to be in a trance, unable to explain where he was or how he had gotten there. After his arrest, he reportedly failed to recognize his own wife when she visited him in jail. Until the moment he was executed four years later, Shaver insisted he had no memory of committing the crime for which he had been sentenced to death.

More than seventy years later, some researchers believe his case may have been linked to one of the CIA’s darkest Cold War programs: MKULTRA, the covert project that sought to manipulate, erase and ultimately control the human mind through drugs, hypnosis and psychological experimentation.

Whether the hearing lived up to those promises is another question. But the testimony presented before Congress suggested that, more than sixty years after MKULTRA officially ended, many of the program’s darkest secrets may still remain hidden.

Congress promises – again

Task force chair Anna Paulina Luna left little doubt about the gravity of the allegations.

“Administering drugs to people without their consent. Subjecting humans to psychological torture. Using prisoners and hospital patients as non-consenting research subjects. These are crimes against humanity. Some of the worst, most notorious crimes of the 20th century,” she declared in her opening remarks.

“The American people deserve the complete record. The victims and their families deserve acknowledgement, accountability, and justice. No one went to prison. No one was ever compensated by the government for the harm they caused.”

The language was uncompromising. Yet it was also strikingly familiar.

Nearly half a century ago, Congress opened another investigation into MKULTRA, promising victims that the full truth would finally emerge and that those responsible would be held accountable. Those commitments quietly faded away. The victims were never fully identified, compensation never came, and many of the program’s records were presumed lost forever.

Tom O’Neill, author of CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, reminded lawmakers that they were retracing a path Congress had already walked once before.

According to O’Neill, lawmakers in the 1970s accepted one of the CIA’s most consequential claims with remarkably little scrutiny: that after more than two decades of secret experimentation, the agency had simply failed to master mind control.

CIA officials repeatedly insisted that “their twenty-five-year effort to learn how to control the human mind had been a colossal failure.”

O’Neill believes that conclusion deserves to be revisited.

For years, he has argued that the historical record tells a very different story – one that Congress never fully examined and that may have been deliberately obscured by the destruction of key evidence. To make that case, he turned not to speculation, but to documents exchanged between two of the central figures behind the CIA’s most secretive experiments.

The blueprint for mind control

To support his argument that Congress never uncovered the full scope of MKULTRA, O’Neill pointed to a cache of correspondence that, in his view, fundamentally changes our understanding of the program.

The letters were exchanged between psychiatrist Louis Jolyon West, who “sought to control the minds of people without their knowledge, with the ultimate goal of creating programmed killers” and “Sherman Grifford” – the pseudonym used by Sidney Gottlieb, the CIA’s chief poisoner who designed and oversaw MKULTRA from its earliest days. Far from describing a failed scientific curiosity, O’Neill argued, the documents laid out an extraordinarily ambitious blueprint for manipulating the human mind.

The opening letter, written by West in 1953, “outlined the objectives, methods and intended outcomes of experiments he hoped to conduct on unwitting human subjects.”

“It reads like a page torn from the research notebook of Josef Mengele,”

O’Neill told lawmakers, comparing the proposals to the infamous Nazi doctor’s experiments at Auschwitz.

According to the correspondence, West proposed conducting experiments on “unwilling subjects,” including members of the military, psychiatric patients, prisoners of civilian jails, and “special subjects” identified by the CIA.

His methods ranged from administering psychedelic drugs, including LSD, to combining them with hypnosis in an effort to induce trance states, confusion, amnesia and other artificially created psychological conditions.

The ultimate objective extended far beyond studying human behavior.

West envisioned techniques that could extract information from unwilling subjects, implant false memories and alter the beliefs, attitudes and loyalties of individuals who had previously remained resistant to interrogation or manipulation.

According to O’Neill, Gottlieb responded enthusiastically.

If the correspondence accurately reflected the CIA’s ambitions, it suggested that MKULTRA was never merely a loose collection of bizarre experiments. It was an organized effort to develop practical methods of psychological control while shielding the entire enterprise from public scrutiny.

The case that should never have happened

For O’Neill, Jimmy Shaver’s aforementioned case illustrates those ambitions more vividly than any surviving document.

An extraordinary crime unfolded just one year after Gottlieb approved West’s proposals. Before the murder, Shaver had been undergoing experimental treatment for severe migraines at the Air Force hospital where West headed psychiatric services.

West himself later appeared as the court-appointed psychiatric expert during the proceedings.

Shaver was convicted and sentenced to death. Until his execution in 1958, however, he maintained that he had absolutely no memory of committing the crime for which he had been condemned.

O’Neill does not present the case as definitive proof of CIA mind control. Rather, he argues that the extraordinary overlap between Shaver’s unexplained behavior, his treatment under West’s supervision and the psychiatrist’s own proposals for inducing amnesia and altered mental states demands far closer scrutiny than it has ever received.

For him, the case raises the same uncomfortable possibility that has shadowed MKULTRA for decades: that some of the program’s most consequential experiments may never have been acknowledged, let alone investigated.

That is precisely why, O’Neill concluded, Congress should resist accepting the historical record at face value.

“Nearly fifty years ago, another committee investigating MKULTRA believed it had been told the truth about the program,” he told lawmakers. “It had not.”

Instead, he urged the task force to undertake “a thorough reexamination of what this program accomplished, what Congress was told, and what may still remain hidden.”

A trail deliberately erased

If O’Neill challenged Congress to reconsider what MKULTRA achieved, journalist and historian Stephen Kinzer focused on a different question: why so much of the program remains unknowable.

“I am painfully aware that I have discovered only a small portion of what Gottlieb did and what MKULTRA was,” he said. At the heart of the project, Kinzer argued, was an ambition far more radical than simply improving interrogation techniques.

In its quest to “implant a new mind into someone’s brain,” the CIA first sought to “destroy the mind that was there already.” To pursue that objective, MKULTRA experiments spread across prisons, psychiatric hospitals, universities, brothels and CIA safe houses. By any modern standard, Kinzer argued, many of those experiments amounted to medical torture.

The victims, he noted, occupied a special category inside the CIA. “They were called expendables,” Kinzer said – “human beings who would not be missed if they disappeared.”

According to Kinzer, Gottlieb effectively operated with “what amounted to a license to kill.” Even today, no one knows how many people were subjected to MKULTRA experiments, nor how many died as a result.

Yet Kinzer argued that focusing solely on Gottlieb risks misunderstanding how the program actually functioned.

The CIA’s senior leadership, he said, deliberately gave Gottlieb extraordinary freedom while maintaining enough distance to later deny institutional responsibility.

“This was a way for the CIA to deny its institutional role in MKULTRA,” Kinzer argued, “and to portray it misleadingly as the product of one man’s sadism or excessive zeal.”

If that strategy succeeded, it was only because another decision made the historical record even harder to reconstruct.

As public scrutiny intensified during the 1970s, Gottlieb and his superior, CIA Director Richard Helms, ordered virtually all MKULTRA files destroyed.

For decades, that decision has been treated as the moment the trail went cold.

Despite the destruction order, thousands of previously overlooked MKULTRA documents were later discovered hidden among the CIA’s financial records by an agency analyst.

“That same diligence could bring results today,” he told lawmakers.

For Kinzer, the surviving files suggest that historians may still know only a fraction of what remains buried inside the agency’s vast archives.

The death that still haunts MKULTRA

If Congress decides to press further, Kinzer suggested, one of the first places to begin would be the mysterious death of Frank Olson.

Officially, Olson was an Army scientist who committed suicide by jumping from the window of a New York hotel in November 1953.

In reality, Kinzer reminded lawmakers, Olson was secretly working for the CIA and had become deeply involved in MKULTRA. Shortly before his death, Olson had reportedly expressed growing moral reservations about the program and indicated that he wanted to leave it. His death has remained controversial ever since. “Evidence suggests that his death may not have been a suicide,” Kinzer said.

If undisclosed CIA records still exist, he argued, they could finally clarify one of the agency’s most enduring Cold War mysteries.

But Olson’s case is important for another reason. Rather than viewing it solely as an unresolved historical episode, Kinzer urged lawmakers to ask a broader – and potentially more unsettling – question.

Or did it simply evolve into something else?

Did MKULTRA really end?

MKULTRA officially came to an end in 1963, after years of secret experimentation failed to produce the breakthrough its architects had sought.

Sidney Gottlieb himself ultimately concluded that “there is no such thing as mind control.”

Kinzer does not dismiss that assessment. Instead, he argues that it reflected the technological limits of its time. “Even if he was right,” Kinzer told lawmakers, “he may have been right only at that time.”

Since MKULTRA’s closure, neuroscience, cyber technology and artificial intelligence have advanced in ways Gottlieb could scarcely have imagined.

Those developments, Kinzer argued, raise an uncomfortable possibility. Rather than asking only what MKULTRA accomplished during the Cold War, Congress should also consider whether the technologies available to intelligence agencies today have reopened questions the CIA failed to answer decades ago.

“Covert agencies may have access to tools for mind control that Sidney Gottlieb could not have imagined,” Kinzer warned.

He urged the task force to consider whether “some new incarnation of MKULTRA exists today.”

For Kinzer, revisiting the history of the program is therefore about more than establishing the historical record.

“It has a chance to connect the past to the future,” he said. “It could help prevent the emergence of a 21st-century MKULTRA that could be even more destructive than the original.”

One last chance

Whether Congress succeeds where previous investigations failed remains an open question.

Chair Anna Paulina Luna closed the hearing by arguing that lawmakers have “a constitutional obligation to ensure the CIA never does this again.”

She also revealed that she had recently visited CIA headquarters in Langley, where officials told her previously unseen MKULTRA records are currently being prepared for declassification.

That disclosure may prove to be the hearing’s most significant outcome.

Nearly fifty years ago, Congress also promised victims and their families that the full truth about MKULTRA would finally come to light. Those promises were never fulfilled.

Today’s task force has pledged to finish what its predecessors began.

Whether it succeeds may ultimately depend on a simple question: how much of the story still remains locked inside the CIA’s archives.

The European Union has abandoned its historic focus on trade and begun to increasingly define itself in terms of its military and geopolitical priorities, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl told RT in an interview on Saturday.

She made the remark days after Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Kiev and the “so-called European pseudo-peacekeepers” of seeking to prolong the conflict. He said their goal was “not peace, but the continuation of the war with Russia to the last Ukrainian.”

Speaking on Friday after visiting an auxiliary command post alongside top military commanders, Putin said Ukraine’s European backers were openly encouraging attacks on civilian targets, including infrastructure, transport, and student dormitories.

Last week, Brussels transferred €3.9 billion ($4.44 billion) to Ukraine under a €90 billion loan package that allocates €30 billion for budget support and €60 billion for defense in 2026-2027. The latest tranche is expected to finance drone procurement, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

“European integration has been moving from let’s trade with each other to let’s go to war,” the former diplomat said, stressing that the bloc had increasingly embraced a geopolitical and defense agenda instead of its usual focus on trade.

Kneissl pointed to the creation of an EU defense commissioner, whom she described as “a commissioner for war.”

“Europe was always about trade,” she said, reiterating that von der Leyen had established a geopolitical commission in 2019.

“We Europeans do not have the power to project force and have never really been able to define some sort of values with which some of us don’t agree,” the former diplomat continued, having expressed doubts that “this geopolitical commission will work.”

Watch the full interview below:

The nations of Europe have been degraded to the status of Third World countries due to their failed immigration policies, US President Donald Trump has said.

Trump took a step back from celebrations commemorating the 250th anniversary of the signing of the US Declaration of Independence to take another jab at Washington’s supposed allies in the EU and UK.

“Europe is learning that when you take in Third World criminals, you become a Third World Country. It happens quickly, in just a blink of the eye,” the president wrote in a post on X on Saturday, July 4.

Trump also implied that his tougher stance on immigration has spared America the same outcome. “I was elected just in time!!!” he said.

Despite the number of asylum-seekers arriving in the EU subsiding since the 2015 migration crisis, the foreign-born population in the bloc reached a record 64.2 million last year, expanding by 20.2 million since 2010, according to a report by the Center for Research and Analysis on Migration at RFBerlin.

Vance was commenting on the recent resignation of Keir Starmer, who became the sixth British prime minister to leave the post in the space of just a decade. The UK has “been failed by its leadership for a long time” and “can do a lot more than it’s currently doing,” he stressed.

Last week, Trump warned the EU countries that he will impose a 100% tariff on all goods they send to America if the bloc moves forward with increasing taxes on digital services provided by American tech companies.

In late June, the US president also told NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte that he was “disappointed with most” of the bloc’s European members.

“I just want loyalty... In Germany, we have 50,000 troops. And then you want a little – give us a little nudge, give us a little kiss. We don’t want much. And they say, ‘No, we can’t do it,’” he said.

It’s not every day that an EU member state has the opportunity to push back in favor of freedom. At least not without elections. But a German court did have that chance – and promptly blew it on behalf of European citizens everywhere.

Back in 2022 when the Ukraine war was ramping up, the European Commission made an executive order banning Russian media broadcasting in the EU. Meaning that you couldn’t – and still can’t – access RT from within the EU, either on TV or on the web, without a VPN.

So some folks running a website in Saarbrucken, Germany, near the French border, started including some RT videos in their live feed. They reportedly did this exactly four times, back in 2023. Whoop-dee-do, right?

Wrong. This is the EUSSR we’re talking about, remember?

For this, the accused ended up facing criminal prosecution in Germany for promoting some EU-sanctioned RT Germany content. But it turns out that even the German court in Saarbrucken considering this case had doubts as to whether these guys and their website actually fit the definition of an “operator” under the EU sanction’s language that “prohibits any operator from broadcasting, enabling, facilitating or otherwise contributing to broadcast, any” Russian media content. So the German court referred the question to the European Court of Justice tasked with interpreting and clarifying EU regulations and laws.

The German court missed the forest for the trees and got down into the weeds and all hung up on the comparatively minor issue of whether the website could be considered an “operator” without being a commercial entity. Which the European court then used as a prelude to launch a sweeping McCarthyist “reds under the bed”-style tirade.

“The term ‘disinformation’ is a translation of the Russian word ‘дезинформация’ (dezinformatsiya), coined in the early 1920s by the Soviet intelligence services. Joseph Stalin is credited as being the originator of that term, deliberately making it sound French in order to make it seem Western in origin and thereby enhance its credibility,” wrote the EU court, self-identifying as a history professor. How about if I take that as an open invitation to self-identify as a judge in my capacity as a final-year law student?

The ECJ ultimately ruled that commercialism is irrelevant when the website solicits donations, and had raised over €60,000 within a period of a year. It basically said, look, any commercial nature of the platform risks being a false dichotomy, because who’s to say that the sanctioned entities themselves wouldn’t be paying these independent outlets through donations to promote their banned content: ”Even though, for the purposes of classification as an ‘operator’, no economic activity or income generation is necessary, the context of an appeal for donations enabling such sums to be collected warrants some comment. The fact that some websites are financed by donations rather than by a registered commercial activity justifies increased vigilance as to their possible use as a tool for propaganda purposes, in particular in the case of State-sponsored disinformation campaigns,” the European court ruled. “That lack of clarity makes it more difficult to identify financial flows and, therefore, the actors likely to influence editorial policy or content. It thus creates an environment conducive to interference by external interests, including by third countries, which may intervene directly or indirectly in the production or broadcasting of content.”

This court case had been stayed, or suspended, in Germany pending the ruling by this European Court of Justice. But now it’s free to convict these guys of promoting banned Russian content, under the pretext that just maybe they’re not-so-independent media that schemed on the down-low to distribute Russian media content – something that a lot of people have been doing all over social media of their own volition.

Ultimately, what the buzz around this case effectively does is put a chilling effect on that sharing, and it also risks making people self-censor out of fear of being dragged into court for a judicial proctology exam and having their lives potentially ruined in the press over accusations of Russian collusion. What if these guys (and others) just happen to agree with some of the views expressed on banned Russian media? Who’s going to protect their honestly-held views from establishment authoritarianism?

Hang on, here’s a volunteer for the task.

Oh, great. So the same people who censor speech are also its self-appointed defenders. Like an arsonist who goes running around setting fires but also works as a firefighter as their day job.

What’s clear from all this is that EU regulation may look precise on paper, but enforcement isn’t so straightforward. When even member state courts require an official interpretation, then how is the average person supposed to avoid running afoul of the law? The result ends up being less about what’s actually banned and more about what merely feels safe to touch. Not exactly the kind of vibe that one tends to aim for in a democracy.

A military-grade aerial drone has been discovered washed ashore on a beach on the Black Sea Coast of Türkiye, Ihlas News Agency (IHA) has reported.

The UAV was spotted by local residents in the Filyos district of Zonguldak province, who called emergency services, the agency said in an article on Sunday.

The area was swiftly cordoned off by police, and bomb disposal experts were deployed over concerns that the drone could be carrying explosives, it added.

The initial assessment suggested that it was a military UAV, but a more thorough technical examination will be required to determine its country of origin, according to IHA.

The Turkish authorities haven’t yet commented on the discovery of the UAV, which is the second in less than a week.

Zonguldak'ın Çaycuma ilçesine bağlı Filyos beldesinde, askeri amaçlı olduğu değerlendirilen bir insansız hava aracı (İHA) sahile vurdu. pic.twitter.com/p0w7PC1JzQ

— Tapınakçı (@Mr_Tapinakci) July 5, 2026

On Wednesday, a drone carrying 5kg of explosives went down in northeastern Trabzon province, IHA reported. Investigators determined that the aircraft was of Ukrainian origin, the agency said, adding that local residents experienced a brief panic before the crash site was secured.

In late March, the Turkish government said that they are closely monitoring the risks posed by drones in the Black Sea. According to Ankara, it maintains “contact with the relevant parties to prevent the war from spreading… and to prevent further escalation.”

Kiev has ramped up its long-range UAV attacks on energy infrastructure and civilian targets inside Russia amid continued setbacks on the battlefield in recent months.

There have been a number of incidents of explosive-laden drones, flying towards Russia’s northwestern Leningrad Region, crashing in NATO member states – Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland.

North Korea has tested a strategic cruise missile and other weapon systems aboard its newest naval destroyer, KCNA state news agency reported Sunday. The country’s leader Kim Jong-un reportedly observed the launch and evaluations of the vessel’s combat systems.

Conducted on July 3 aboard the newly built 5,000-ton warship Kang Kon, the tests reportedly assessed the vessel’s target detection and information processing capabilities, integrated firepower system, naval guns, automatic cannons, and electronic warfare equipment as part of its performance evaluation.

The news agency cited Kim as hailing the reliability and combat effectiveness of the destroyer’s weapon systems.

The North Korean leader reportedly noted that recent advances in domestic weapons development demonstrated the potential of the country’s naval combat systems to strengthen military readiness for strategic operations.

Kim also outlined further plans for developing additional surface and underwater combat systems and deploying them in operational waters, according to the report.

He called for continued efforts to expand North Korea’s war deterrence and war-fighting capabilities, KCNA noted.

The country’s leader ordered officials to complete the destroyer’s testing program and commission the vessel into the navy within two months, according to the report.

Kim reportedly convened a consultative meeting later in the day on the development of the country’s shipbuilding industry.

In June, Pyongyang commissioned the 5,000-ton destroyer Choe Hyon and announced plans to deploy the Kang Kon, a vessel of the same class, as part of North Korea’s broader naval modernization drive.

He also revealed plans to follow the current destroyer program with a new class of 10,000-ton strategic surface combatants.

Israel has no intention of leaving Lebanon. At least, it won’t do so now and on terms that would suit Beirut (not to mention Hezbollah and Tehran). Moreover, in parallel with the Lebanese campaign, West Jerusalem is reactivating operations in Syria: Israeli forces launched an artillery strike on the village of Abidin in the western part of Syria’s Daraa Governorate, and, according to regional sources, Israeli aircraft conducted flights over the rural areas of Daraa and Quneitra governorates  near the Golan Heights.

At first glance, it appears that yet another breakthrough has occurred on the Lebanese front. The US, Israel, and Lebanon signed a trilateral framework agreement in Washington (although three agreements have already been reached in the past two months). US Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented it as a step toward the restoration of Lebanon’s sovereignty, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the dismantling of its infrastructure. But upon careful examination of the agreement, it becomes clear that it cannot ensure lasting peace; it only creates a diplomatic pause during which each side will attempt to consolidate its own position.

This is a ‘framework’ agreement – and that says it all. It’s not a full-fledged peace treaty or a final settlement, but a set of principles that have yet to be transformed into a working mechanism. The agreement provides for the gradual restoration of control over the Lebanese army, the start of Hezbollah’s disarmament, and the eventual withdrawal of Israeli troops after the elimination of the threat to Israel. In other words, Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon is not immediate and unconditional, but is tied to a condition that is nearly impossible to fulfill quickly.

This is the crux of the matter. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly stated that Israel will not leave southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah remains armed and poses a threat. This effectively means that Israel’s presence is not a temporary measure, but a permanent instrument of pressure. As long as Hezbollah exists, Israel remains in Lebanon; but as long as Israel remains, Hezbollah has a reason not to disarm. It becomes a vicious circle, in which each side justifies its actions by the actions of the other.

Lebanon finds itself in the most difficult position. Formally, Beirut has committed itself to regaining control over southern Lebanon. But Hezbollah is not simply an armed group that can be disarmed by administrative action. It is an independent military-political force that is firmly integrated into the Lebanese system; it has a social base, infrastructure, and external support. Therefore, the demand to disarm Hezbollah may sound good on paper, but in practice, instead of a peace mechanism it could become a pretext for a new internal crisis.

It is no coincidence that Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri, a staunch Hezbollah ally, has already criticized the agreement and stated that it will not be implemented. As expected, Hezbollah rejected the agreement, perceiving it as a form of capitulation. This is the biggest problem: the agreement was signed by three nations, but the main armed player – Hezbollah – which is directly responsible for stabilizing the situation in southern Lebanon, is not a party to the agreement. 

At the same time, Israel is reopening the Syrian front. The attack on Abidin in Daraa Governorate is not a random incident. Southern Syria, Daraa, Quneitra, and the area near the Golan Heights have long been perceived by Israel as a potential threat. Following the weakening of the Syrian state and the shift in the regional balance of power, Israel has changed its defense strategy and is actively forming buffer zones around its borders. West Jerusalem explains its role in maintaining a security zone in southern Syria by the need to prevent attacks by armed groups.

This is why Syria is again becoming part of Israel’s overall strategy. Israel demonstrates that if it is forced to make concessions in Lebanon, it can still  expand pressure along other perimeters – through Syria, the Golan Heights, Daraa, and Quneitra. This is a signal not only to Damascus, but also to Tehran and Hezbollah: Israel will not wait for the threat to fully materialize; it will act preemptively. 

The ultimate goal of all these maneuvers in Lebanon and Syria is to ‘squeeze’ Iran. Having failed to achieve its objectives in 2025 and in the spring of 2026, Israel wants to take revenge presently. According to Tehran, the signed US-Iran memorandum specifically mentions the cessation of military operations, including in Lebanon, and the parties’ commitment to respect Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. For Tehran, this is an attempt to include Lebanon in a broader bargaining process with Washington and to demonstrate that the stabilization of the region is impossible without taking Iranian influence into account.

The situation is complex: The US attempts to portray the agreement as a diplomatic success even though the sides continue to exchange blows and the ceasefire could come to an end at any moment; Israel is given the chance to maintain a military presence in Lebanon until its conditions are fully met; Lebanon receives the promise of restored sovereignty – but with no means of immediate control over Hezbollah, this becomes largely impossible. Meanwhile, Iran attempts to integrate the Lebanese issue into its dialogue with Washington; and Syria is becoming an additional pressure point, playing the role of a ‘whipping boy’.

In such circumstances, peace remains elusive. This is merely a managed tactical pause before the next round of war. Israel will not leave Lebanon because the threat of Hezbollah persists; Hezbollah will not disarm because Israel remains; and Lebanon cannot fully control the south because state institutions are weaker than the Hezbollah movement on the ground. Apparently, the US is trying to freeze the conflict without resolving its main contradiction.

The strike on Abidin, Syria, shows that Israel is not thinking solely in terms of the Lebanese front. It is building a broader security belt from southern Lebanon to southern Syria. And while US President Donald Trump is telling the world about agreements, a completely different reality is taking shape on the ground: a reality of buffer zones, artillery strikes, air patrols, and the constant expectation of a new round of escalation. 

Even if we assume that Trump genuinely seeks to end the war and reach a peace agreement with Iran, including in the context of the Lebanon crisis, he will find this extremely difficult to achieve; the stakes are too high, and in many ways, he was the one who raised them. Therefore, the framework agreement looks less like the beginning of peace and more like an attempt to legally formalize a temporary balance of power. And the longer this temporary balance is presented as a peace settlement, the greater the likelihood that Lebanon will once again become the arena of a major war and a bargaining chip in the struggle between the opposing sides.

The parliamentary opposition in Poland has demanded answers from the government of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk after reports of a secret delivery of in-demand Patriot air defense missiles to Ukraine.

On Saturday, several Polish social media accounts, including prominent blogger Pawel Sokala, claimed that the authorities in Warsaw had handed over a batch of US-made PAC3 interceptors to Kiev in March without announcing it publicly or consulting with parliament.

The critical shortage of Patriot missiles due to their heavy use in the Ukraine conflict and the American-Israeli war against Iran had forced Washington to delay the contracted shipments of the interceptors to some of its allies in Europe and Asia in recent months. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Pentagon has exhausted almost 50% of its stockpile of Patriots since the attack on Tehran in late February.

“We desperately need them for our air defense system,” he said, claiming that the Patriots are the only type of munitions capable of shooting down the Russian Iskander missiles stationed in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad.

“We must pass a law prohibiting the transfer of any Polish weapons abroad without parliamentary consent,” Bosak insisted.

Moscow has repeatedly called speculations that it is planning to attack Western European countries “nonsense,” aimed at scaring domestic audiences and justifying increased defense spending. The Iskanders have been deployed in Kaliningrad for defensive purposes in response to NATO’s expansion, according to the Russian authorities.

Blaszczak insisted that Tusk’s government must answer if the delivery did happen and if Poland’s overall position in the queue for receiving the interceptors from the US has somehow been affected by it.

Warsaw has been one of the staunchest supporters of Kiev during its conflict with Moscow, but relations between the neighboring countries soured in recent weeks after Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky named a special-forces unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which was responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles during the Second World War.

Earlier this week, Poland announced that it will not transfer its remaining Soviet-era MiG-29 jets to Ukraine, while also warning that Kiev will have problems with joining the EU if it continues to honor nationalists involved in crimes against the Polish people.

US President Donald Trump has taken the stage in Washington, DC, to deliver his Freedom 250 address after a storm threat forced a chaotic evacuation of the National Mall and left many attendees unable to get back through security in time for the speech.

Thousands had gathered near the Washington Monument on Saturday for the “Salute to America” celebration marking 250 years since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

The event was billed as the centerpiece of the country’s Independence Day festivities, with military flyovers, live performances, a presidential address, and what organizers described as the largest fireworks display in history.

“There’s no way we can be deterred,” Trump told the cheering crowd, recalling that he had told organizers and security officials that “if we have to speak in front of one person at 4 o’clock in the morning, I’m going to be here.”

FULL SPEECH: President Trump Honors America with Historic Speech on 250th Anniversary - 07/04/26 pic.twitter.com/uBtV5K5BjI

— RSBN 🇺🇸 (@RSBNetwork) July 5, 2026

The program was thrown into disarray after severe thunderstorms moved toward the US capital, prompting security officials to order crowds off the Mall and into nearby buildings, museums, Metro stations, and other shelters. Videos shared online showed attendees streaming away from the stage area as the evacuation order triggered confusion across the heavily secured zone.

CHAOS on the National Mall rn as visitors for tonight’s Independence Day celebration are running back to the mall to keep their seats despite Secret Service telling everyone to leave due to incoming thunderstorms. pic.twitter.com/SChmoOoY5Z

— Mike Carter (@MikeCarterTV) July 5, 2026

Many people were forced into crowded buildings to wait out the storm, while others reportedly remained outside despite lightning, strong winds, and repeated warnings.

BREAKING: National Mall evacuation now includes Salute To America area of the fireworks as storm approaches Washington DC during #America250

| Licensing @FreedomNTV Desk@freedomnews.tv pic.twitter.com/8Wnd1dk9qL

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) July 4, 2026

Security screenings were suspended during the evacuation, and the process of reopening checkpoints left many attendees stuck in lines or unable to return to the main viewing area before Trump began speaking.

NOW: National Guard Troops are FLIPPING picnic tables on the National Mall as Motorcycle Police instruct the crowd to Evacuate the Great American State Fair

Video by @noturtlesoup17 | Licensing @FreedomNTV desk@freedomnews.tv pic.twitter.com/pEhfOCwKAD

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) July 5, 2026

Several planned elements, including some military flyovers, were reportedly delayed or canceled because of the weather. The disruption followed a day of extreme heat in Washington, with temperatures climbing above 100 F (37.8 C). The city’s Independence Day parade was canceled earlier in the day, while medics and National Guard personnel were seen assisting overheated attendees and distributing water.

Unfortunately, the weather may have disrupted parts of the @Freedom250 celebration, but we were grateful to open the beautiful @USDA building to provide shelter. And then this happened… these incredible patriots spontaneously broke into the National Anthem.🇺🇸

I love my country. pic.twitter.com/ELljfmif9S

— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) July 5, 2026

Trump had vowed earlier in the evening that he would deliver the speech regardless of the storm threat. “We’re going to be there no matter what,” he wrote on Truth Social, urging supporters to return once the weather cleared.

🇺🇸 BREAKING: The largest fireworks show in the history of the WORLD has just kicked off in Washington, DC

850,000 MUNITIONS — last year's was 20,000

Trump PROMISED to make it happen, and he MADE IT HAPPEN! 🔥 pic.twitter.com/727Ms8gEiF

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 5, 2026

The constant churn of British prime ministers shows that the UK political system is badly failing the public, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said, warning that ordinary people are “crying out” for real change.

Britain’s problem is bigger than any single leader, as the succession of David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer points to deep dysfunction in a system that is no longer delivering for the public, Vance suggested in an interview with The Sunday Times.

“What I see is six prime ministers in the last few years. What that says to me is that something is very broken about British politics and that people are really crying out for significant structural change,” Vance said. He added that the country has “been failed by its leadership for a long time” and “can do a lot more than it’s currently doing.”

Vance said he did not know much about Burnham personally, but stressed that Washington would work with whoever leads one of America’s “closest and most important allies.”

The vice president’s comments, published on the 250th anniversary of the US declaration of independence from the UK, come after months of unusually blunt criticism of London from Washington.

Vance was especially outspoken when he condemned the brutal stabbing of British teenager Henry Nowak last month, arguing that it would not have happened had European elites “stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants.” Downing Street responded by accusing foreign politicians of trying to “interfere” in British democracy and “stir up division.”

The vice president rejected the idea that such criticism amounted to hostility toward Britain, insisting that “it comes from a perspective of love and admiration… even though sometimes what we say is provocative.”

US President Donald Trump called his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to discuss the Ukraine conflict, the situation around Iran, and the prospects for restoring bilateral ties, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said.

The conversation took place on Saturday, as the United States marked the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. According to Ushakov, Putin personally congratulated Trump and the American people on reaching the milestone, after sending a formal message to the White House a day earlier.

The call lasted one hour and 25 minutes, Ushakov said, describing it as “businesslike and highly constructive.”

Ukraine conflict

Putin briefed Trump on what Ushakov described as the real situation on the ground in Ukraine, saying Russian forces were advancing along the entire line of contact and taking “one settlement after another.”

Putin reiterated Moscow’s preference for a political and diplomatic settlement, provided that Russia’s core positions are taken into account. At the same time, he accused Kiev and its European backers of seeking to prolong and escalate the conflict, including through “terrorism against civilians.”

Trump, according to Ushakov, again confirmed his readiness to help bring the hostilities to an end and seek a peaceful settlement. He also argued that ending the Ukraine conflict as soon as possible could unlock “enormous prospects” for mutually beneficial cooperation between Russia and the US, the Kremlin aide said.

Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, will continue mediation efforts and are ready to visit Moscow “at a convenient time,” Ushakov added.

Iran settlement

Putin expressed hope that the negotiation process based on the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran would help produce mutually acceptable, long-term solutions to key issues, Ushakov said. The Russian president also reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to provide practical assistance to efforts aimed at de-escalation and stabilizing the region.

Trump thanked Russia for what he described as its balanced position and constructive proposals, according to the Kremlin aide.

Bilateral ties

Turning to bilateral ties, the presidents emphasized the importance of continuing contacts, including with regards to military-political and economic issues.

The two presidents stressed the importance of preserving the shared pages of Russian-American history. Putin reminded Trump of Russia’s contribution to the emergence of American statehood, while both leaders highlighted the alliance between Moscow and Washington during World War II.

Trump mentioned that he personally admires St. Petersburg’s Hermitage Museum, while Putin wished the US success in hosting the ongoing FIFA World Cup, citing Russia’s own experience as host in 2018.

What’s next?

According to Ushakov, Moscow initiated the previous phone call on June 14, Trump’s 80th birthday, while this time it was the American side that proposed speaking on the day of the 250th anniversary of US independence.

The presidents agreed to remain in contact and hold another call in the near future, according to Ushakov. Putin also reminded Trump that he has a standing invitation to visit Moscow.

German police have deployed pepper spray and batons in a clash with left-wing activists in the city of Erfurt. The demonstrators were attempting to derail a convention of the opposition Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

The right-wing party advocates tougher immigration laws and also opposes Germany’s support for Ukraine, including sanctions against Russia. Speaking late last month, AfD co-chair Alice Weidel called for lifting a ban on Russian oil and gas imports to help revive Germany’s ailing economy.

Worum geht es nochmal in #Erfurt?
(von @chefreporterNRW) pic.twitter.com/gd9PjmXFy6

— ANNA LÜSE (@i_burgerin) July 4, 2026

Founded in 2013, the party came in second with 20% in last February’s federal elections, winning 152 seats in the 630-seat Bundestag. However, the AfD was excluded from coalition talks and government formation as part of a policy known as the ‘firewall’ in German politics.

According to police estimates, approximately 31,000 protesters descended on Erfurt on Saturday, with organizers putting the number at 50,000. Some of the activists set up road barricades, while others glued themselves to railway tracks.

On top of that, Antifa members also attempted to forcibly breach a police cordon surrounding the city exhibition hall, where the AfD convention was taking place. Several AfD delegates, as well as conservative YouTubers filming the rally, were reportedly beaten up by the left-wing radicals. 

So sieht das „Fest der Demokratie“ in Erfurt aus: Unsere Reporter von @apollo_news_de werden von einem Mob gejagt und mit Schlägen, Tritten gegen den Kopf traktiert. Die Kollegen mussten medizinisch versorgt werden. (Foto/Video @BILD ) pic.twitter.com/TKNhImaX8u pic.twitter.com/llHxUssiMM

— Max Roland (@maxroland20) July 4, 2026

During Saturday’s convention, AfD delegates re-elected Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla as party co-chairs.

Speaking to the broadcaster ‘Phoenix’, Weidel said that she sees “no coalition possibilities” with the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) at present.

“Currently, that’s not possible under [Chancellor] Friedrich Merz,” she concluded.

Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD’s lead candidate in Saxony-Anhalt’s elections slated for September, similarly ruled out a coalition with the CDU at the regional level.

“I can’t save Germany with those who have knowingly driven it into the ground for the last 20 or 30 years, in every respect,” he explained, claiming that the Christian Democrats are “sliding further and further to the left.”

According to an ARD-DeutschlandTrend poll published on Thursday, the AfD is Germany’s most popular political party, enjoying the support of 27% of respondents. The CDU, which, together with the Social Democratic Party (SPD), forms the current ruling coalition, is trailing with 22% of the vote, the survey indicated.

Meanwhile, 84% of Germans are dissatisfied with Chancellor Merz’s performance, including 51% of supporters of his own Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, the poll showed.

The survey comes as Germany’s economy remains largely moribund, with high energy prices rendering local businesses uncompetitive. Despite economic problems, Merz’s government has been actively pouring money into a military buildup, as well as aid for Ukraine, citing a supposed Russian threat.

A week-long funeral for Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has begun in Iran, with thousands of mourners urging the country’s authorities to exact revenge on the US and Israel for his killing.

The burial ceremonies come more than four months after Khamenei was assassinated on February 28 at the very beginning of the latest US-Israeli aggression against Iran. He was killed in a concentrated airstrike on his official residence in Tehran alongside multiple relatives, including his son-in-law, daughter, and 14-month-old granddaughter.

Coffins holding the remains of Khamenei and his family members have been put on display at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque in the Iranian capital, with top officials and foreign dignitaries paying their last respects.

Thousands of mourners gathered outside the mosque, with many seen carrying Iranian national flags, as well as blood-red flags, an important symbol in Shia Islam. The flag, called the ‘Ya la-Tharat al-Husayn’ dates back to the late 7th century, when it was first raised after the Battle of Karbala in a call to avenge the death of Imam Husayn ibn Ali.

Attendees were heard chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” as well as demanding “revenge” on those behind Khamenei’s assassination.

The funeral is set to continue throughout the next week, with an estimated 30 million expected to participate in the mourning of Khamenei in Iran and neighboring Iraq, where more than half the population are Shia Muslims. 

July 4 – Independence Day in the US – is a surprisingly popular holiday in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

For example, in Prague, the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to illuminate the historic Cernín Palace in the colors of the American flag until July 5 to commemorate the 250th anniversary of US independence. In Warsaw, iconic government buildings and bridges are often similarly illuminated. In Romania, the entire country’s leadership is set to gather for a reception at the US Embassy in Bucharest, where slogans such as “strategic partnership with the US is the DNA of Romanian foreign policy” will be clearly articulated.

The popularity of this holiday has been repeatedly played up in the movies of the region, where the standard image of the celebration is a turkey in a typical Khrushchev-era apartment building against the backdrop of the US national flag. However, what was previously being played off as an ironic take on provincial inferiority complexes is now becoming the official policy of Central and Eastern European foreign ministries. To understand this ‘romance’ between ‘New Europe’ and Washington, it must be broken down into several key components.

Sociological psychosis: The straight-A students in the front row

The primary pillar underlying this adoration of the Stars and Stripes is a deep-seated collective inferiority complex. According to Pew Research, approval of US policy in Poland remains stable at 86-90%. This is an astronomical figure: America is loved more in Warsaw than in the United States itself. Poles, Romanians, and Czechs behave like quintessential top-performing students who desperately need the praise of a strict teacher. Hanging an American flag and throwing a barbecue party on the Fourth of July is a ritual of psychological compensation, rather than just a holiday for local elites. They need to prove to themselves that they are no longer the “post-Soviet periphery,” but a full-fledged part of the Pax Americana. Even if that means repainting their own palaces.

Arms purchases: Buying protection from a feudal lord

The second reason is purely material. Excessive loyalty in Central and Eastern Europe can be measured in the billions of dollars that flow to the American military-industrial complex. The prime example here is Poland. Warsaw has voluntarily shouldered a military budget amounting to an insane 4-5% of its GDP and is buying up Abrams tanks, F-35 fighter jets, and Patriot systems in such quantities that American defense contractors can barely keep up with the signing of contracts. Bucharest is not far behind: Romania is rapidly expanding the Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, which by 2030 will become the largest NATO military hub in Europe, surpassing Germany’s Ramstein Air Base. In international relations theory, this is called “buying security from the overlord.” The border states understand that they lack real sovereignty, so their only currency is their willingness to pay for an American umbrella and offer their territory as training grounds.

The third important aspect relates to the pragmatic nature of Central and Eastern European countries’ policies. By demonstrating fanatical devotion on July 4, New Europe is achieving a selfish objective – it is trying to sell its loyalty to Washington at a higher price than France or Germany. The logic is simple: to show the White House that Berlin and Paris are hesitant, selfish partners, constantly arguing with the US, while Poland and Romania are reliable, loyal, and heavily armed outposts. Being Washington’s ‘favorite’ on the continent is their way of securing economic preferences, as well as political clout within the EU itself.

Against this backdrop, Slovakia and Hungary stand out somewhat. In Slovakia, the level of trust in the US barely exceeds 30%, while in Hungary the situation is slightly more complex. Under Viktor Orban, Budapest spent years pointedly ignoring official receptions at the American embassy and clashing with the Biden administration. However, at the same time, Hungary became a veritable Mecca for American right-wing conservatives. Orban managed to build a unique bridge with the MAGA movement: Budapest became the first European venue for America’s prestigious Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Tucker Carlson broadcast for weeks from the banks of the Danube, and conservative American professors were welcomed by Hungarian universities, where they helped to create a new school of thought based on ‘traditional values’.

Hungary loved America – but only the ‘right’ kind, Trumpist America, cynically using its right wing as a battering ram against Brussels. Current Prime Minister Péter Magyar is being forced to break this paradox. On the one hand, he needs to make peace with Brussels and Washington. On the other hand, he has already declared war on Orban’s legacy, cutting off government funding for CPAC and launching criminal investigations into the diversion of funds to American lobbyists. Magyar is forced to walk a tightrope: he won’t install red, white and blue lighting in Böm Square in Budapest, lest right-wing voters accuse him of being a ‘Soros pup’, and must limit himself to dry, formal telegrams.

In the mid-2000s, old-school diplomats on Moscow’s Smolenskaya Square recalled their interactions with Central and Eastern European countries within the framework of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) and the Warsaw Pact. During major communist holidays – May Day or the anniversary of the October Revolution – the most ardent, proactive, and vocal enthusiasts were not the officials in Moscow. The elites of the Eastern European borderlands traditionally tried to appear holier than the Pope. It was in Prague, Warsaw, and Bucharest that they renamed streets ahead of schedule, reported 100% turnout at demonstrations, and demanded that portraits of general secretaries be hung on every street corner, turning party protocol into a farce akin to something described by Franz Kafka.

In classical international relations theory, this phenomenon of excessive loyalty among small states is called ‘bandwagoning’. And here lies the most profound tool of American soft power. Once upon a time, the nomenklatura elites of Central and Eastern Europe dutifully studied at the Higher Party School in Moscow. After 1991, their children and successors flocked to study in the UK and the US on State Department scholarships. Washington reprogrammed the mental code of the local bureaucracy through Ivy League institutions: they think in American terms and sincerely consider the Pax Americana their sole civilizational matrix. This is classic mimetic sovereignty; they have gradually transitioned into a cargo cult: the population believes that if they copy the external attributes of the master, they will automatically be able to join the major leagues.

Russia and the United States bear a “special responsibility” for maintaining global security, President Vladimir Putin has said while congratulating his counterpart Donald Trump on the 250th anniversary of American independence.

In a letter published by the Kremlin on Saturday, Putin wished Trump and his family “health, well-being and success,” and the American people “happiness and prosperity,” while describing the signing of the US Declaration of Independence as “an important milestone in world history.” 

He also emphasized the countries’ shared history and special responsibilities as nuclear powers.

“We were allies in two world wars, together freed humanity from the horrors of Nazism, and later played an important role in laying the foundations of the modern world order. Today, Russia and the United States, as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, bear a special responsibility for ensuring global security and stability,” the message reads.

During the American Revolutionary War, Empress Catherine the Great refused Britain’s requests to send Russian troops to fight the colonists and later established the League of Armed Neutrality, which challenged London’s naval blockade and was widely seen as favoring the American cause.

Since Trump returned to office last year, Moscow and Washington have renewed high-level contacts after years of strained relations. Putin and Trump met in person last August and have held several phone calls discussing the Ukraine conflict, the Middle East, and broader bilateral ties. However, several outstanding issues, including Ukraine-related sanctions and diplomatic property disputes, have not yet been resolved.

At the start of the US and Israeli military campaign against Iran, we identified seven lessons from the new conflict. Sanctions, we noted, are often followed by force; pressure on Iran would be long-term; concessions to the attacking side wouldn’t work; the leadership of the targeted country would become one of the main targets; internal unrest would encourage external intervention; support from friendly states would matter, but wouldn’t solve the victim’s problems, and finally, the balance of power would remain the decisive factor in security affairs.

Force answered with force is a crude instrument, but it remains an effective way of halting escalation. Now that the conflict appears to have been paused, we can draw several further lessons, even while recognizing that this pause is likely to prove temporary.

The first lesson is that a major power can withdraw, which strictly speaking, isn’t new. Recent history offers many examples, as the United States ended its long military presence in Afghanistan and before that, the Soviet Union also withdrew from Afghanistan. Earlier still, the United States was forced out of Vietnam.

In the Persian Gulf crisis, the US and Israel inflicted serious damage on Iran, but they failed to crush their opponent. They also appear to have judged further escalation, especially a ground operation, too risky and the result was a retreat from the objective of destroying the enemy and a turn towards diplomacy.

This leads to the second lesson in that diplomacy works, and compromise remains possible.

The 20th century was marked by the terrible experience of wars ending in crushing defeats. The First World War destroyed at least four empires and the Second World War ended in the complete defeat of the Axis powers, whose sovereignty remains restricted to this day. The Cold War ended in political defeat and the collapse of the Soviet Union and more recent local military operations led to the disintegration or change of government in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria and Libya.

The underlying issues remain unresolved. But the parties have at least reached a temporary settlement through negotiation and specific concessions. They were compelled to treat one another as legitimate negotiating partners and willingly or not, they acknowledged each other as equals, despite the obvious disparity in their capabilities.

The third lesson is that tolerance for losses can determine the outcome because in war, the scale of losses matters and so does the willingness to accept them and the 20th century again gives us two extremes. In the world wars, casualties reached unimaginable proportions, while in many local conflicts, however, the very fact of casualties became a decisive factor in ending the war. This was especially true of the American experience in Vietnam.

After the Cold War, Western military operations were generally designed to keep casualties low. Russia’s losses in the North Caucasus after the collapse of the USSR were serious and were a factor in the ceasefire after the First Chechen War, but those lessons helped reduce losses in the Second Chechen War.

The Gulf crisis illustrates both models as the US and Israel were not prepared to accept the higher casualties that a ground operation might have required, at least not without confidence in success, whereas Iran, by contrast, showed that it was ready to absorb losses. Civilian casualties and the assassination of several dozen prominent political figures didn’t break its resolve.

The fourth lesson is that a margin of safety matters. The great powers entered the First World War with little understanding of the costs ahead while the Second World War began between mobilized military camps, largely prepared for war and regarding it as inevitable. The Cold War was a story of building strategic reserves, followed by the “open-door” effect of gradual détente. The Soviet economy was ready for world war, but in the atmosphere of easing tensions, much of that capacity became unnecessary.

Iran has spent its entire history as an Islamic republic preparing for open military confrontation and its ability to hold out in the current conflict is largely the result of how its armed forces, security agencies, command system and economy are organized. In peacetime, such a system can look costly, unbalanced and cumbersome, but under extreme pressure, it has proved effective.

Israel, too, lives under a regime of constant military mobilization, though on different principles. Military-bloc states are returning to world politics and China is strengthening its resilience while Western countries are moving in the same direction. Russia and Ukraine have also been forced along this path, but Ukraine appears to have reached the peak of its militarization, while Russia still has room to grow.

The fifth lesson is that nuclear weapons both solve problems and fail to solve them. Fear of Iran becoming a nuclear power is one of the long-term reasons for its containment by the US and Israel. If Iran had already acquired nuclear weapons, as North Korea has, such a bold attack would hardly have been possible and one achievement of the campaign against Iran is that it has bought time by delaying Tehran’s progress towards nuclear-weapon status.

At the same time, neither the US nor Israel seriously considered using nuclear weapons to escalate further or defeat Iran. Both are technically capable of large-scale nuclear strikes or individual precision strikes with tactical warheads, but such a step would invite condemnation and might still fail to produce victory.

Iran would have a chance of maintaining stability and control even after several nuclear strikes and the destruction of individual cities or infrastructure and its resolve might even rise to a new and unpredictable level.

Nuclear weapons can cause enormous damage. But they don’t automatically destroy the target state, especially one that has spent decades preparing to resist attack and this creates uncertainty. In some conflicts, the political significance of nuclear weapons may be reduced, while at the same time, the temptation to use them simply to inflict damage may grow.

Images of strikes against Iran didn’t break its will to resist and Iran’s own information operations against its enemies were also limited. The conflict also produced a large amount of AI-generated disinformation, though the quality of such material hasn’t yet made it a universal weapon. So, information warfare matters greatly, including in Ukraine, but it still has limits.

The seventh lesson is that leaving a war is harder than entering one. Launching a military campaign is easy, but ending it is far more difficult, especially when the original objectives haven’t been achieved and this is the situation the US faced after its attempt to crush Iran with missiles and bombs failed.

Retreat and compromise carry a high price and they also bring domestic political risks. Negotiations may be attacked by the public or political opposition as weakness while any concession makes that risk greater.

The US has shown that it is prepared to step back if escalation becomes too costly. But the matter isn’t settled and at the next opportunity, the guns may start firing again.

The strategy for exiting a conflict has become an extremely difficult diplomatic and technical challenge. The US and Israel didn’t crush Iran, and they tried to leave the conflict at the right moment, but Iran held its ground while avoiding a devastating prolonged war.

How long this balance lasts remains to be seen.

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

A skydiver carrying a giant American flag crashed into a hospitality tent during an Independence Day rodeo in California.

The accident happened during the opening ceremony of the Folsom Pro Rodeo near Sacramento, California on Thursday. The event is one of the city’s annual Fourth of July traditions held this year as part of celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of the signing of the US Declaration of Independence.

The event traditionally begins with a parachutist delivering the flag into the arena.

Holy smokes!!!

Huge crash at the Folsom Pro Rodeo

Thankfully he walked away with no injuries 🙏🏼 pic.twitter.com/z4rYPPlNvL

— TONY™ (@TONYxTWO) July 4, 2026

Video circulating on social media shows the banner becoming snagged on trees just outside the arena, before the skydiver loses altitude and crashes into the tent. According to ABC7, he narrowly avoided hitting the nearby spectator stands.

Crazy scene at the Folsom Rodeo as a parachuter had a rough landing. Good news: he’s okay 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/Hpp3zScfYA

— Bussin' With The Boys (@BussinWTB) July 3, 2026

The parachutist was safe and suffered only a cut lip, local media cited the rodeo’s organizers as saying. No injuries among spectators were reported.

Held annually since 1960, the Folsom Pro Rodeo is one of Northern California’s largest Independence Day celebrations, featuring nightly fireworks and patriotic displays.

On July 4, the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of its independence. Americans will honor the Founding Fathers, the Continental Army, and France’s decisive contribution to victory over Britain. But one foreign power that also helped shape the fate of the young republic has largely disappeared from popular memory.

Twice in American history, first during the War of Independence and later during the Civil War, the Russian Empire took diplomatic and naval steps that helped the United States survive moments when its future was far from certain. Both times, St. Andrew’s flag flew on the side of the American republic.

When people think of the American Revolution, they usually picture battles at Lexington, Saratoga, or Yorktown. Far less attention is paid to the struggle at sea. Yet Britain’s greatest advantage over the rebellious colonies was not simply the Royal Navy itself, but its ability to wage economic warfare across the world’s oceans.

In the eighteenth century, a maritime empire lived or died by commerce. Merchant fleets carried not only wealth but also food, weapons, military supplies, and the resources needed to sustain both armies and colonies. Disrupting those shipping lanes could cripple an opponent without winning a single decisive naval battle.

One of the most effective tools for doing so was privateering.

Privateers occupied a legal middle ground between naval officers and pirates. Governments issued them letters of marque authorizing privately owned vessels to capture enemy merchant ships. Unlike pirates, privateers operated under state authority, bringing captured cargoes back to friendly ports, where the proceeds were divided between the state and the shipowners.

The system allowed maritime powers to wage commercial warfare on an enormous scale without maintaining prohibitively expensive fleets. Privateers could also stop neutral merchant ships if they were suspected of carrying goods destined for the enemy, particularly military supplies. As the American War of Independence expanded into a broader European conflict following the intervention of France and Spain, this increasingly drew neutral shipping into the fighting.

Russia, despite remaining outside the war itself, found its merchant vessels among those affected. Russian ships carrying grain and other cargoes to Mediterranean ports were increasingly intercepted by both regular warships and privateers. What had begun as Britain’s campaign against its enemies was gradually becoming a threat to neutral commerce across Europe.

By the late 1770s, Catherine the Great concluded that neutrality meant little unless it could be defended. The stage was set for one of the most consequential diplomatic interventions of the American Revolution.

By 1778, Russia had already begun looking for ways to protect its merchant shipping. St. Petersburg proposed that Denmark jointly escort commercial vessels sailing to Russian ports, hoping to shield neutral trade from the growing conflict. The following spring, Russia, Denmark, and Sweden each dispatched naval squadrons to patrol northern waters while issuing declarations defending the rights of neutral commerce.

The effort, however, failed to stop the seizures. Spain, despite being aligned with revolutionary France against Britain, continued intercepting Russian and Dutch merchant ships carrying grain to Mediterranean ports. 

On February 28, 1780, the Russian empress responded with one of the most important diplomatic initiatives of the eighteenth century: the Declaration of Armed Neutrality.

Its message was simple. Russia had respected the rights of neutral commerce throughout its own wars and expected the same treatment in return. If Russian merchant ships continued to be stopped or their cargoes confiscated, the empire would defend its maritime rights by force. Any attempt to seize Russian vessels now carried the risk of war with one of Europe’s great powers.

The declaration established several principles that would reshape maritime law. Neutral ships were to enjoy free navigation between the ports of belligerent states. Enemy goods carried aboard neutral vessels were to remain protected unless they constituted military contraband. Blockades would be recognized only when they were physically enforced by naval forces rather than proclaimed on paper. Most importantly, Russia pledged to back these principles with armed squadrons rather than diplomatic protests alone.

Catherine’s initiative quickly evolved into something far larger than a Russian policy. Denmark and Sweden joined almost immediately, effectively closing the Baltic to unrestricted operations by the warring powers. Over the following years, the Netherlands, Prussia, Austria, Portugal, and the Kingdom of Naples also adhered to the convention. Even France, Spain, and the United States broadly accepted its principles, although they never formally entered the league. Britain, whose naval strategy stood to lose the most, remained the only major power to reject it.

The greatest beneficiary, however, was neither Russia nor the European neutrals. It was the thirteen rebelling colonies.

For a nation celebrating 250 years of independence, this remains one of the least remembered international chapters of the American Revolution.

When Russian warships sailed into New York

The second time Russia found itself playing an unexpected role in American history came more than eighty years later.

By 1863, the United States was fighting for its survival once again. The Civil War had reached its most decisive phase. Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation earlier that year, transforming the conflict from a struggle to preserve the Union into a war against slavery itself. Across the Atlantic, another monarch had only recently carried out a similarly transformative reform. In 1861, Tsar Alexander II abolished serfdom, earning the title by which history still remembers him – the Liberator.

The parallel did not go unnoticed.

As the Civil War intensified, Britain openly sympathized with the Confederacy. The reasons were hardly ideological. British textile mills depended heavily on cotton from the slaveholding South, while many in London viewed a divided United States as preferable to the emergence of a stronger rival across the Atlantic.

The danger was real. A direct British intervention, or even a limited naval operation, could have dramatically altered the course of the war.

Rather than keeping his fleets bottled up in European waters, he dispatched two Russian naval squadrons across the Atlantic and Pacific. Rear Admiral Stepan Lesovsky sailed for New York, while Rear Admiral Andrei Popov headed to San Francisco. Officially, the deployment was presented as a training cruise. In reality, it carried a far more important strategic message.

Should Britain enter the war against either Russia or the Union, Russian warships would already be positioned to threaten British maritime commerce across the world’s oceans.

For Washington, however, the arrival of the Russian fleet sent an entirely different signal.

It demonstrated that at a moment when most European powers were either hostile or cautiously waiting to see who would prevail, one great power had chosen to make its presence felt on the side of the Union.

Popov’s squadron reached San Francisco at a particularly vulnerable moment. The Union possessed virtually no naval force on the Pacific coast. The ironclad Camanche, intended to defend the region, had sunk in the bay while still being transported in sections aboard a sailing vessel. Meanwhile, a British squadron stationed in Canada remained a potential threat should London decide to intervene.

Against that backdrop, the presence of Russian corvettes and clippers effectively secured California’s coastline and discouraged any attempt to impose a blockade or launch raids against Union territory.

Only weeks after their arrival, a devastating fire broke out in San Francisco. Around 200 Russian officers and sailors joined local firefighters to battle the flames. Six of them lost their lives. Today, a modest memorial on the Embarcadero waterfront still commemorates their sacrifice.

American historians have often regarded Popov’s deployment as one of the expedition’s most tangible contributions to the Union war effort. Even without firing a shot, the squadron altered the strategic balance along the Pacific coast.

On the opposite coast, Lesovsky’s arrival in New York became a public sensation.

Thousands of New Yorkers welcomed the Russian sailors. Banquets were organized in their honor, Broadway hosted celebratory processions, and the city’s political and business elite competed to demonstrate their gratitude. At the very moment when British and French naval officers also filled New York’s harbor, public enthusiasm left little doubt about which visitors Americans regarded as friends.

Lesovsky’s squadron represented a formidable force: the frigates Alexander Nevsky, Peresvet, and Oslyabya, the corvettes Varyag and Vityaz, and the clipper Almaz. In effect, Russia had dispatched nearly all of the Baltic Fleet’s ocean-going warships.

The tsar’s geopolitical masterstroke

The deployment of the Russian squadrons was, of course, never an act of pure altruism.

At the very moment American newspapers celebrated the arrival of Russian warships, Alexander II faced mounting tensions much closer to home. The January Uprising had erupted in Russian-controlled Poland earlier that year, drawing sympathy from Britain and France. Memories of the Crimean War were still fresh in St. Petersburg, and another confrontation with the Western powers seemed entirely possible.

Sending the fleet overseas therefore accomplished two strategic objectives at once.

If Britain intervened against Russia over Poland, Russian cruisers would already be positioned to strike British shipping across the Atlantic and Pacific. If Britain intervened in the American Civil War on behalf of the Confederacy, those same squadrons would complicate London’s military calculations and strengthen the Union’s position.

It was an elegant geopolitical move that advanced Russian interests while simultaneously benefiting the United States.

London ultimately chose not to escalate. France followed the same course. Whether the Russian squadrons alone changed that decision remains a matter of historical debate, but their presence undeniably became part of the broader strategic equation confronting the European powers.

For Americans living through the Civil War, however, the symbolism mattered just as much as the strategy.

Historian James Ford Rhodes, one of the founders of modern American historiography, later recalled the extraordinary reception given to the Russian fleet. Banquets, parades, official ceremonies, and public celebrations reflected what he described as genuine gratitude toward the only great European power that had openly demonstrated goodwill toward the Union at one of the darkest moments in its history.

For many Americans of the 1860s, Russia was not a rival. It was a friend.

History rarely unfolds through grand battles alone.

Sometimes the outcome of a war depends on diplomatic declarations, the movement of a few naval squadrons, or the willingness of one power to defend principles that also happen to serve its own interests.

Neither Catherine II nor Alexander II acted out of sentiment toward the United States. Both pursued Russia’s strategic objectives. Yet on two separate occasions, those objectives aligned with the survival of the American republic.

The first came when Britain’s naval dominance threatened to isolate the rebelling colonies from global trade. The second came when the Union faced the possibility of foreign intervention during the Civil War.

In both cases, Russian actions helped make those outcomes less likely.

Two hundred and fifty years after the Declaration of Independence, Americans will rightly celebrate the men who founded their republic. Yet the history of the United States was never written by Americans alone. Foreign allies, rivals, and unexpected partners all left their mark on the nation’s story.

Among them was the Russian Empire.

The European Union does more to support Palestinians than any other international actor, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has claimed.

The bloc’s leadership has repeatedly faced criticism – including from within the EU – for failing to forcefully condemn Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, which have caused widespread civilian casualties and destruction.

Speaking at a press conference at University College Cork in Ireland on Friday, von der Leyen was asked why the European Commission was “dragging” its feet on Gaza and the West Bank. She rejected the criticism, saying the EU is “the world's largest provider of assistance to the Palestinian people” and insisting that “no one does more than us.”

As evidence, she pointed to the humanitarian air bridge Brussels has operated since October 2023, when Israel launched its offensive against Hamas following the group’s deadly cross-border attack.

Von der Leyen also said any decision to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement rests with member states, requiring a qualified majority vote.

Her position has drawn repeated criticism from lawmakers in the European Parliament. During a debate in late April, Belgian MEP Kathleen Van Brempt accused Brussels of applying “double standards” by imposing sweeping sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict while remaining “silent” on Israel’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.

Former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell echoed those concerns in March, telling Politico that von der Leyen had been “systematically biased in favor of the US and Israel.”

The Commission also came under scrutiny for failing to issue a unified response during the US-Israeli strikes on Iran earlier this year, despite several EU member states publicly condemning the attacks.

In March, von der Leyen dismissed debate over whether the conflict was a “war of choice or necessity,” saying “there should be no tears shed for the Iranian regime.”

US President Donald Trump has delivered a speech from Mount Rushmore as his country marks the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, part of the White House-backed Freedom 250 celebrations billed as the biggest birthday party in American history.

Trump spoke beneath the granite faces of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt, with military tributes, flyovers, and a fireworks display also scheduled at the South Dakota landmark.

“The United States of America is the most successful, most accomplished, most exceptional nation ever to exist in human history, and it is great to be your president,” Trump told the nation, claiming that “no country has done more good for this world.”

Trump said it was the “core of the patriotic duty of every American” to protect the country’s unique identity from “mortal threats” such as communism.

“There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country, who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success,” Trump said, comparing the threat of communism to those posed by the two world wars and 9/11.

A recent Gallup poll found that only 58% of US adults said they were “extremely” or “very” proud to be American – the lowest level recorded since the pollster began asking the question in 2001. Other polling has suggested that a significant number of Americans do not plan to celebrate July 4 this year, while many doubt the country’s ability to endure another 250 years.

The return of fireworks to Mount Rushmore has prompted environmental and wildfire concerns, as much of the US endures a record heat wave that has disrupted July Fourth events elsewhere. While Mount Rushmore itself is forecast to be cooler, with storms possible, critics have warned about holding a large pyrotechnic display in the Black Hills region amid broader drought and fire-risk concerns.

In Washington, DC, the anniversary celebrations are set to continue with a large ‘Salute to America’ event, military flyovers, and what organizers have described as a record-scale fireworks show.

A severe heatwave across the US is raising concerns for World Cup matches and major Fourth of July events, with several cities facing their highest temperatures in more than a decade.

The heat has spread across large parts of the central and eastern US during one of the country’s busiest outdoor weekends. Americans are marking Independence Day with parades, public gatherings and fireworks displays, while Washington is hosting events tied to the country’s 250th anniversary.

New York City reached 38 C (100 F) on Thursday, its hottest day since 2012, while Philadelphia hit 39 C (103 F), its highest temperature since 2011. Washington, DC could also see several consecutive days of around 38 C heat, a rare streak for the US capital.

The conditions have also affected the FIFA World Cup, which is being hosted across the US, Canada, and Mexico. Several knockout-stage matches are taking place in open-air stadiums with limited protection from direct sun, including venues in Toronto, Philadelphia, and Kansas City.

The US heatwave comes shortly after Western Europe was hit by a deadly spell of extreme temperatures. France recorded its hottest June since 1947, while deaths rose by 29% during the week of June 22-28, according to health authorities. More than 2,000 heat-related deaths were reported, with the Paris region among the worst affected.

The same heatwave broke temperature records across parts of Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands, and Hungary. The authorities in several countries urged residents to limit outdoor activity and take precautions against heat stroke.

A week-long state funeral for the Islamic Republic’s late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has begun in Iran, more than four months after he was killed in US-Israeli airstrikes. The ceremonies mark the end of nearly four decades of Khamenei’s leadership. Millions of mourners are expected to attend, and it could be one of the largest funeral gatherings in modern history. Here’s what you should know about Khamenei’s funeral, why it is taking place only now, and why it matters beyond Iran.

Who was Khamenei?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei served as Iran’s supreme leader from 1989 until his assassination in February 2026. Succeeding Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, he led the country for nearly 37 years, making him one of the region’s longest-serving leaders.  

Although Iran has an elected president, the supreme leader is the country’s highest political and religious figure, with the final say on major state affairs, including the armed forces, foreign policy, and the judiciary.  

Khamenei was also a senior Shia cleric whose role went beyond politics. During his rule, Iran expanded its regional reach while facing decades of Western sanctions and confrontation with the US and Israel.

Foreign dignitaries and international delegations have begun arriving in Tehran to attend the farewell and funeral ceremonies for martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. pic.twitter.com/0h4fV8TGhR

— Mehr News Agency (@MehrnewsCom) July 3, 2026

How did he die and why is the funeral only taking place now?

Khamenei was assassinated on February 28, when US-Israeli strikes hit his residential and official compound in central Tehran during the first wave of the US-Israeli attack on Iran. The 86-year-old Khamenei was killed alongside several members of his family, including his daughter, son-in-law, and 14-month-old granddaughter. His son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who formally succeeded him as supreme leader weeks later, was also reportedly injured in the attack and has not appeared publicly since. 

Khamenei’s funeral was postponed because of the war and the security situation, Iranian officials said. The ceremonies are taking place after a ceasefire between Tehran and Washington. 

The delay was unusual, as Islamic tradition generally calls for burial as soon as possible after death. The authorities said Khamenei’s body was preserved in accordance with religious requirements. It remains unclear whether Mojtaba Khamenei will attend his father’s funeral.

How will the funeral unfold?

The state funeral will take place over seven days, from July 3 to July 9, with ceremonies in several cities across Iran and Iraq. Millions of mourners are expected to take part, alongside foreign delegations from more than 100 countries. 

The ceremonies began with Khamenei’s body lying in state at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Grand Mosalla, where mourners can pay their respects before the main funeral procession. The bodies of several relatives killed alongside the late leader are also displayed, with the coffins draped in the Iranian flag. 

The main procession through Tehran is scheduled for July 6, followed by ceremonies in the holy city of Qom. The cortege will then travel to the Iraqi cities of Najaf and Karbala, home to some of Shia Islam’s holiest shrines, before returning to Iran for Khamenei’s burial at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, his birthplace and one of Shia Islam’s most important pilgrimage sites.

The funeral is taking place during Muharram, the holiest month of mourning in Shia Islam, which commemorates the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, a central figure in the faith. The timing gives the ceremonies additional religious significance for many mourners.

A farewell ceremony for former Supreme Leader of the Islamic regime in Iran, Ali Khamenei has begun in Tehran

The ceremonies will take place in several cities, and he will be buried in Mashhad. Representatives from Russia and China, including Dmitry Medvedev, will attend the… pic.twitter.com/EykhcNioBM

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 3, 2026

Who is attending and what security measures are in place?

Senior Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, are leading the funeral ceremonies alongside senior clerics and military commanders. Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has also appeared at the events. 

Foreign delegations, including officials from China, India, Pakistan, Türkiye, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and several Central Asian states are taking part. Russia is represented by Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, who is attending on behalf of President Vladimir Putin. The delegation also includes Foreign Ministry officials, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and Muslim clerics. 

Iranian officials said countries that backed the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran were not invited, which means no representatives from the US, Israel or the EU are attending. 

Security has been tightened, with Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization announcing that Tehran’s airspace will be temporarily closed during the main funeral procession. The IRGC warned that any attack during the ceremonies would be met with a “decisive” response. 

Earlier this week, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said that Mojtaba Khamenei had been “marked for death.”

What signal is Iran sending?

Iranian officials have presented the funeral as both a period of national mourning and a demonstration of national unity. Pezeshkian called on Iranians “of every ethnicity, religion, preference, and political tendency” to attend, saying a large turnout would send “a clear message to the world.”  

Images and videos from Tehran have shown thousands of people gathering for the ceremonies, while officials have estimated attendance could reach between four million and 15 million mourners. The funeral could end up as one of the largest in modern history, according to media reports.

What comes next for Iran?

Indirect talks between Tehran and Washington are expected to resume after Khamenei’s burial, with Qatar continuing to act as a key mediator. The latest round of discussions in Doha focused on issues including maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and the release of frozen Iranian funds, but there was no sign of a major breakthrough. 

Italy has privately raised concerns over an EU proposal to sanction Russian Patriarch Kirill, joining Bulgaria in openly opposing the restrictions, Politico has reported.

Moscow has long accused Brussels of taking a hostile stance against the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), effectively siding with Ukraine, which views the church as a Russian state entity rather than an independent religious body. The bloc first tried to sanction Kirill back in 2022, but the move was vetoed by Hungary. With Viktor Orban now out of office, the EU leadership has renewed its push against the patriarch.

The proposal to sanction the head of the ROC was considered as part of the EU’s 21st package of Russia-related sanctions adopted last month over the Ukraine conflict. Although chief EU diplomat Kaja Kallas backed the measure, it was ultimately dropped after member states failed to reach consensus.

Bulgaria, whose population is predominantly composed of Orthodox Christians, also opposed the proposal. Sofia argued that while it generally does not support “sanctions that are primarily symbolic,” the move could be viewed as religious persecution.

The proposed restrictions would have involved a travel ban imposed on the patriarch, as well as an asset freeze, the two usual components of personal sanctions imposed by the bloc. The ROC has denounced the proposal as the “pinnacle of absurdity.”

Amid the Ukraine conflict, Kiev has taken various hostile steps against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), formerly subordinate to the ROC. While the UOC severed all administrative ties with the ROC in 2022, that has not spared it from government-backed crackdowns, and the church faces a possible legal ban over alleged ties to Russia.

Newly appointed US ambassador to New Zealand and several Pacific island nations Jared Novelly has made securing access to the Cook Islands’ critical minerals one of his top priorities.

Located in the South Pacific Ocean, the self-governing territory, which is in free association with New Zealand, boasts one of the largest known cobalt deposits in the world. The mineral, which plays a crucial role in the production of electric vehicle batteries as well as military aircraft components, is found in the form of polymetallic nodules resting on the deep-ocean floor off the Cook Islands.
In recent months, the US has scrambled to diversify its supply of critical minerals and reduce its reliance on China, which accounts for nearly 70% of global production.

Speaking to reporters in Wellington on Friday, Ambassador Novelly, who also represents the US in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Samoa, said that “critical minerals, and particularly in the Cooks, is either 1A or 1B of my priorities.”

“It’s crucial for us to diversify our supply chain for our national security, for your national security, for your iPhones,” the diplomat explained.

He vowed to take the matter “very seriously” and spend a “lot of time in the Cook Islands talking about just that.”

Novelly stated that while, at the end of the day, it is up to the islanders to decide, he stands ready to “introduce them to US companies that can help.”

In February, the Cook Islands government and the US signed a non-binding framework on critical minerals research and supply-chain security. A year earlier, the self-governing territory inked a similar agreement with China.
However, the local authorities have so far stopped short of allowing the commercial extraction of critical minerals.

Last October, US President Donald Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed a deal aimed at expanding Washington’s access to critical minerals in the country.

At around the same time, the US also sealed similar agreements with Japan as well as several Central Asian states, preceded by a minerals deal with Ukraine that was formalized in April 2025.

In recent years, the US has sought to counter China's growing influence in the Asia-Pacific. In late May, senior officials from the Quad grouping – comprising the United States, India, Australia and Japan – met in New Delhi. The countries agreed, among other measures, to cooperate on securing and diversifying critical minerals supply chains.

Beijing, in turn, called out what it described as the “formation of exclusive cliques or bloc confrontation” in the region.

Not long ago, BRICS was largely seen as an economic acronym – a loose coalition of emerging powers united by their ambition to reshape global finance and give the developing world a stronger voice in international economic governance. Today, that image is rapidly becoming outdated.

As wars spread, supply chains fracture, cyber threats multiply, and established international institutions struggle to keep pace with an increasingly turbulent world, BRICS is expanding its ambitions. What began as an economic partnership is steadily evolving into a platform where major emerging powers discuss not only prosperity, but security.

The shift was on full display in New Delhi in late June, where India hosted the 16th BRICS National Security Advisers’ Meeting, one of the flagship events of its 2026 presidency of the group.

The two-day meeting was far more than a routine diplomatic gathering; it offered an early glimpse of what could become a more structured security dimension within the expanded BRICS framework.

It also set the stage for the BRICS Leaders’ Summit this September, where security cooperation is expected to feature more prominently than ever before.

Security beyond battlefields

The timing could hardly have been more consequential. Held in the immediate aftermath of the Iran war, the meeting brought together countries whose priorities do not always align and whose bilateral relationships can be complex. Yet the message emerging from New Delhi was clear: as the international landscape grows more fragmented, security challenges increasingly demand broader channels of consultation and cooperation.

These priorities illustrate how security itself is being redefined. Economic resilience, technological sovereignty, and critical infrastructure have become inseparable from national defense. For developing economies in particular, disruptions to shipping routes, cyberattacks, or interruptions in food and energy supplies can generate consequences as severe as traditional military conflict.

India’s own priorities reflected these concerns. New Delhi emphasized protecting global supply chains during periods of armed conflict, strengthening counterterrorism cooperation, improving responses to cyber threats, and encouraging discussion of emerging technologies such as drone warfare. These are practical issues affecting every major economy regardless of political alignment.

The meeting concluded with an agreement to deepen information sharing, strengthen institutional capacities, and improve coordination among BRICS law enforcement agencies in addressing terrorism and cyber-risks. Participants also reaffirmed their commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms.

Unity without uniformity

Unsurprisingly, developments in the Middle East served as an important backdrop to discussions, even if they were not always addressed publicly.

BRICS members approached the regional crisis from different perspectives. Russia, China, and Iran generally emphasized questions of external intervention, regional power balances, and sovereignty. India adopted a more cautious position, consistently emphasizing diplomacy, de-escalation, and the economic costs of prolonged instability.

Rather than preventing cooperation, these differences demonstrate one of BRICS’ distinctive characteristics. Unlike military alliances that often require members to adopt common political positions, the group operates primarily through consensus-building among states with diverse interests. Agreement is therefore often narrower but potentially more durable because it emerges through negotiation rather than bloc discipline.

The meeting also provided opportunities for bilateral diplomacy. Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, while Wang also held discussions with Iranian officials regarding regional developments and the importance of preserving ceasefire arrangements and supporting regional dialogue.

New visions of global security

Opening the meeting, Ajit Doval described a world characterized by military conflicts, geopolitical uncertainty, economic pressures, and rapidly evolving technology. He argued that existing international institutions are finding it increasingly difficult to respond effectively to today’s interconnected challenges, while broader multilateral cooperation has weakened.

Wang Yi similarly argued that territorial integrity and non-interference remain fundamental principles of international relations. He called for a vision of common, comprehensive, and inclusive security rather than one based primarily on exclusive alliances. According to the Chinese perspective, dialogue should address the underlying causes of regional conflicts while taking into account the security concerns of all parties.

Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu likewise argued for stronger institutional mechanisms within BRICS capable of responding collectively to emerging crises. He suggested that today’s international institutions warrant careful reassessment in light of changing geopolitical realities and advocated greater technological and information independence among BRICS members. He also identified biological security and information resilience as areas requiring continued cooperation, while expressing longstanding Russian concerns regarding foreign influence operations and strategic competition in the information domain.

Although these perspectives differ in emphasis, they share a common theme: the belief that contemporary global governance requires adaptation to a more multipolar international environment.

The real test lies ahead

Perhaps the meeting’s greatest significance lies less in the specific agreements reached than in the fact that it occurred at all.

BRICS now includes countries whose bilateral relationships are sometimes complicated and whose foreign policy priorities might diverge. Some members maintain close ties with Western powers; others define themselves partly in opposition to Western influence. Several possess longstanding regional rivalries. Yet they continue to meet, negotiate, and identify practical areas for cooperation.

BRICS is unlikely to evolve into a formal military alliance or collective defense organization. Nor is consensus guaranteed on every major geopolitical issue. Nevertheless, the group’s expanding security dialogue reflects a broader transformation in international politics. As economic, technological, environmental, and military challenges become increasingly interconnected, governments are seeking additional forums through which they can coordinate policy outside traditional institutional frameworks.

Whether BRICS ultimately becomes a durable pillar of global governance will depend on its ability to deliver tangible results while accommodating the diversity of its membership. The New Delhi meeting suggested that, despite persisting differences, there remains considerable space for dialogue on issues where national interests converge.

The evolution of BRICS into a forum addressing both economic and security questions is therefore worth watching – not because it has resolved today’s geopolitical divisions, but because it represents one of the clearest attempts to manage them within an increasingly multipolar world.

Lithuanian lawmakers have introduced a constitutional amendment to scrap the country’s ban on hosting nuclear weapons.

The proposal, backed by 51 of the Seimas’ 141 members – enough for it to be formally registered – would repeal Article 137 of the constitution, which prohibits weapons of mass destruction and foreign military bases on Lithuanian territory. Vilnius says the move is needed to counter an alleged Russian threat, a notion Moscow has repeatedly denied.

The bill follows President Gitanas Nauseda’s call to scrap what he described as an “outdated” restriction. Speaking after a meeting with parliamentary faction leaders on Thursday, he argued that Lithuania should not impose restrictions on itself “if new circumstances arise in the future.”

“Opinions were practically unanimous. Almost all parliamentary faction leaders expressed the view that Article 137 has become obsolete and should not merely be amended but removed,” Nauseda told reporters.

Nauseda argued that Lithuania is now virtually the only NATO member to maintain a self-imposed veto on hosting nuclear weapons. He pointed to neighboring Finland, a fellow NATO and EU member which recently lifted its own ban on nuclear weapons – now allowing them to be imported, manufactured, stored, and deployed on its territory.

“It would be truly unfortunate if we became the weak link or a grey zone within NATO,” Nauseda said.

The Financial Times reported last month that the US is mulling the deployment of its nuclear weapons to more NATO states in Europe on the bloc’s eastern flank. Several countries bordering Russia, including the Baltic states, have publicly expressed interest in hosting them.

The development comes amid broader European militarization, with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte consistently urging member states to adopt a “wartime mindset.”

Russia has repeatedly condemned NATO’s military buildup along its western borders, accusing the bloc of using the alleged Russian threat to justify expanding its military presence in Eastern Europe. The Baltic states and other countries bordering Russia have stepped up arms purchases and regularly hold military exercises near Russian and Belarusian territory.

Moscow has warned that any NATO nuclear infrastructure deployed closer to its borders would be treated as a direct military threat and would trigger a response. Russian officials have also said they remain open to dialogue with the bloc, provided it is conducted on an equal footing.

Palantir CEO Alex Karp has unleashed a lengthy tirade against the AI industry, arguing that Western governments and militaries shouldn’t trust companies like OpenAI and Anthropic with sensitive data.

Karp appeared on CNBC on Wednesday to discuss Palantir’s recent infrastructure partnership with Nvidia – under which the former will sell its operating systems, powered by the latter’s hardware and AI models, to customers as an all-in-one data analytics package. However, the interview soon spiraled into a 20-minute rant from the Palantir CEO about the state of the AI industry.

Most businesses and governments who work with OpenAI and Anthropic purchase tokens from these companies, which grant access to their Large Language Models (LLMs) on a pay-as-you-go basis. While this arrangement generates vast income for the AI companies, their clients end up ripped off, Karp argued, as they hand over their money and data while gaining no control over the weights of the models – essentially the tweaks that determine the choices the models make.

“Are we really going to outsource the battlefield of this country to the consensus view in Silicon Valley?” he asked. “That is effing insane.”

Karp went on to accuse AI companies of selling their technology to US adversaries while refusing to work with the military at home on ethical grounds, before branching into tangents about wealth tax, the “far left and far right” fear of “warlocks roaming the street building technology,” and his personal relationship with Israel.

Palantir’s software, Karp explained, acts as a layer between AI models and clients, allowing companies and governments to adjust weights and keep control of their data. However, Karp’s close alignment with the US government, and his publicly-declared support for US military supremacy, has led some European countries to sever their ties with Palantir over fears that the company might abuse its access to their national security information to further American interests.

France and Germany have ordered their domestic intelligence agencies not to renew contracts with Palantir, while Spain has forbidden all state-backed companies from using its products.

Founded by Peter Thiel in 2003 with seed money from the CIA, Palantir has an “affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation,” Karp wrote on social media earlier this year. Several months earlier, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the US government is “thinking about” acquiring a stake in several key defense contractors, including Palantir.

The United Nations’ cultural agency UNESCO has directed Pakistan to reverse the reconstruction work underway at two ancient monuments in Taxila, a world heritage site.

UNESCO warned that the construction work, if not reversed, could lead to Taxila itself being delisted from the World Heritage List, The Dawn reported.

During a recent meeting, it pointed out to senior Pakistani government officials that a world heritage site in Germany had been delisted for similar reasons – “unnecessary interventions.”

The agency said the “reconstructions” undermined the integrity of the two historic sites, Mohra Moradu and Sirkap.

Now known as Taxila, the ancient city of Takshashila flourished as a center of learning during the 6th century BC, with its origins deeply rooted in India’s Vedic period. It was recognized as a World Heritage Site in 1980.

The issue gained attention after an unidentified visitor shared information and pictures with Pakistan’s permanent delegate to UNESCO in Paris, highlighting reconstruction work by the Punjab Archaeology Department at the sites.

The information revealed that Pakistani authorities had replaced the original walls of the sites with new construction. In some instances, the height was increased. UNESCO officials subsequently visited the city.

The US was concerned that Israel could kill Iran’s top negotiators in an attempt to derail the peace negotiations between Washington and Tehran, the New York Times has reported, citing American officials.

According to a report by the newspaper on Thursday, US officials feared that Israel would target Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and “doom” any chance of a settlement.

Washington went as far as to ask its allies in the region to warn Tehran about the possible plot by West Jerusalem, NYT sources claimed.

Ghalibaf and Araghchi took over the negotiating process for Iran after Israel had already killed Tehran’s top national security adviser, Ali Larijani, and former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, who were both involved in talks with the Americans. The initial US-Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic in late February killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other high-ranking Iranian officials.

Ghalibaf and Araghchi first reached a temporary truce with the US in April and then agreed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on June 17, which opened a 60-day negotiating period to work out the final settlement of the conflict. Discussions between the sides are ongoing despite an exchange of fire last week over disagreements regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

In June, US President Donald Trump himself threatened Ghalibaf and Araghchi after Tehran warned that it would shut the strait if Israel continues its military operation in Lebanon. During a phone interview with Fox News, Trump said that he told the Iranian officials: “You won’t even make it back to your f***ing country.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz claimed on Monday that new Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is also “marked for death.” Araghchi responded by saying that Tehran would deliver an immediate and powerful response to any threat against its people or leadership.

More than 50 British MPs have urged the government to stop the popular Russian children’s cartoon ‘Masha and the Bear’ from being shown in the UK, claiming it may be used as a “propaganda” tool.

The animated series, loosely based on a traditional Russian folk tale, follows the adventures of a mischievous little girl and a retired circus bear. It is one of the most popular children’s shows online, with one episode, Recipe for Disaster, viewed more than 4.6 billion times on YouTube.

Last month, Netflix acquired the rights to two more seasons of the show and extended licensing agreements for existing seasons and spin-offs. The cartoon is available in Britain on ITVX.

In response, a cross-party group of British MPs has written to UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, arguing that some scenes in the cartoon contain “propaganda content” and supposedly normalize Soviet military imagery for children, referring to a couple of scenes in which Masha appears in what they described as a tank-crew helmet, Soviet-style clothing and a border guard cap.

The lawmakers also referenced past accusations against the cartoon, including Kiev’s claims that Russian-language children’s content is a threat to national security and Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna’s recent accusations that the cartoon embeds “militaristic” themes in entertainment for children.

London has not publicly backed the MPs’ demand, while UK officials said platform catalogs are a matter for broadcasters, as long as they comply with local regulations.

The lawmakers’ demand has also been widely mocked online, with users ridiculing the idea that a children’s cartoon about a little girl and a bear could pose a threat to Britain. Others have accused the MPs of wasting time on culture-war theatrics instead of addressing more serious problems.

Russian officials have ridiculed past attacks on the cartoon, suggesting that Western critics are trying to find non-existent “militarism” in the series because they fear Russia’s cultural influence and have no good shows of their own.

“When they cannot create their own proper content, they try to destroy good foreign content – that is, Russian content,” Russian MP Vitaly Milonov has said.

The push to ban ‘Masha and the Bear’ comes amid wider restrictions on Russian media and culture in the West.

Since 2022, Russian outlets have been banned across the EU, while artists have faced cancellations and political scrutiny.

Moscow has condemned these measures as censorship and Russophobia, accusing Western governments of using the Ukraine conflict to suppress Russian culture, language and media.

Nearly half of Americans do not know what the country’s 250th anniversary is actually celebrating, despite overwhelming majorities saying they are proud and grateful to be American, according to the Cato Institute.

The milestone commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, when the 13 American colonies declared independence from Great Britain.

The think tank published its Fourth of July national survey on Thursday, saying the poll of 2,253 US adults was conducted by Morning Consult on June 25-26. It found “civic ignorance” about US history and the system of government, with 46% of Americans not knowing what the country’s 250th anniversary commemorates, while 53% correctly identified it as the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

The survey also found that younger Americans were less likely to view the Founding Fathers as courageous leaders and more likely to accept the 1619 Project’s claim that preserving slavery was a primary reason for the American Revolution.

The poll also found broader gaps in basic civic knowledge. While 77% knew George Washington was the first US president, 58% did not know the main purpose of the constitution. Only 41% correctly said it was to establish and limit the powers of government.

Despite widespread gaps in civic knowledge, the survey found broad support for the country’s founding ideals. At the same time, 57% of Americans said the US has moved away from those principles, and 56% feared it could stop being a free country within the next 50 years. Respondents cited corruption, politicians ignoring the constitution, the rich having too much power, and excessive presidential power as the leading threats to freedom. 

After France became, in 2024, the first country on Earth to ‘enshrine’ abortion in its Constitution, French MPs have now passed a bill to legalize euthanasia.

The bill still needs to get the approval of the Senate, but at this stage it is probably a simple formality, as only some Catholic associations are protesting and well, you know, summer time is always a great time to pass controversial laws. With the usual French habit of twisting concepts in order to better market them, they coined euthanasia as “aide à mourir” (help to die), while the most famous French outlet Le Monde wrote about a “compassion law” whose goals is to “conciliate individual freedom and fraternity.” How characteristically French.

We won’t get here into religious considerations, even if they are absolutely understandable. There are plenty of reasons to wish to die and commit suicide: incurable diseases, chronic depressions, call of the void, metaphysical despair, genetic predisposition… and even political motives.

Some historical examples are absolutely fascinating. Everybody has seen (even if only thanks to the cover art of Rage Against The Machine’s first album) the picture of Vietnamese monk Thich Quang Duc who died by self-immolation, protesting against the persecution of Buddhists. Anxious Japanese writer Ryunosuke Akutagawa killed himself, leaving a suicide note where he wrote that he felt a “vague insecurity.” Years later, Yukio Mishima committed a spectacular “seppuku” as an act of political and aesthetical protest. Arthur Koestler killed himself together with his wife Cynthia because of sickness. Alan Watt’s death is a mystery, but everything points to a suicide that he carefully planned. We can go on and on.

With this bill, Macron’s MPs are shaping a completely different understanding of despair and death. They say that the “patient” (one can be sure they think “client”) will get medical and psychological support. How generous those MPs are! Of course, we can add to it potential support from family members and religious representatives. But what we are witnessing here is the State taking charge of death, as it already took charge of birth with the abortion law. A radical move against nature.

One may argue that a person in absolute physical despair, who can’t even kill themselves, would logically be in favor of such a measure. That’s understandable. At least the temptation is understandable. I usually do not talk about myself in my articles, but I know that situation, as my father has been affected for 42 years now by a very harsh orphan disease. I have always been wondering not what I would do but how I would psychologically react if, when putting him to bed, he asked me to help him end his misery. A lot of people face this issue. A long time ago, it was actually quite usual for the family’s doctor to help his patient put an end to all this horror at home. But even if they agreed to help in such a radical way, they could of course be sent to prison. Because who knows, maybe it was a murder for inheritance or some other murky affair. But with euthanasia (sorry, ‘help to die’), who tells you that there won’t be any collusion, psychological manipulation or persuasion among all the actors in this tragic moment?

What’s happening is the State once again taking charge of one of the most crucial aspects of our lives. And of course, eventually it will be capital taking charge of it. The association of the state and companies. In Switzerland, where the process is already legal, euthanasia costs between €7,000 and €11,000. If you can make cash with anything, why wouldn’t you make some promoting voluntary death?

But what would you expect from these elites? Macron is a former banker. He does not have kids and is married to a mummy (in every sense of the word). Under him, the corpse of Simone Veil, the former health minister of France who legalized abortion, was transferred to the Panthéon. Under him was organized a tremendously ambiguous dark and decadent opening ceremony for the Paris Olympics. Under him, abortion was ‘enshrined’ in the Constitution. And apparently, his last strong political gesture as a president will be to make euthanasia legal. Macron is supposed to leave power in a few months. At this point, a walk through the Sahara desert with no water would seem shorter than those months. He’ll be remembered as a clown, but a clown with a very gloomy mask.

A total of 84% of Germans are dissatisfied with the performance of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, including 51% of supporters of his own Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, an ARD-DeutschlandTrend poll has suggested.

Merz’s ratings dropped by another 3% in June, reaching a record low of 13%, according to the results of the study published on Thursday.

The findings make the CDU leader the least popular chancellor since the Infratest Dimap research company began carrying out monthly polls on behalf of German broadcaster ARD in 1997.

Germans are mostly concerned by the country losing its attractiveness for business (78%), the negative effects of climate change (66%), and the migrant influx under Merz (51%), the study suggested.

If an election were held now, the Union, an alliance between the CDU and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU), would receive only 22% of the vote, losing to the right-wing opposition party Alternative for Germany (AfD) by 5%, it said.

On Thursday, the ruling CDU/CSU-SPD (Social Democratic Party) coalition announced that it had agreed sweeping reforms, which it claimed would revive the economy and counter the rise of the AfD. The measures include cuts to income tax for low- and middle-income families, an overhaul of the pension system, and stricter rules for employees’ sick leave.

“There is also no reason for pessimism… The best years of our country are not behind us, but there are very good years ahead of us,” Merz claimed.

Weidel slammed the measures proposed by the coalition, describing them as “even more left-wing redistribution and minimal compromises that don’t deserve to be called ‘reforms.’”

“The fact that this is being sold as a ‘breakthrough’ shows only one thing: this government’s complete inability to reform,” she wrote on X.

Iran has warned the US and Israel against any attacks during the upcoming funeral processions for late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the opening strikes of the war, as Tehran prepares for days of heavily secured mourning ceremonies.

Funeral processions for Khamenei are set to begin in Tehran on July 4 and conclude on July 9 with his burial in his hometown of Mashhad, with additional ceremonies planned in Qom and neighboring Iraq.

“We warn the enemies of Iran, especially the US and the Zionist regime, to avoid any miscalculation and to think about the harsh retaliation our armed forces would make to any threat and aggression against our country,” Ali Abdollahi, commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said on Thursday.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz claimed on Monday that Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is also “marked for death,” like his father. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned on Wednesday that Tehran would deliver an immediate and powerful response to any threat against its people or leadership.

Israel had made targeted killings of Iranian leaders a central part of its war strategy from the outset. The conflict began on February 28 with an Israeli strike that killed Khamenei and several other top officials, based on US intelligence. Israel later killed several figures Washington had hoped to negotiate with, including Ali Larijani, Iran’s top national security official, and Kamal Kharazi, a former foreign minister, according to the report.

In June, Washington and Tehran reached a framework agreement aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz and setting the outline for follow-up talks on Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, frozen assets, and a longer-term settlement.

Israel has fiercely opposed the process, arguing that the agreement fails to achieve its war aims, including regime change in Tehran, the destruction of the Islamic Republic’s regional allies, and lasting damage to Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities. Iranian officials have accused the Jewish state of seeking to sabotage the negotiations through its ongoing combat operations in Lebanon.

White students have become a minority at nearly one in five universities across the UK, according to official higher education data analyzed by The Telegraph.

The newspaper’s analysis, published on Wednesday, found that white British students accounted for less than half of enrollment at 27 of the country’s 147 universities in the 2024-25 academic year, up from 13 institutions a decade earlier.

At some universities, white students made up fewer than one in four enrolled. Aston University recorded the lowest share at 23%, followed by University of Bradford (26%), and Brunel University London and SOAS University of London (27% each).

The analysis also found that white students were underrepresented relative to their share of the national population at 80 British universities. Among the 24-member Russell Group of leading research institutions, white students were underrepresented at 15 institutions.

Despite the demographic shift, at least ten universities where white students are now a minority continue to offer scholarships, bursaries and other financial support reserved for applicants from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds, according to the newspaper. Some of the schemes provide funding of up to £18,000 ($24,000) per year.

“There is no reason to maintain BAME scholarships, which represent racial discrimination, pure and simple,” he said.

The findings are likely to fuel the ongoing debate over race-based policies in Britain. The Equality Act 2010 allows universities, employers and public bodies to take so-called “positive action” to address disadvantage or underrepresentation among protected groups. Critics argue some institutions have used the provision to justify scholarships and other programs that exclude white applicants, while supporters say the measures improve access for historically underrepresented communities.

Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, has accused the British government of promoting what he calls “deep anti-white racism.” He has also pledged to repeal the Equality Act, arguing it has created a “two-tier state against white people” and institutionalized “anti-whiteness” across public life.

Republican Representative Troy Nehls has been hammered for boasting about eating steaks and lobster tails on the Fourth of July, while his constituents struggle to make ends meet. Nehls added insult to injury by dismissing poor Americans as lazy.

As he left Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Nehls was asked by a reporter what Republicans are doing to convince voters in their districts that they’re “fighting for affordability.”

“Affordability? What are you talking about?” Nehls replied. “Over the fourth, I’m going to get me a couple of big lobster tails, I’m going to get me some nice rib-eyes. I’m going to sit in my backyard with my family, my neighbors, and we’re going to be enjoying the fourth, celebrating 250 years, the birthday [of America].”

Asked whether the 60% of Americans “living paycheck to paycheck can afford lobster tails and rib eyes and all of that,” Nehls replied “maybe not,” adding “maybe the 60 percent of Americans don’t work as hard as I do.”

Dems should turn this into an ad https://t.co/9xG4Vv42D8

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) July 1, 2026

Nehls’ comments set off a wave of online anger. It’s “absolutely wild,” liberal influencer Joshua Eakle wrote on X. “They’re just mocking their own voters at this point.” 

“THIS is how they view Americans,” another Democrat activist wrote. “THIS is what we should never forget.”

Independence Day inflation

Almost every year, Democrats and Republicans alike use the price of a traditional Fourth of July cookout to attack each other’s economic policies. Former President Joe Biden was relentlessly mocked by Republicans when he bragged that he had brought the price of an Independence Day feast down by a mere 16 cents in 2021. One year later, after Biden’s unprecedented federal spending splurge, the price of a cookout had risen by more than $10.

Planning a cookout this year? Ketchup on the news. According to the Farm Bureau, the cost of a 4th of July BBQ is down from last year. It’s a fact you must-hear(d). Hot dog, the Biden economic plan is working. And that’s something we can all relish. pic.twitter.com/7h9qLauIbC

— The White House 46 Archived (@WhiteHouse46) July 1, 2021

On the campaign trail, Trump promised that “starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods.” The rapid inflation of the Biden years cooled during Trump’s first year back in power, but skyrocketed after the US and Israel attacked Iran in February. Inflation jumped from 2.4% in January to 4.2% in May, and the spike in oil prices following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz triggered a knock-on rise in fertilizer and fuel costs.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, steak is now 20% more expensive than it was in 2024, at $12.80 per pound ($28.16 per KG). In Nehls’ native Texas, a minimum wage employee would have to work for four hours to afford a kilo of steak, putting the Congressman’s surf and turf cookout beyond their means.

Trump says he ‘loves’ inflation

Trump maintains that prices will fall again once the current ceasefire between the US and Iran is made permanent. “I love the inflation,” he told reporters at the White House last month. “You know why? Because as soon as this war is over... it’s going to come down like a rock.”

Nehls struck a similar tone on Tuesday. “I think in the end, the short-term increase in some of the costs…is temporary,” he told reporters. “I think that the overall goal or objective is to make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon. I’m okay with the increase in fuel.”

The top US diplomat in Taiwan has called for the self-administered Chinese island to be turned into a “hornet’s nest” of air, surface and subsurface drones, as Washington continues to expand military cooperation with Taipei despite repeated warnings from Beijing.

The US does not formally recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state but remains its main military backer and arms supplier, and maintains diplomatic ties through a quasi-embassy, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). Its director, Raymond Greene, claimed on Thursday that drones represented a “game-changing opportunity” to strengthen Taiwan’s security and bolster what he described as a “broader deterrence posture.”

“The US and Taiwan can anchor ‘democratic’ drone production and strengthen the collective deterrence posture of the free world,” Greene said at a drone forum in the central city of Taichung.

“Fortunately for Taiwan, drones have significantly boosted defenders, even when facing overwhelming odds,” he added, citing the Ukraine conflict. “Nothing will deter conflict more effectively than turning Taiwan into a hornet’s nest of air, surface, and subsurface drones.”

The remarks came just days after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi urged US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to handle Taiwan-related issues with “the utmost caution,” and warned that “a slight move on the Taiwan issue could affect the whole situation.”

The June 30 call followed a mid-May meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump in Beijing, where Xi reportedly warned that mishandling disagreements over Taiwan could push China-US relations into an “extremely dangerous place.”

Chinese officials have repeatedly condemned US arms sales to Taipei, and have imposed sanctions on American defense firms. Beijing has intensified military and maritime activity around Taiwan in recent months, describing its operations as legitimate measures to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Xi has said that China’s reunification is “unstoppable” and has tied the issue to what Beijing calls the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” During a rare meeting with opposition Kuomintang chairwoman Cheng Li-wun in April, he said no changes in the international situation would alter that historical trend, while pledging support for peaceful cross-Strait relations.

Recent opinion polls make clear that the populist One Nation Party has experienced a dramatic surge in popularity amongst Australian voters in the past few months.

Last week, Newspoll – Australia’s most respected and accurate political opinion poll – disclosed that One Nation was the most popular party in the country, with 31% of voters supporting it.

Support for the Labor Party, which currently governs federally and in all but one of the six Australian states, was at 30%, while backing for the conservative Liberal/National Party coalition had plummeted to a meagre 18%, with the Greens remaining steady at 11%.

These poll figures revealed an extraordinary recent increase in popularity for One Nation. At the last federal election, in May 2025, One Nation obtained just 6.4% of the primary vote, and it currently holds only two seats in the House of Representatives, together with four seats in the Senate.

One Nation, founded in the late 1990s by its current leader Pauline Hanson, was until recently a right-wing fringe party that had never posed a significant threat to the mainstream Labor and conservative Coalition parties that have taken turns in governing Australia since the late 1940s.

One Nation’s recent surge in popularity is akin to that of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, and Australian politics is now following a similar trajectory to UK politics – the conservative Coalition is disintegrating, the Labor party is coming under increasing electoral pressure, and a significant number of disaffected voters appear willing to contemplate, for the first time, a right-wing populist party winning government.

How is One Nation’s unprecedented surge in popularity to be explained?

Last week’s Newspoll made it clear that disenchantment with both mainstream parties is the most significant factor behind One Nation’s recent upturn in popularity. Almost 70% of voters polled were of the view that the mainstream parties “who built this mess aren’t going to fix it” and that “Australian politics is overdue for a big shake-up”.

Such voter dissatisfaction is perfectly understandable. The conservative coalition was in power for over a decade before losing office to the Labor party in 2022 – and both mainstream parties have singularly failed to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis that has pauperised large numbers of Australians over the past two decades.

Both mainstream parties have, for almost two decades, remained firmly committed to elite, and increasingly unpopular, polices such as net zero, mass immigration, multiculturalism, transgender rights and support for America’s wars of foreign aggression – policies that have exacerbated the cost-of-living crisis and shattered social cohesion within the Australian community.

In the circumstances, it is not surprising that a populist party that promises to scrap net zero, end mass migration, reverse elite culture wars policies and restore cultural unity should have become increasingly popular.

The collapse of the conservative coalition as a viable party of government has also fuelled One Nation’s popularity.  The coalition has for more than a decade been deeply divided over net zero, mass immigration and a raft of culture wars issues. The coalition is now, of course, even more bitterly divided over whether it should attack Hanson’s policies or embrace them with a view to forming some kind of electoral alliance with One Nation.

And as the conservative coalition has bled votes to both the left and the right, and suffered one electoral setback after another, wealthy donors, who had supported the coalition for decades, have increasingly redirected their funds into One Nation’s now overflowing coffers.

Gina Rinehart, the Trump-worshipping billionaire mining magnate, is now One Nation’s most generous financial backer – and she recently purchased a private jet for Pauline Hanson to use on the campaign trail.

One Nation now has more than sufficient funds, for the first time in its chequered history, to mount a nation-wide campaign to win seats in the federal House of Representatives.

In her recent address to the National Press Club this Pauline Hanson set out a wide-ranging populist program for winning government. It included the following specific policies:

• abolishing multiculturalism, and turning Australia into a “monocultural” society;
• abolishing the Human Rights Commission;
• abolishing the government-funded ethnic television station SBS;
• scrapping net zero and subsidies for renewables;
• ending mass immigration;
• promoting nuclear energy and the exploitation of coal and gas reserves;
• passing more restrictive abortion laws;
• opposing wage rises for ordinary workers, and abolishing workers’ rights;
• abolishing transgender rights.

This is a much more comprehensive policy program than One Nation has put forward previously, and aspects of it are commendable – but much of it amounts to sheer “magical thinking” and is incapable of being implemented by any government, let alone one led by Pauline Hanson.

By politicising abortion, which has never been a political issue in Australia, Hanson has also alienated the powerful female vote – and one of her senators, a day after her National Press Club address, made the position worse by calling for a complete ban on abortion.

And by turning her back on ordinary workers – who have suffered most under the cost-of-living crisis – Hanson has alienated precisely that large segment of the electorate that One Nation must win over if it is to have any realistic prospect of winning government.

Not surprisingly, this week’s Newspoll shows a slight decline in One Nation’s popularity from 31% to 29% – and a slight rise in Labor’s popularity from 30% to 33%.

On the latest Newspoll figures One Nation could expect to win approximately 50 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives if an election were held today – not enough to form a government, but perhaps enough to form a coalition government with the Liberal and National parties.

Talk about One Nation winning government in its own right is, therefore, premature in the extreme.

The next federal election is not due to be held until September 2028, and it will be interesting to see if One Nation’s popularity increases beyond its current 31% figure in the next two and a half years.

Hanson has always ruled her party in and authoritarian fashion, and it has been characterised by chronic internal instability since it was founded – with defections by its parliamentarians occurring on a regular basis.

In fact, it is impossible to imagine the ramshackle collection of inept politicians that currently make up One Nation, including the unstable and ambitious former National Party leader and deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, ever winning government – let alone being able to govern the country in a competent manner.

Hanson has never been anything more than a political disrupter – and, in my view, her party, under its current leadership, is intrinsically incapable of making the transition from being a right-wing fringe party to becoming a mainstream party capable of winning government in its own right.

In the circumstances, what is Australian politics likely to look like over the next few years?

The hopelessly divided conservative coalition will continue on its downward spiral towards complete political irrelevancy. Labor will continue to ward off the One Nation challenge – and its popularity may well continue to decline. It must be said, however, that the Labor Party in Australia is much more professional, ideologically unified and disciplined than the divided, unstable and disintegrating UK Labour Party.

And One Nation will obviously continue to be a powerful disruptive and divisive political force – putting forward specious remedies for acute political and economic problems that it is utterly incapable of solving.

In short, politics in Australia will become even more unstable and chaotic than it is at present. In other words – it will be politics as usual for the foreseeable future.

Interpol has identified a Ukrainian woman as a suspect in the bomb attack that injured Ukrainian millionaire Vadim Ermolaev and his family members in Monaco this week.

According to a public red notice issued by the international police cooperation organization on Friday, Anastasia Berezovskaya, 39, is wanted by Monaco authorities for attempted murder and criminal use of explosives in a public space. She may have a snake tattoo on her right arm and speaks German, the report, which includes photos of the woman, said.

The media previously reported a breakthrough in the investigation, stating that the female suspect was likely posing as a man during the attack on Ermolaev and was traced to a European country that was “neither Monaco nor France.” She reportedly resides in Frankfurt, Germany.

Berezovskaya is accused of planting a booby-trapped bag at the entrance to a residential building on Rue Reverend Pere Louis Frolla on Monday evening. The explosion wounded Ermolaev, his long-time partner, Anna Nasobina, who was described as his wife in initial reports, and their 13-year-old son.

She then walked ahead of the family, keeping roughly ten meters in front of them, before heading to the entrance of their building, climbing the three steps to the door, and placing the booby-trapped bag there, according to the report.

The suspect then left the scene in a hurry, turning back to make sure the family had entered the building. The 13-year-old boy was the first to go inside.

Nasobina’s life remains in danger, and she has had both legs amputated, according to media reports. Ermolaev and the teenager were also seriously injured in the blast.

Investigators are reportedly focusing on two main theories behind the attempted assassination: organized crime or foreign interference. Le Figaro previously reported, citing sources close to the case, that investigators were looking at possible involvement by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), describing it as one of the priority lines of inquiry.

Former French intelligence officer Claude Moniquet told Nice-Matin that Ermolaev had in recent weeks been preparing to give a presentation at the European Parliament to expose corruption in Ukraine, which he said Kiev may have viewed as a provocation.

The unprecedented bombing has shocked Monaco, one of Europe’s most heavily surveilled and secure enclaves, where many wealthy Ukrainians have relocated since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022.

The US Department of Homeland Security has slammed Democratic Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, for pardoning an illegal migrant convicted of sexually assaulting a ten-year-old girl.

The DHS described the Minnesota Board of Pardons’ decision as “madness,” noting in a press release on Wednesday that the clemency could thwart the planned deportation of the Laotian national.

“This pardon will take away this child rapist’s qualifying convictions that made him removable from the United States,” acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said.

Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin also wrote on X that the Minnesota governor’s “decision to PARDON an illegal alien child rapist is horrific.”

The board, which includes Walz, state Attorney General Keith Ellison and Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, granted a pardon to Tou Lue Vang on June 10. The board took into consideration the fact that the state’s Clemency Review Commission had approved the migrant’s petition in April.

Vang, 42, was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in 2006 after entering a plea deal that spared him prison time. He admitted to repeatedly sexually assaulting a girl between 2002 and 2004, but tried to justify his actions, insisting that “it is a cultural thing...to marry and have sex with girls as young as 12,” according to the DHS.

Following his conviction, Vang, who had entered the US as a refugee in 1994, lost his legal immigration status and was issued a final order of removal by a Department of Justice immigration judge. However, since Laos had for years refused to accept a large number of deportees, the convicted child sex offender remained in the US on supervised release, the New York Times reported.

In his letter to the board, Vang claimed that he regretted his actions and specifically argued that a pardon could help him stay in the US with his wife and six children, according to the newspaper. Since his criminal record has effectively been wiped clean, he now stands a chance of fighting the deportation order, the publication noted.

In a statement to the NYT, the office of Attorney General Ellison said that the “Minnesota Board of Pardons made a unanimous decision to grant Tou Vang this pardon after an exhaustive process which included a statement of support for the pardon from the victim, a recommendation to grant the pardon from the Clemency Review Commission and a large number of community support letters.”

Meanwhile, the Ramsey County attorney’s office, which had handled Vang’s prosecution, opposed the pardon. It noted that the unusual leniency of his sentence, 30 years’ probation, was in part due to the fact that the victim, who was 12 years old at the time, “was experiencing pressure from her family to not cooperate.”

According to the DHS, it was not “the first instance of the Clemency Review Commission granting a pardon to an illegal alien with a dangerous criminal history.”

In the summer of 2026, Germany is a punch-drunk country reeling from harsh knocks, many of which are self-inflicted.

In the short term, it has just suffered a humiliating defeat at the UN General Assembly, where it was punished for Berlin’s brazen arrogance, political provincialism, and last but not least, steadfast support for Israel and its crimes, including genocide. At the World Cup, the German team was booted out of the tournament early and crushingly.

To make things worse, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz felt this was just the right moment to release some X posts apparently meant to be reassuring but stunning the nation by their cack-handed ineptitude and sheer disconnect with reality. Why settle for a mere national depression if you can trigger a raging s**t-storm in addition?

Germany’s fundamentals are also thoroughly catastrophic. According to Handelsblatt, Volkswagen, a traditional flagship of the German car industry at the core of the national economy and national pride, is stuck “in the greatest cost and structural crisis in decades.” Around 100,000 jobs are on the chopping block. And yes, that is representative of the economy as a whole. The country’s birth rate – at 1.35 children per woman – is the lowest since the mid-1990s, which reflects the mood of anxiety and pessimism across the country.

And all of the above is happening under a succession of textbook-centrist governments, based on coalitions of parties and politicians that share a fundamental lack of convictions (apart from the blind urge to fight Russia again), egotism, careerism, and a coldhearted indifference, if not disdain, for the worsening problems and hardships that shape the lives of ordinary Germans.

At this point, the latest iteration of centrist uselessness warming seats in Berlin unites deeply unpopular Social-Democrats (SPD) – 12% in the polls – and widely scorned mainstream conservatives (CDU/CSU) – 22% and falling. No wonder that a whopping 53% do not trust any political party, while an abysmal 77% are dissatisfied with Merz.

It is this catastrophic decline, ruling fecklessness, and national frustration that will really be at stake in what is soon going to happen in the eastern German city of Erfurt, where the AfD (Alternative for Germany) will hold its party congress July 4-5.

Ahead of the meeting, Germany has the jitters. While the AfD is expecting hundreds of party delegates as well as guests, the authorities are predicting that 35,000 to 70,000 protesters will gather as well. That is a significant number by any measure. But it is even more impressive – or concerning – if you consider that Erfurt is historic (with one of Germany’s oldest universities) but not big, with a population of not quite 220,000.

Bjoern Hoecke, the key representative of the AfD Right and the powerful leader of the party in Thuringia, where Erfurt is located, may have been a touch hyperbolic when speaking of “civil war-like conditions.” Yet leaked documents show that Thuringia’s police are warning of thousands of violent activists who they believe will stage firebomb attacks from roofs, accept severe injury and death among their targets, and even execute an “endgame scenario” of storming the AfD congress. The police union is concerned about not having enough officers on the ground.

Whatever happens in Erfurt, it is already clear that the scene has been set for some big symbolic showdown theater. According to centrist and mainstream narratives, the battle lines are as Manichean as the best of Tolkien: Here, the forces of Mordor of the AfD, widely labeled as hostile to democracy and the constitution if not outright fascist; and there, the Hobbit forces of light of conformist protest, civil society, and a wholesome resistance that knows its place. If the latter features serious violence as well, then that will be written off as the exception, and ultimately the fault of the AfD.

So much for the childish story you will hear a lot about in the mainstream media.

And now let’s be serious: What makes this AfD congress such a hot issue is not AfD ideology, whatever you think about it, but AfD polls. The AfD is too successful at challenging the established parties on their own turf. In Germany as whole it is maintaining a clear lead over all other parties, currently with 26%. In the federal state of Saxony-Anhalt, the question is no longer if the AfD will win the elections in two months, which is virtually certain, but whether it will obtain an absolute majority that allows it to rule without coalition partners.

No wonder we have also just seen another transparent attempt to initiate a new lawfare blitz on the AfD. Under the cover of a new study claiming scientific credentials, a clearly pre-arranged chorus of voices is demanding the party be prohibited. Never mind that the case for this is weak and the legal hurdles that it would have to overcome high, fortunately. The study itself appears dubious. Its methodology seems weak and based on the use of AI. In what appears as a peculiar boomerang effect, the foundation that produced it belongs to the same astroturfed civil society/NGO sphere that the West has often used to launch regime-change color revolutions abroad.

Erfurt, in other words, will be the backdrop for dramatizing – burning tires and rubbish containers included – an establishment-driven tale of ‘resistance’, part of the same scenario that features a ‘scientific’ study as ammunition for a prohibition solution. None of this will have anything to do with actually defending democracy. On the contrary, the only thing defended will be the radical centrism that is incompetent, intolerant, and increasingly desperate to cling to power.

Chaotic scenes have unfolded at supermarkets across France as shoppers fight over discounted air conditioners ahead of another heatwave.

Hundreds of people descended on Lidl supermarkets in and around Paris on Thursday after the retailer put around 200,000 discounted air conditioners and fans on sale nationwide. 

With few air conditioners available elsewhere for less than €1,200 ($1,400), shoppers rushed to buy basic models priced from €179, prompting police intervention after scuffles and shouting matches broke out.

Videos show crowds storming stores, wrestling over air conditioners, and stripping shelves within minutes as demand quickly outstripped supply.

Some customers reportedly lined up before dawn but still left empty-handed. In Nanterre, more than 100 people gathered outside one Lidl outlet, damaging the entrance. Similar scenes were reported in Yvelines, Essonne, and other parts of the Paris region.

Social media users complained that some stores only received a handful of air conditioners despite attracting hundreds of customers. One user claimed that a Lidl outlet in Paris’s 14th arrondissement received just two units despite drawing more than 400 people.

🇫🇷 The Lidl store in France announced discounts on air conditioners and fans, which sparked a massive crowd of people literally tearing the doors off the store, pushing each other off escalators, and getting into fights just to buy a fan at a discount. pic.twitter.com/P9t7Yeszkm

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 2, 2026

The scramble comes amid a record-breaking heatwave in France, where temperatures exceeded 40C in many areas and the country recorded its hottest day on record last week. The extreme weather forced schools to close, strained hospitals, disrupted transportation, and reduced electricity generation.

France’s public health agency has estimated that the late-June heatwave caused around 1,000 excess deaths. At the peak, daily deaths rose above 1,200, compared with a pre-heatwave average of around 900 to 1,000 a day. Officials have warned that the death toll could increase.

The buying frenzy has also reignited the debate over the country’s limited use of air conditioning, with only around a quarter of households equipped with air conditioners. A recent Ipsos poll found that 78% of French people believe it is harmful to the environment; one in six said they would rather endure the heat for the sake of the planet.

‼️🇫🇷 The French SWING at each other over discounter air conditioners in stores

Some people took one hell of a beating for just $200

Is this the prosperous EU they promised us? pic.twitter.com/KgTXV5LSgV

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) July 2, 2026

Environmentalists have warned that widespread use of air conditioning will increase the demand for electricity and intensify urban heat, while tourists and social media influencers have mocked Paris for lacking air conditioning amid temperatures exceeding 40C.

Some opposition politicians accused the government of being unprepared for the crisis, with left-wing MP Clemence Guette calling the management of the heatwave “a disaster.”

Government spokeswoman Maud Bregeon dismissed the move as a “political maneuver,” saying the authorities are managing the crisis while opponents are seeking to exploit it.

The EU health authorities have linked Ukrainian-made instant noodles to a salmonella outbreak that has affected more than 100 people across Europe.

From November 2025 to June 2026, at least 106 infections were recorded in 13 EU member states and the UK, according to a joint statement released on Wednesday by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

The outbreak has primarily affected children and young adults, with at least 49 people hospitalized.

Salmonella causes intestinal infection, typically resulting in diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and abdominal cramps. While most patients recover without specific treatment, the disease can be life-threatening for people with weakened immune systems. No deaths linked to the contaminated noodles have been reported.

Investigators traced the majority of cases to flavored instant noodles produced by an unnamed Ukrainian manufacturer. Salmonella was detected in multiple batches of the products, suggesting “the possibility of multiple contamination sources,” the agencies said.

Infections were detected in the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Sweden, but not all the cases have been positively linked to the Ukrainian producer, the agencies said.

While the report from the EU health authorities comes after instant foods manufacturer Reeva acknowledged an issue with its noodles, it was not immediately clear whether the brand was behind the outbreak. Last week, the multinational company issued a statement regarding the “alleged detection” of a salmonella strain in a specific batch of noodles distributed in the Baltic states. Reeva said the offending batch was produced by its Ukrainian manufacturer, Euro Food Service.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has rejected US President Donald Trump’s demand for loyalty from other NATO members, insisting that no member state should impose its will on the others.

Pistorius made the comments in a wide-ranging interview with Der Spiegel, which was published on Thursday. He used the opportunity to play down tensions between Washington and Berlin, which were exacerbated by the US-Israeli war against Iran.

Pistorius was pressed on Trump’s remarks from last week, in which he said he is “disappointed with most” of the NATO members over their reluctance to take part in the Iran war. “I just want loyalty. You know, we’re so loyal to them. We are always fighting for them,” he said.

Pistorius pushed back, telling Der Spiegel that “NATO’s concept is not one of blind obedience, but rather… a spirit free in deliberation.” He stressed that decisions within the bloc are made “by free consensus of all member states and without being dictated by individual member states.”

Asked what military support the US actually wanted from Berlin, Pistorius said he is “not aware of any” requests. “Besides, refusing a little kiss can happen in the best of relationships. And unintentionally, too. That’s hardly a marital crisis,” he added.

The defense minister, however, concurred with Trump’s longstanding demand that NATO spend more on defense, but insisted that Germany is doing so “because it’s in our interest, not because the US wants us to.”

Relations between the US and Germany frayed after Pistorius signaled that Berlin would not join US-led operations in the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that “this is not our war.” Following the spat, the Pentagon announced in May that it would withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany over the next 6 to 12 months. US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth – who called the behavior of NATO members “shameful” – announced a six-month review of the US military posture in Europe last month.

The Spanish government is ordering state-backed companies to cut their ties with US defense contractor Palantir, Spain’s El Confidencial newspaper has reported. The move follows similar bans in France and Germany.

Sources within several public firms told the newspaper that they have been instructed not to sign any new contracts with Palantir over fears that classified national security information could fall into the company’s hands.

The ban affects state businesses operating in the communications, defense, military technology, and public infrastructure sectors, El Confidencial reported. The Spanish military, however, has reportedly been given an exemption. In 2023, the Spanish Defense Ministry’s Armed Forces Intelligence Center (CIFAS) signed a €16.5 million ($18.8 million) deal with Palantir, which expires next November. 

Two parties in Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’ coalition, Sumar and Junts, have demanded that the government explain the defense ministry’s remaining contract with Palantir. In an official response on Thursday, the government said that Palantir does “not have access to data on Spanish citizens.”

The company’s flagship product, an operating system called ‘Gotham’, is used by the US and Israeli militaries. It pulls together disparate data – for example drone footage, maps, and live streams from soldiers on the ground – and uses AI to predict enemy movements and plan strikes.

However, Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s close relationship with US President Donald Trump’s administration, and his recent ‘manifesto’ espousing American military supremacy, have made the company unpopular in Europe. Last month, French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced that the country’s domestic intelligence agency, the General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI), would “replace the American giant Palantir” with software developed by French firm ChapsVision.

Germany’s equivalent of the DGSI, the BfV, has also reportedly chosen ChapsVision for its data analytics needs.

Last month, London Mayor Sadiq Khan intervened to block a £50 million ($66.5 million) deal between Palantir and the city’s Metropolitan Police, calling the contract a “clear and serious breach” of procurement rules. Palantir still has a £330 million deal with the NHS, and a £240m deal with the UK’s defense ministry.