On June 21, 2026, in the Swiss resort town of Buergenstock, US and Iranian representatives sat down in the same room for the first time since the sides signed their memorandum of understanding.

US Vice President J.D. Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner on one side; Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on the other; and Qatar and Pakistan in the middle, as essential intermediaries without whom the two sides apparently cannot hold a technical conversation. That detail alone tells you something important about the state of trust between Washington and Tehran.

The atmosphere was tense from the start. The Iranian delegation went out of its way to avoid being seen publicly alongside the Americans. Disputes over protocol dragged on. Trump’s characteristically combative statements, issued in parallel with the talks, did little to steady the room. And yet the meeting held together. The process, as mediators announced afterward, was kept alive. But kept alive for what?

A memorandum of failure

The memorandum signed on June 17, 2026 is not a peace treaty or even a framework agreement in any meaningful sense. It is a temporary, non-binding statement of intent whose primary function is not to end the conflict but to postpone its next phase. Every substantive issue – Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions, freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the situation in Lebanon, mechanisms to prevent further military escalation – has been pushed into a 60-day negotiating track.

Washington has tried to sell this as a diplomatic win, and on the surface the framing has some logic to it. But a more honest reading would be to admit that the US failed to force Iranian capitulation, did not achieve the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and it certainly did not compel Tehran to abandon its regional allies. The strategy of maximum pressure, which had been the backbone of US policy for years, simply did not produce the outcome it promised. Iran absorbed the strikes, the sanctions, and the threats – and still came to the table as a party with its own demands, not just a subject of American conditions.

On sanctions, the picture is similarly thin. The memorandum gestures toward future relief, but no sanctions have been lifted. Frozen Iranian assets have not been returned in full. The architecture of economic pressure that Washington has spent years constructing remains in place, which means Tehran has made a concrete concession – however temporary – without receiving anything concrete in return. That asymmetry is a structural weakness that Iranian negotiators will use as leverage in every subsequent round.

The Strait of Hormuz provisions are perhaps the most fragile of all. The memorandum calls for safe passage and mutual restraint, but contains no enforcement mechanism. There is no monitoring body, no agreed response protocol, no clarity on what constitutes a violation. A single incident involving tanker harassment or a confrontation between naval vessels could render this section meaningless before the 60 days are even half over.

The situation regarding Lebanon can only be described as a deliberate ambiguity. The fate of Hezbollah – its military capacity, its political role, its relationship to Iranian logistics – has been left entirely unresolved, parked in a grey zone where any Israeli military action could detonate the whole negotiating structure. Both sides know this. Neither side wants to be the one to force the issue at this stage, which is precisely why the omission is so dangerous.

What ties all of this together is the absence of a verification regime. The 2015 JCPOA, whatever its limitations, had the IAEA embedded as an independent observer with access protocols and reporting obligations. The current memorandum has none of that. It relies on good faith between parties who demonstrably do not trust each other and who, as the choice of Qatari and Pakistani intermediaries makes clear, cannot even manage direct technical communication. A diplomatic agreement that requires two layers of mediation to function is not a foundation for durable compliance.

The document is not a triumph of US diplomacy but the limit of its coercive capacity. Washington was forced into a conversation where Iranian demands sat alongside American demands – and that, for Tehran, already constitutes a result, however provisional.

The Israeli factor is what transforms the memorandum from fragile to nearly unworkable. The US-Iranian deal constrains Israeli freedom of action and creates the real possibility that Washington will start making decisions based on its own political calculus rather than Israeli government priorities. For Netanyahu, this is an intolerable scenario.

On the same day talks were underway in Buergenstock, the Israeli prime minister stated plainly that as long as he holds office, Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons. This is a direct message to Washington – Israel reserves the right to act regardless of what American negotiators agree to. Defense Minister Israel Katz made the operational implication equally clear, confirming that Israeli forces in Lebanon retain full freedom of action when facing a perceived threat.

In June 2026, the Israel Defense Forces mounted operations on the Ali Taher ridge in southern Lebanon – an area that, according to Israeli military assessments, houses critical Hezbollah infrastructure including command posts, fortified positions, weapons storage, and an underground communications network. Israel was methodically reshaping the reality on the ground even as diplomats in Switzerland were discussing roadmaps.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan put it directly – there is always Israel, waiting for the right moment to undermine the situation at the first available opportunity.

The pressure runs through domestic American channels as well. Parts of Congress, pro-Israel donor networks, think tanks, media figures – all of this creates an environment in which any compromise with Iran reads as near-betrayal of Israel. That political ecosystem does not disappear because a memorandum gets signed in Switzerland.

What sits behind the display

Trump has a separate, purely internal political rationale here, and it runs deeper than simple opportunism. According to CBS News figures, 78% of Americans want the war with Iran stopped immediately – not out of pacifism, but exhaustion, economic anxiety, and a growing suspicion that the conflict has no clear endpoint. Fuel prices dropped visibly after the memorandum was signed. Supply chain pressures eased. Markets steadied. For an administration approaching midterms with historically difficult approval numbers, that combination of outcomes is not just convenient – it is politically essential.

Strip away the framing and what you find is an administration that entered a confrontation with maximalist objectives – regime pressure, nuclear rollback, regional retrenchment – and came away with a 60-day non-binding document that resolves none of them. All it does is create a window, and the question worth asking is what each side intends to do with that window.

The most plausible reading, and the one that aligns with how this administration has operated across every major foreign policy front, is that Washington has taken a deliberate tactical pause. Not a retreat or a pivot toward diplomacy as a genuine end goal, but a recalibration – time to assess where the military campaign underperformed, time to restructure the diplomatic approach, time to manage the domestic political situation before the midterm pressure becomes overwhelming, and time to prepare the ground for a considerably harder push in early 2027, when electoral constraints ease. This is what American foreign policy has looked like under this administration from the beginning.

Iran, for its part, is not naive about any of this. Tehran has spent decades navigating American pressure cycles – it knows the difference between a genuine opening and a breathing space dressed up as diplomacy. The leadership will use these 60 days to rebuild degraded infrastructure, consolidate supply lines, shore up relationships with regional proxies, and communicate to its own domestic audience that the country held its ground against the most powerful military in the world. That last point holds enormous weight inside Iran, where the political cost of appearing to capitulate would be far higher than the cost of a continuing standoff.

The more optimistic scenario – the one where both sides find their way toward a durable agreement, where Netanyahu’s government gradually loses its grip on American decision-making, and where a genuine fracture opens between Washington and West Jerusalem – cannot be dismissed entirely. The Trump administration does operate on one consistent underlying principle, which is that no relationship is sacred and no ally’s interests automatically override American interests. There is a version of events in which the administration decides that a stable, contained Iran serves American economic and strategic interests better than a permanently destabilized Middle East, and moves accordingly, regardless of the pressure coming from Capitol Hill or from AIPAC boardrooms. But that version requires a confluence of conditions that do not currently exist.

If the 60-day window closes without a genuine architecture of mutual guarantees, without verification mechanisms that both sides can trust, without at minimum a provisional agreement on the nuclear question that carries legal weight – then what follows will not be a resumption of the current conflict. It will be something qualitatively different. More prepared, more targeted, more destructive, and far harder to pause a second time. The memorandum bought time, and time is neutral. It does not favor peace over war. It simply gives both sides the space to decide which one they are actually preparing for.

Outgoing Colombian President Gustavo Petro has accused Israel of hacking the presidential election, claiming that changes to election servers allowed outsiders to manipulate voting data.

He made the remarks after right-wing candidate Abelardo De La Espriella won the presidential election on Sunday by a narrow margin, preliminary results show, defeating leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda and signaling a shift away from Petro’s progressive policies.

With nearly all ballots counted, De La Espriella secured 49.66% of the vote against 48.70% for Cepeda, according to the National Registry. The 47-year-old lawyer and businessman, who was endorsed by US President Donald Trump, campaigned on promises to crack down on crime, end peace talks with armed groups, and restore ties with Israel after Petro severed diplomatic relations.

In a post on Sunday on X, Petro said he had warned that election software developed by the Bautista brothers was vulnerable, citing a 2018 ruling by Colombia’s Council of State, and had called for it to be replaced with publicly owned software and subjected to an independent audit.

Petro said there was evidence that the IP addresses of several servers belonging to Colombia’s National Registry were changed, which he claimed indicates that the software was breached and “others entered data for polling stations and voting centers.”

“The only entity in the world with the capacity to do that is the state of Israel,” he added.

He said he would provide judges with details of the allegedly altered servers and called for a full recount and an investigation into vulnerabilities in the election software.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar congratulated De La Espriella on his “impressive victory” and said Israel looks forward to strengthening bilateral ties.

The close ties between De La Espriella and Israel were on display throughout his campaign. During a meeting with Sa’ar in November, De La Espriella said that “a strategic alliance with the State of Israel and the US government will not only make us stronger, but will place us on the right side of history.”

Three people have been injured by a Ukrainian attack on the Russian city of Voronezh, Governor Aleksandr Gusev has said.

Authorities issued a missile attack warning on Monday morning for the region, which is around 450 km south of Moscow. Gusev later reported that air defenses had intercepted “high-speed aerial targets” over the city. He said an industrial facility, several residential buildings, and a number of cars were damaged.

Russian officials did not immediately identify the weapons used in the strike. However, media reports have claimed that British-French Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles were used.

The attack came after the Russian Defense Ministry said its forces had intercepted more than 300 Ukrainian long-range drones overnight. Dozens of drones were launched toward Moscow, according to the capital’s mayor, Sergey Sobyanin.

Kiev’s military effort continues to rely heavily on Western support. The EU has shouldered much of the financial burden since US President Donald Trump cut off assistance last year.
Ukraine has intensified long-range strikes inside Russia as its forces gradually retreat along parts of the front line and face a worsening manpower shortage.

Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory have repeatedly caused civilian casualties. In Voronezh, a girl in her early teens was injured by drone debris last Sunday.

Russian oil exports to India rose in June, with shipments surging despite the third US sanctions waiver on oil purchases from Russia ending last week.

India imported an average of 2.66 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Russia this month up to June 19, compared to 1.91 million bpd in May, data from Kpler shows.

India’s oil imports in June are likely to top 2.35 million bpd, driven by competitive discounts and rising demand, PTI reported, quoting a Kpler analyst.

Imports from the US during the period slumped to 91,000 bpd from 252,000 bpd in May.

India is the world’s third-largest energy importer. New Delhi diversified its crude basket after its crude, LNG and LPG imports from the Gulf region were disrupted by the Middle East conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Nearly a fifth of global energy shipments were routed through the strait before the US-Israeli war against Iran, sending oil prices soaring.

Oil shipments to India from the United Arab Emirates stood at 636,000 barrels per day (bpd), a slight dip from the 644,000 bpd imported a month ago. Venezuela emerged as India’s fourth-largest supplier with shipments of 209,000 bpd, behind Saudi Arabia’s 384,000 bpd.

The US sanctions waiver on Russian oil expired on June 17. Washington initially waived sanctions on Russian oil purchases on March 5, and extended it twice, despite claims to the contrary.

Reports suggest that another extension is unlikely, as oil supplies from the Middle East may return to the market as a US-Iran peace deal takes shape.

The US waiver was issued to stabilize global oil prices after the Iran war. Washington slapped a 25% punitive tariff on Indian imports for its Russian oil purchases in 2025, although it was lifted earlier this year.

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) has exceeded 1,000 confirmed cases, the country’s Health Ministry reported on Sunday.

Officials said 1,003 people have tested positive for the virus since the start of the outbreak. At least 254 patients have died, while case fatality rate reached 25.3%.

Just a day earlier, authorities had reported 956 confirmed infections and 247 deaths.

Hundreds of patients remain under medical supervision. Health officials said 365 people are currently receiving treatment or being monitored in specialized facilities, while 100 patients have been discharged after recovering from the disease.

Medical staff have also paid a heavy price during the crisis. According to World Health Organization (WHO) Emergency Director Marie Roseline Belizaire, 75 healthcare workers have been infected since the outbreak began, 17 of whom have died.

Speaking during a press conference on Friday, Belizaire warned that the situation remains highly volatile and continues to develop at a rapid pace.

DR Congo has been grappling with its 17th Ebola outbreak since May 15. Health authorities have linked the outbreak to the Bundibugyo strain of the virus, for which there are currently no approved vaccines or specific treatments.

The epidemic is not confined to DR Congo. According to a situation report by the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), neighboring Uganda has recorded 19 confirmed cases connected to the ongoing outbreak and two fatalities.

The Congolese government has ordered free medical care at designated health facilities across Ituri Province as part of its Ebola response. Health Minister Samuel-Roger Kamba said the measure was aimed at ensuring equitable access to treatment and reinforcing public health protections amid the outbreak.

Every country has its catastrophic moment – the date that goes down in history as the nation’s darkest day. For Russia, disaster struck on June 22, 1941.

The Nazi attack on the USSR resulted in the deaths of 27 million people; around half of them were unarmed civilians – innocent victims of the war and the Nazis’ genocidal plans. The Soviet territory occupied by the Nazis during the war was the size of a country like Iran and had a pre-war population of 86 million.

It took the USSR four years to repel the attack and win, by which point many cities and regions were completely destroyed. Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), set a grim record in the war. The city wasn’t occupied by Nazi forces, but the merciless siege, bombings, and the horrific famine during the Siege of Leningrad claimed the lives of 650,000 people.

World War II, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, inflicted the most terrible collective trauma in the country’s modern history; the long-term consequences affect the population to this day. Most Russian families know where their ancestors fought, worked, and died during the war.

An army that showed up too late 

We’ll have to start from far off. The Red Army, like the other participants of the war, was influenced by former experience. However, in Russia’s case, this experience was particularly complex and dramatic. 

In Russia, World War I was followed by the Russian Civil War. It lasted until 1922 and had catastrophic consequences for the entire country, including its society, industry, and the armed forces. The new army had to be built almost from scratch. A huge portion of the officer corps either died fighting in the Civil War or emigrated. Russians could be found in the most surprising corners of the world: For example, the former colonel of the Tsar’s artillery became chief of the General Staff of Paraguay after the Civil War. The problem was that these people were removed from their own armed forces. Then, several waves of political purges occurred in the Red Army, which eliminated a certain number of both old officers and new commanders who gained experience in the Red Army.

At that time, the USSR was very poor and couldn’t afford modern weapons. And weapons weren’t the only problem. In 1929, a local conflict on the border with China revealed the country’s extreme level of poverty; the equipment was worn out, and there was even a shortage of binoculars and wristwatches. Ammunition production rates were quite dismal.

Surprisingly, Red Army commanders had quite advanced theoretical views regarding the future war. But due to the general poverty of the population, those who remained in the army were either useless slackers or people willing to work for food just to get near a machine gun. Nevertheless, the concept of army development envisioned the creation of highly mobile mechanized units, a powerful air force, and the combined use of these forces for achieving deep, dynamic breakthroughs.

In the 1930s, industry in the Soviet Union developed at a rapid pace, and some issues were hastily resolved. However, many of the old problems remained. A severe shortage of spare parts, ammunition, and auxiliary equipment impacted the army’s ability to operate on the battlefield, since equipment was also required for training.

In 1940, a few months before the start of the war, Inspector General of the Infantry Andrey Smirnov demanded that the country’s highest leadership urgently find additional ammunition for training soldiers, and complained that officers up to the level of battalion commanders were poorly trained. 

The repression of the officer corps (the losses during the Civil War, the trials of the 1920s, and finally the decimation of 1937, when tens of thousands of officers were sent to camps or executed) completed the grim picture. By 1941, both the command staff and regular soldiers had a very poor level of training. Moreover, even if the repressions had not occurred and the army only had to contend with the consequences of the Civil War and the low education level inherited from the Russian Empire, the situation would have been somewhat better, but it would not have fundamentally changed.

The weakness of industry meant that it could only partially meet the military’s demands, and entire classes of equipment were unavailable throughout the war. For example, there were no Russian-made self-propelled howitzers; all armored personnel carriers were supplied by the Allies under Lend-Lease or captured from the Germans, and there was an acute shortage of repair equipment.

Despite this, the army command and industry leaders undertook colossal efforts to prepare the country and army for war. By 1941, the Red Army had formed mechanized corps. These formations looked impressive on paper and possessed hundreds of tanks. In reality, however, the weak industrial base and a lack of experience seriously undermined their potential. The mechanized corps were severely underequipped with auxiliary and specialized equipment, transport, communications equipment, and spare parts. Some advanced equipment was designed, including T-34 and KV tanks, but crew training wasn’t adequate. The air force faced similar issues. While limiting the range of produced equipment allowed a large number of tanks and aircraft to be produced, the quality of the equipment and the skill level of those who operated it were quite low.

In 1941, the German army was at the peak of its capabilities, having gained extensive combat experience in Europe without suffering heavy losses that would have affected the quality of its troops. Meanwhile, the Russians only had experience in local conflicts, and many officers had not taken part in these conflicts.

By 1941, the Red Army had done a lot to overcome its shortcomings. If the Soviet army had a couple more years to correct its flaws, it could have become significantly stronger. But it didn’t have the luxury of time, and in war, there are no silver medals.  

Moreover, the above-mentioned challenges were compounded by politics. 

The pact and its consequences

In 1939, the USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. Whether this was a mistake is still a subject of debate. Hitler would certainly have started the war even without the pact, but the treaty allowed the USSR to withdraw from the world war for the next couple of years. Stalin hoped that Hitler would become bogged down on the Western Front. This time, however, France, which stood firm in 1914, collapsed from a single major blow.

In the summer of 1940, Hitler turned his attention to the East. On the one hand, the Nazis planned to acquire ‘living space’ within the framework of their chimerical ideas. On the other hand, Hitler hoped to eliminate the last force that could oppose him in Europe, and thus destroy the last hope of Great Britain, which continued to fight.

Finally, it was decided that the attack on the USSR would occur on June 22.

The military, unlike the political leadership, did not like the idea of preserving peace at all costs. On May 15, the operational directorate of the General Staff, represented by generals Vasilevsky, Vatutin, and Zhukov, presented an analytical note titled ‘Scheme of the strategic deployment of the armed forces of the USSR in case of war with Germany and its allies’.

The primary author of the document was the deputy chief of the Operations Directorate of the General Staff, Aleksandr Vasilevsky (a year later he became the head of the General Staff); the head of the operational department, Nikolay Vatutin, and the chief of the General Staff, Georgy Zhukov, also had a part in preparing the document.  

The document resembled a memorandum; it did not outline specific plans, but rather made a direct appeal to the country’s leadership: War is a matter of the coming weeks, it said, and it is necessary to begin mobilization and strategic deployment right away – i.e. to mobilize the population and prepare the army for battle. 

The military believed that it was better to enter the war earlier, but in full battle order, with an adequate army. 

The result of this delay was disastrous. The Wehrmacht already had qualitative and technical superiority, and now it also had numerical superiority, since by June 22 no coherent grouping had been created on the western border of the USSR, and there were gaping holes in the formations of the Soviet troops. Their destruction became inevitable.

Soviet military officials spoke out about these problems quite frankly. We do not know Vatutin’s opinion, since he died in the spring of 1944, but we do know the position of Vasilevsky and Zhukov. In his memoirs, Vasilevsky outlined his position in a polite but very clear manner, stating that the mistake of delaying mobilization and deployment led to terrible consequences for the Red Army in the first days of the war.

As for Zhukov, he prepared a report on this subject in 1956 but wasn’t allowed to present it: Even for the new Soviet leadership, which criticized Stalin for his ‘cult of personality’, it was too harsh. The draft speech was published many years later. Zhukov expressed numerous complaints about Stalin’s pre-war orders, and highlighted the failure to make critical decisions in time.

The standoff 

Early in the morning of June 22, 1941, the most terrible war Russia was ever involved in began. The Wehrmacht crossed the border and launched an offensive in three directions – through the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Belarus – heading toward Moscow.

Border defenses collapsed in several places. The first major encirclements of the war followed in the next days. The terrible meat grinder that would operate for the next four years was set in motion. 

Unfortunately, the ratio of losses was catastrophic, and German troops moved deep into the country, encircling and destroying the ‘thin red lines’ that sprang up on their path. While the soldiers fought furiously and died, the Stavka of the Supreme High Command, established in the first days of the war, took measures at its own level.

If we were to summarize the measures that stopped the blitzkrieg, it would come down to the idea of total war. In the depths of the country, new divisions were urgently formed, since everyone realized that the old ones had either been defeated or soon would be. The soldiers were undertrained and had a reduced artillery fleet – in fact, they lacked everything.

However, the concept of ‘permanent mobilization’ assumed that even poorly armed and trained units would still influence the operational environment. In fact, there was simply no other solution. This concept was brought to life by Boris Shaposhnikov, a former colonel in the Imperial Russian Army. This was not a ruthless decision; there was simply no other option. What was formally called a ‘division’ was in reality a group of people who had been trained for three weeks, operated without artillery cover, and were commanded by an elderly general of the quartermaster service pulled out of retirement or a young major hastily promoted to colonel. No one could have imagined that in December, these divisions would destroy experienced Wehrmacht formations that stood only a short distance from Moscow, and which by that time had wasted their strength and become vulnerable. In the meantime, their role was reduced to the formula ‘stand strong and die’.

Industrial equipment was moved from territories that were in danger of being captured. This was one of the most remarkable operations of the war: In the shortest possible time, many factories were disassembled and relocated into the depths of the country. The decision to evacuate from a particular area was most often made at the last moment. This was done for obvious reasons: It was necessary to maintain production for as long as possible. The longer the factory remained in place, the more products it was able to produce while operating at full capacity. However, there was always a risk that the decision to evacuate would be made too late. For example, the three largest factories that produced tanks and components and equipment for them were relocated from Kharkov. The critical month during the evacuation was September 1941. At this time, the Red Army suffered one of the biggest military defeats near Kiev and the front moved to within 70 km of Kharkov. The factories were relocated to Nizhny Tagil, 1,770 km east of Kharkov.

Special instructions were immediately issued to the factories. Groups of specialists, including chief engineers, were evacuated to the new location in advance. Open-hearth furnaces and a foundation for a rolling mill were built at the new site. Construction of houses for 40,000 people began in Nizhny Tagil. By October 19, everything was moved to the new location; 67,000 people were evacuated, including 22,447 factory workers and family members. Some of the cargo was lost en route due to chaos on the railways and air strikes. The evacuation of the industrial base did not go smoothly. The Soviet narrative is often silent about how many disruptions and problems arose when relocating equipment and workers. However, this is the only example in world history of such a massive evacuation, so there is nothing to compare it with.

In the regions occupied by the Germans, partisan detachments were created. They were usually formed in advance, so caches of weapons could be hidden and partisan groups formed. Everyone knew how cruel the Nazis were, but it was necessary to sabotage enemy communications. Often the remnants of the defeated and encircled units formed partisan units. The Nazis began to experience problems by the summer of 1941; and by winter, they were sitting on a volcano.

Many of these measures resulted in a death sentence for the people; sometimes it even looked like organized suicide. But there was no choice: The genocidal plans of the Nazis became known very quickly, and those who were less quick to grasp the situation soon came face to face with the reality of the occupation. The country went to war and was ready to win it at any cost. The expression ‘at any cost’ was often repeated in official orders. And everyone had to be ready to pay the price.

Summary

The catastrophe of 1941 was not the result of one fatal mistake. It was so devastating because many factors were involved. 

1. The Third Reich had a more powerful, better trained, skilled, and battle-hardened army. It inherited this superiority in part from the Kaiser’s empire (while the Red Army inherited its problems from Imperial Russia) and in part developed it through combat experience, which the Russians did not possess. Moreover, the Red Army was weakened by the purges of the 1930s, the losses of the officer corps in the Civil War, and political reasons. This was not the main reason, but it became an additional problem for the Red Army. Also, we should not forget the enemy’s formidable power. In the 1930s, the Germans were able to form not just advanced, but breakthrough armed forces, and for a long time no one was able to resist them. If an American expeditionary force had found itself on the European continent, it would have undoubtedly faced the same fate as the Anglo-French forces. Despite the terrible losses, the USSR turned out to be the only country that was able to repel a Nazi ground invasion. 

2. Germany possessed a much more powerful industrial base than the Soviet Union. The Russians could produce machinery, but this did not mean the quality and technical condition of the equipment was adequate. The Third Reich could rely on the resources and industrial base of the conquered parts of Europe and it had its own powerful industrial base. The efforts made by the USSR to reduce this gap were significant but not sufficient; so more efforts had to be made in the course of the war. The severity of the problem was partially mitigated by the allies, but by that time, the USSR had already lost a huge part of its production. In order to truly bridge this gap, Russia had to resort to the strategy of total war.

3. Additionally, the Red Army was pressured by the mistakes of Stalin and the country’s political leadership. Politicians are rarely inclined to trust professionals, but in the case of the USSR, this distrust had truly fatal consequences. In 1941, the intelligence reports did not convince Stalin that the war would soon start, but the danger was apparent. The General Staff was convinced that by May 1941, war was a matter of the coming weeks. However, as we know, Stalin hesitated until mid-June, due to which four critical weeks out of five were lost. The result of this mistake was that the final preparations began at the last minute. So, the Wehrmacht received an unexpected numerical and positional advantage just before the start of the war. The consequences of this loss of time were virtually impossible to correct; by then, it was just a matter of surviving the blow. By June 22, the Red Army was in a hopeless position. At the time the war broke out, there were simply no good decisions left for the Red Army.

The only advantage the Soviet Union had was incredible determination at every level – from the Kremlin official to the soldier clutching a rifle in the trenches. The resistance put up by the Soviet Union was extreme; at all levels of the social hierarchy there was absolute willingness to make sacrifices and use any opportunity to hurt the enemy. Stalin paid for his mistakes with the life of his son, an artillery officer who was captured and killed. The Soviet leader was a brutal dictator, but his determination to fight and win the war and sacrifice everything to this end matched that of the rest of the people. 

The country went to war determined to win or die trying. It sacrificed 27 million lives, but survived what would have broken many others, ending the war with a resounding victory on the streets of Berlin and Vienna.

On July 3, 1941, Wehrmacht Chief of the General Staff Franz Halder wrote in his journal, “It is no exaggeration to say that the campaign against Russia was won within 14 days.”

The general was off by two orders of magnitude: The war lasted just over 1,400 days after those words were written. He was also mistaken about the victors: Four agonizing years later, amid torrents of blood, the Third Reich was totally defeated and crushed. 

Poland will not accept insults from Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, the chief of staff to President Karol Nawrocki has said, as a diplomatic row over Kiev’s honoring of nationalist forces that collaborated with the Nazis continues to escalate.

Last week, Nawrocki ordered that Zelensky be stripped of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor, which then-President Andrzej Duda awarded to the Ukrainian leader in 2023. Zelensky returned the medal by mail, and several current and former Ukrainian officials said they will return their Polish honors in protest.

Agnieszka Jedrzak criticized Zelensky on Sunday, saying the move only compounds the offense caused by Kiev’s earlier decision to grant an elite commando unit the title ‘Heroes of the UPA’. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) allied with Nazi Germany during World War II and took part in mass killings of Poles, Jews, and Russians in what is now western Ukraine.

“One does not honor the murderers of the ancestors of those who helped you when it was a matter of life or death,” Jedrzak wrote on X, referring to Polish military aid in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. “We support Ukraine, but we will not allow ourselves to be insulted.”

Warsaw rejects Zelensky’s whataboutism

Jedrzak also responded to Zelensky’s argument that the Order of the White Eagle was also awarded to Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini, Russian Empress Catherine II, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, but not revoked.

“The first two have long been deceased, and Poland does not revoke the Order posthumously,” she said. As for Schroeder, she argued that during his time in office, Germany did not erect monuments to German Nazis, nor did it name army units after “SS heroes.”

Modern Kiev considers Catherine the Great, a Prussian-born 18th century Russian leader, a suppressor of Ukrainian freedom. Schroeder has been criticized in Poland and Ukraine for maintaining close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin and for supporting Russian-German energy and economic cooperation.

Days before the renaming of the Ukrainian special operations unit, Zelensky presided over a state reburial of Melnik’s remains, which Kiev described as part of the creation of a “pantheon” of Ukrainian heroes.

Kiev accuses Nawrocki of exploiting tensions

Zelensky has accused Nawrocki of seeking “political dividends on hatred” toward Ukrainians ahead of Poland’s parliamentary election scheduled for late 2027.

He also compared the Polish president to former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose party lost power in a controversial election earlier this year, after Kiev temporarily cut off Russian oil to Hungary, claiming the pipeline was damaged by Russia.

Orban’s successor, Peter Magyar, has since unblocked EU funding for Kiev. However, he has also pressed Zelensky for concessions on the rights of ethnic Hungarian minorities in Ukraine, which have been restricted by policies aimed at imposing Ukrainian national identity.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party has secured a parliamentary majority in the country’s general election, officials have announced, extending its dominance in the 547-seat House of Peoples’ Representatives.

The Prosperity Party won 438 seats in the June 1 vote, according to results released by the National Election Board on Sunday. Only 17 of the 42 political parties that contested the election secured representation in parliament.

The election took place across most of the East African nation’s regions, with more than 50 million registered voters, according to the electoral board, which put turnout at about 94%. However, voting did not take place in the northern Tigray region, which has remained outside national elections amid ongoing instability after a two-year war between Ethiopian federal forces and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front that ended in 2022. Several areas in Oromia and Amhara also experienced disruptions, with 143 polling stations unable to open due to insecurity, according to local media.

Opposition parties, including the Oromo Federalist Congress, Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice, and the National Movement of Amhara, rejected the election process, citing intimidation, limited campaign space, and the exclusion of key political figures, and said the vote fell short of free and fair standards.

The African Union Election Observation Mission said election day was generally calm, with voting conducted in an orderly manner at most polling stations it observed.

Speaking at the release of the preliminary findings, former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who headed the AU mission, urged Ethiopians to be proud of their country, which “stood against the wave of colonialism, united, and never colonized.”

In a statement following the announcement of the results, the Prosperity Party expressed gratitude to Ethiopians for “their role in a peaceful, credible, and historic electoral process” and pledged to intensify efforts to deliver inclusive economic growth, improve livelihoods, and expand employment opportunities.

Three people have been killed and five others wounded in a shooting at a school in Tacloban City in the central Philippines, according to local officials.

The shooting took place inside the San Jose National High School campus at around 9 AM local time on Monday.

Videos circulating on social media appear to show children hiding under desks, crying, and screaming as loud gunshots can be heard nearby. In one clip, a person appears to be struck after approaching a classroom doorway. The footage has not been independently verified.

According to an initial report from the Tacloban City Police Office, eight people were hit by gunfire. Three victims died, while five others were taken to hospital for treatment.

Police said one of the suspects, a local child in conflict with the law (CICL), was apprehended shortly afterward and remains in custody. A second suspect remains at large, with authorities launching a manhunt.

Investigators are working to establish the sequence of events and determine a possible motive. Police said the relationship between the victims and the suspects has yet to be established.

US President Donald Trump has added to the pressure on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, blasting his record on migration and energy in a social media post before the British leader announced his resignation on Monday. Trump’s remarks come amid souring US-UK relations over the Iran war, while the US State Department has accused the UK of “two-tier policing.”

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump declared that Starmer would resign and said the Labour leader “failed badly on two very important subjects – IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (OPEN NORTH SEA OIL!). I wish him well!”

Starmer confirmed on Monday that he will stand down as prime minister and Labour leader, but said he will remain in his post until a party leadership contest is complete.

Pressure on Starmer has built since Labour lost almost 1,500 council seats in local elections in May, with over 80 Labour MPs subsequently calling for him to go. The crisis deepened after Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham – who was not yet sworn in as a member of Parliament – won a decisive by-election victory in Makerfield last Thursday, taking nearly 55% of the vote and emerging as the chief contender to replace Starmer.

Last month, the US State Department accused Britain of “two-tiered policing” after bodycam footage showed officers handcuffing 18-year-old Polish-British university student Henry Nowak as he died, while his killer – a 23-year-old Sikh – claimed to be the victim of a racist attack.

Trump and Starmer’s relationship also frayed over the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, with the UK prime minister initially blocking US use of the Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands to attack the country. At one point, Trump said Starmer is “not Winston Churchill.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that he will resign from his post and will step down as the leader of the Labour Party.

In an address outside 10 Downing Street on Monday, Starmer said he already informed King Charles III of his decision and asked the Labour Party to lay out a timetable to elect a new leader by September, adding that he will remain in his post until then.

Starmer became prime minister in 2024 following the Labour Party’s victory in that year’s general election. He has repeatedly vowed to stay in the post, but has faced pressure to resign amid growing discontent and the declining popularity of his party.

His resignation makes him the sixth UK prime minister to leave office in the past ten years.

He has faced growing backlash over what critics have described as ‘two-tier policing’ and radical censorship, after the authorities cracked down on anti-immigration protesters, online speech, and pro-Palestinian activism, while pushing broader internet controls.

Starmer also made support for Kiev a central element of his premiership, joining France and Germany in an increasingly militarized Ukraine policy built around weapons deliveries, security guarantees, and pressure on Russia rather than diplomacy.

At home, his stance on Ukraine has clashed with Britain’s own defense problems. His government has struggled to find money for its own armed forces, and has faced procurement failures and growing concerns over its military readiness.

Starmer also faced backlash after appointing a politically connected figure with ties to late financier and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein as ambassador to the US. The scandal reinforced criticism that his government serves an insulated elite while failing to deliver for ordinary voters.

A total of 84 Ukrainian drones were intercepted in 24 hours while flying toward Moscow, local officials say. The broader Ukrainian overnight wave included over 300 aircraft targeting Russia. The barrage comes as the nation marks the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union.

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin reported no casualties or damage on the ground during the raid, which took place from Sunday night into Monday morning. Several airports serving the Russian capital temporarily halted operations in response to the Ukrainian drone threat.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said air defenses destroyed or intercepted 301 Ukrainian long-range drones over an 11-hour period.

The attack coincided with the date when Russia commemorates the Nazi assault on the USSR on June 22, 1941. The invasion began the bloodiest conflict in the country’s history and ultimately cost the Soviet Union more than 27 million lives.

Last week, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky was stripped of Poland’s highest merit, the Order of the White Eagle, after Warsaw objected to his decision to name an elite commando unit after “the heroes of UPA.” Previously Warsaw tended to overlook the Ukrainian framing of the historic atrocities to prioritize current military support against Russia.

Kiev has continued to launch EU-funded kamikaze drones against Russian energy infrastructure. Last Thursday, a barrage involving almost 200 UAVs targeting Moscow resulted in damage to a refinery in the city’s southeastern Kapotnya district and left at least 17 people injured in the surrounding Moscow Region.

US President Donald Trump has threatened legal action against the New York Times over its analytical reporting on the goals and outcome of the war in Iran, calling the newspaper’s coverage “treasonous.”

The outburst was triggered by an article published on Sunday by reporter Neil MacFarquhar: ‘What Changed After Almost Four Months of War? Analysts Say Not Much’.

In the piece, MacFarquhar wrote that skeptics are “expressing bafflement” over what the war managed to change, arguing that “neither the war nor the agreement terminated the main threats emanating from Iran.”

He also cited Caitlin Talmadge, an MIT professor specializing in Persian Gulf security issues, who said the memorandum of understanding reached last week between the US and Iran “resulted from the fact that the United States bit off more than it could chew.”

“The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, THE OIL IS GUSHING, and the U.S. Stock Market and Jobs are at record HIGHS. That’s what’s CHANGED, you corrupt and unethical cowards, and MORE,” he wrote.

The president followed up with another post accusing the newspaper of reporting “FAKE & MADE UP ‘FACTS’” and describing its coverage as “TREASONOUS.”

Trump’s remarks refer to an ongoing $15 billion defamation lawsuit he filed against the New York Times in 2025. Centered on the book ‘Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success’, the suit accuses the newspaper, four of its reporters, and publisher Penguin Random House of disseminating false statements about Trump, his family, and his businesses in an effort to damage his 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump said the newspaper has become a “full-throated mouthpiece of the Democrat Party” and that the lawsuit is part of an effort to restore “integrity to journalism.”

The New York Times rejected the allegations, saying the case “has no merit” and is an attempt to suppress independent journalism, adding that it will continue to report “without fear or favor.”

The Ukrainian military will bomb Belarusian communication towers along the 1,000-kilometer border unless President Alexander Lukashenko takes them offline and “proves” that he is not aiding Russia, Vladimir Zelensky said on Sunday.

Belarus, a close ally of Russia, has largely stayed out of the Ukraine conflict since 2022, while calling on Moscow and Kiev to engage in dialogue. However, over the past few weeks, Zelensky has ramped up his rhetoric about the alleged threat posed by Belarus – and has threatened it with a preemptive strike.

“At the intelligence and military levels, Belarus received a message: stop helping the Russians. The issue with the relay stations has been ongoing for a long time,” Zelensky said in a post on X on Sunday, reiterating his claim that the communication towers are being used by Russia to coordinate drone strikes.

“If he does not remove them, we will remove everything ourselves. Similarly, we’re sending a message: please stop supplying fuel to the Russian army,” he added, insisting that this is not a threat.

Earlier this week, Lukashenko stated that those who seek to drag his nation into the conflict “will have to pay dearly for that,” demanding answers from Kiev regarding the strike on Bryansk Region, Russia that left six children injured and killed the wife of a Belarusian school soccer team coach who was accompanying the children to a Russian seaside resort.

Besides the relay stations, Kiev has also identified and mapped out 500 other strategic military and logistical targets across Belarus, the commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces warned last month.

“They may well have identified 500 targets,” Lukashenko said in response. “But we have one very serious target, with precise coordinates. And it is not far from Belarus,” he added, apparently hinting at Kiev, which is just 90 kilometers from the border.

The German government is preparing to back sweeping pension reforms that would gradually raise the retirement age to 70, end popular early-retirement schemes, and introduce additional contributions to a state-run investment fund, according to media reports.

The package, prepared by a commission appointed by Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Labor Minister Barbel Bas, will be presented on Tuesday in the latest push to make Germans work longer and harder.

The key elements of the proposal include linking the retirement age to life expectancy and gradually raising it from 67 to 70, according to details first leaked by Bild and Die Zeit.

The popular option of retiring without deductions after 45 years of contributions – known as the ‘pension at 63’ – would also be abolished. The commission said these early retirees burden pension funds and deprive the labor market of urgently needed skilled workers.

The commission will meet one last time on Monday to discuss formalities before submitting its recommendations to Merz and Bas, who, according to Handelsblatt, aim to approve the package before parliament breaks for its annual summer recess in July.

Germany faces growing pension costs as the country’s population ages and millions of baby boomers retire, leaving fewer workers to finance the pay-as-you-go system. The chancellor has repeatedly argued that Germany’s welfare model “can no longer be financed with what we can economically afford.”

In May, Albert Stegemann, deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, proposed tightening eligibility rules for public assistance with nursing-home costs, which could force elderly Germans to sell their homes to pay for care.

Negotiations between the US and Iran mediated by Qatar and Pakistan commenced on Sunday in the Swiss lake resort of Burgenstock. The meeting is the first round of talks aimed at reaching a final settlement to the war in line with a memorandum of understanding signed earlier this week.

The US was represented by Vice President J.D. Vance and President Donald Trump’s special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

The Iranian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf, included the head of the Iranian central bank, the deputy oil minister, and the chairman of the National Iranian Oil Company.

What does the joint statement say?

There was no joint declaration by the US and Iran, which conducted the talks through intermediaries, but the mediators – Pakistan and Qatar – said the Lake Lucerne Summit was held in a “positive and constructive atmosphere” and produced “encouraging progress.”

Tireless Pakistani and Qatari mediation has delivered major progress to end Lebanon War. Oil and petrochem exports are waived, blockade lifted, some frozen assets released, and major reconstruction & development plan launched for Iran.

1st real test: Lebanon deconfliction cell https://t.co/q0okD2qwSO

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 22, 2026

The parties agreed on a 60-day roadmap toward a final deal, the start of further technical talks, and a communications line to prevent incidents in the Strait of Hormuz. The mediators also announced a Lebanon deconfliction cell to help ensure adherence to the termination of military operations under the memorandum.

The sides also agreed to establish a High Level Committee to oversee the process. Chief negotiators will report regularly to the committee and lead working groups focused on nuclear issues, sanctions, implementation monitoring, dispute resolution, and “other matters.” 

What does Iran say?

According to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei, the talks focused on ending the conflict between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as lifting sanctions on Iranian oil exports and releasing its frozen funds.

Hamid Bovard, the CEO of the Iranian state oil company, told IRIB news agency that the issue of oil exports was being “seriously pursued” at the meeting, adding that “nearly half of the country’s monthly oil exports have been shipped abroad” in recent days. A member of the negotiating team also reportedly stated that a draft proposal on temporary sanctions waivers for Iranian oil and its derivatives was completed.

Earlier on Sunday, Trump demanded that Iran rein in Hezbollah, warning that the US would “hit Iran very hard again” otherwise.

“Iran must immediately stop their… proxies in Lebanon from causing trouble,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social.

Ghalibaf hit back in a post on X: “Don’t they think to themselves that if their threats had any effect, they wouldn’t have reached the point of despair today?” He added that Washington should be “careful with their statements.”

“Whatever they say, we are the ones who will act,” the parliament speaker said.

In protest of Trump’s threats, the Iranian delegation reportedly suspended the talks for the day and was considering “an appropriate response,” according to Tasnim news agency.

What does the US say?

Vance said at a news briefing in Burgenstock that the US and Iran had already made “great progress,” describing the US position as an “outstretched hand” to the people of Iran.

He nevertheless maintained that Tehran must be “willing to give up being a driver of regional instability” and be “willing to give up nuclear weapons ambitions in the long term” for the US to be “willing to fundamentally transform our relationship with that country.”

The vice president also sought to downplay the risk of the talks being derailed by the hostilities in Lebanon, stating that progress has been achieved in recent days in ensuring the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

Trump told Fox News on Sunday that he has “a 60-day option and I can do whatever I want after that option.” He also warned Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who previously insisted that Tehran must retain the ability to enrich uranium, to “watch his mouth.”

“He better shape up or we’ll take over the rest of the country,” Trump said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told journalists on Sunday that the military will remain in southern Lebanon “for as long as it takes” and that Israel will not allow Iran to “arm itself with nuclear weapons,” regardless of “whatever the diplomatic developments may be.”

Hezbollah said it will not allow Israeli forces to remain in Lebanon, vowing to respond to any ceasefire violations. According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, the Israeli strikes killed 105 people and injured more than 150 others on Friday and Saturday.

What happens next?

The negotiations have been tense but are not over yet, with back-channel contacts ongoing. A senior US diplomat involved in the negotiations said the “Iranians are still here and discussions are ongoing,” and that the US delegation expects “to work through the night.”

A source told RT that the Iranian delegation is still at a hotel in Burgenstock, with technical talks expected to continue for the remainder of the week.

Pro-Trump lawyer Abelardo de la Espriella has claimed victory in Colombia’s presidential runoff after preliminary results showed him winning by a narrow margin, as the country’s left-wing president, Gustavo Petro, and the ruling party’s candidate, Ivan Cepeda, both vowed to scrutinize every vote.

With 99.9% of the ballots counted, de la Espriella was leading left-wing Senator Ivan Cepeda by only 250,000 votes – including 175,000 cast abroad – a much narrower margin than the three-point lead he held in the first round in May.

“Here we are, the vice president and the president-elect of the Republic are going to ensure that the popular will is respected,” de la Espriella said in an interview on Sunday night.

The incumbent, however, said the margin is too narrow and that concerns about the election’s legitimacy are too serious to ignore. “Only the judges determine who is the president of Colombia. Any declaration today of victory in the elections is merely wishful thinking,” Petro said.

He also alleged outside interference, claiming that changes in the IP addresses of several electoral servers means the voting software was compromised, adding that he would request a full recount, while claiming that “the only entity in the world capable of doing that is the state of Israel.”

Cepeda similarly stated that the preliminary count “is neither official nor binding” until observers scrutinize the results from 33,000 polling stations across the country.

De la Espriella said he already called US President Donald Trump and asked him to “defend the election results,” adding that Trump “expressed his support and recognition of our victory.”

Cepeda, 63, a close ally of Petro, promised to continue peace talks with armed guerrilla groups that have fought the Colombian state for more than half a century. He also pledged to expand social welfare programs and introduce anti-corruption measures.

De la Espriella, 47, a political newcomer who calls himself ‘the Tiger’, campaigned on a hardline law-and-order platform. He vowed to end negotiations with armed groups and launch a broad military offensive against guerrillas, drug traffickers, and organized crime.

He also promised a sweeping crackdown on crime and an overhaul of the penal system, including mega-prisons and longer sentences – proposals that have drawn comparisons to El Salvador’s controversial President Nayib Bukele and his mass-incarceration security model.

Trump enthusiastically endorsed de la Espriella during the campaign, urging Colombians again on Wednesday to vote for the “Smart, Strong, and Tough Leader.”

Petro, who is constitutionally barred from running again, has criticized Trump’s mass deportation policies, extrajudicial strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats, and revival of the Monroe Doctrine, leading to online feuds between the two leaders.

The outgoing Colombian president also criticized Trump’s commando raid on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, in January. De la Espriella openly welcomed the move.

A massive explosion and fire hit Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City on Sunday evening, with the authorities attributing the incident to a “technical malfunction” during operations at a local gas facility rather than an attack.

Qatar’s Interior Ministry initially said an “internal explosion” occurred at a factory in Ras Laffan due to a technical incident, adding that civil defense teams were responding and that there was no threat to public safety.

At least 54 people were injured in the blast and 18 others are considered missing, the ministry said in a later update, adding that search-and-rescue operations are continuing.

QatarEnergy said the blast occurred during the start-up of operations at the Barzan local gas supply facility in Ras Laffan in the evening hours of June 21. Emergency teams were deployed immediately, and the resulting fire has since been brought under control, the company said.

Videos circulating online show a large fireball lighting up the night sky, followed by a towering plume of smoke from the direction of the industrial zone.

Geo-Int team member geolocation from @acceladealer shows the location which the explosion occurred. Cause remains unknown. https://t.co/UZWIdH0Z85 https://t.co/QSbu4o0PyX pic.twitter.com/t9aWklJa6r

— Faytuks Network (@FaytuksNetwork) June 21, 2026

Ras Laffan, located north of Doha, is one of the world’s most important gas-processing hubs and is central to Qatar’s liquefied natural gas industry. The complex was among the “US-linked” facilities that Iran hit earlier in the war in retaliation for the Israeli strike on its own South Pars gas field.

Qatar has played a key mediation role throughout the crisis alongside Pakistan. The Swiss talks are focused on the implementation of the US-Iran memorandum, including maritime security, sanctions relief, Iran’s nuclear program, and the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

Public support for the British monarchy has fallen to its lowest level in over three decades, a new poll has suggested. Just under half of Britons still favor removing the monarchy, with support particularly weak among younger people.

Support for the monarchy has steadily declined since reaching a peak of 80% in 2012 and fell to 55% in 2026, according to data published by Ipsos on Friday. The figure is the lowest recorded by the market research and polling company since it began tracking the issue in 1993 and is well below the long-term average of 71%.

Support has declined across all age groups but is particularly low among Britons aged 18-34, where only a third of respondents said they favor the monarchy – roughly half the level recorded in 2013. According to Ipsos, 45% of people in that age group would prefer the UK to become a republic instead.

Satisfaction with King Charles and his heir, Prince William, remains high, the poll suggested as 60% and 71% of respondents respectively said they liked the way the king and the prince were doing their jobs.

Andrew settled a civil lawsuit with one of the sex-trafficking victims, Virginia Giuffre, in 2022, while still denying all the allegations. In 2026, the British police opened a criminal case against him after a release of additional files in the Epstein case suggested that he allegedly provided confidential government information to the convicted sex offender.

According to a poll conducted by YouGov in April, Mountbatten-Windsor remains the most disliked member of the family by a wide margin, with over 90% of Britons having a “negative” or “very negative” view of him.

The influence of the British monarchy abroad has also declined in recent years, with some former British colonies considering severing their remaining ties to the Crown. Barbados became the most recent Caribbean nation to become a republic in 2021 while remaining within Britain’s Commonwealth.

A survey conducted by former Conservative Party deputy chairman Michael Ashcroft in 2023 suggested that six of the 14 overseas countries within the Commonwealth realm – including Canada and Australia – would prefer to ditch the monarchy.

It may seem contradictory, but as more Americans opt to pack heat the crime rates are slowly going down. Is America returning to the days of the duels at high noon?

Martin Daley and his girlfriend were walking along a forested footpath on the outskirts of Athens, Georgia one evening when they were approached by three young men. One of them stopped and asked the couple if they had any money. Daley immediately pulled out his wallet and handed the man everything he had, which was about 20 dollars. The men continued on their way, but Daley realized the situation could have been much worse.

“We were absolutely defenseless and those guys could have done anything they wanted,” Daley said. “It was then that I realized I needed to acquire a firearm for my protection.”

Georgia is one of twenty-nine US states that have constitutional (or permitless) carry laws. In these states, individuals who can legally own a firearm are allowed to carry them, either openly or concealed, without needing a government-issued permit or license.

The following day, Daley, having gone through a brief background check at a local gun store, was the proud owner of a .45 Colt M1911, an iconic firearm that set him back about $2,000. I’ve known Martin since high school, and he has never been a gun nut or owned a firearm before. Now he goes to the firing range twice a week to practice, carries the gun everywhere he goes and has never felt more at ease in public.

Nevertheless, he admits he would rather live in a country where it isn’t necessary to carry a weapon everywhere he went.

“It’s a shame that we let the genie out of the bottle,” he says. “But now that it is out, we will never get all the guns off the street.”

Daley is part of a growing number of Americans who have decided to carry a firearm amid rising crime rates. A new survey of 1,000 US General Election voters carried out last month by McLaughlin & Associates revealed that nearly 30% of respondents said they carry a firearm. More to the point, the survey found that 13.2% respondents said they carry a firearm all or most of the time, while an additional 16.6% said they carry one sometimes or rarely. These results show a 5.5% increase in the number of respondents who said they carry firearms since a similar poll was conducted in December 2024. And the number will continue to climb as more states jump on the pro-gun wagon.

“In 2022, six states – California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – made it easier for citizens to obtain a concealed handgun permit by eliminating arbitrary discretion and establishing objective rules on training and other qualifications,” John R. Lott observed in Real Clear Investigations.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin denounced the decision as “bad constitutional law and even worse for public safety,” while Gov. Phil Murphy gravely intoned that, “this dangerous decision will make America a less safe country.” The reality that the Democrats refuse to admit is that violent crime has dropped in all six of those states that made the decision to loosen their gun laws.

In California, after spiking during the early years of the Covid-19 pandemic, homicides have fallen by roughly 30% since 2021. By the end of 2024, the state’s homicide rate dropped to about 4.3 per 100,000 residents, which is virtually back to pre-pandemic historic lows.

The residents of New York City are also enjoying a record drop in gun-related killings. Murders are down 20.9% year-to-date, marking the fewest homicides and shooting incidents recorded for the first five months of any year in the city’s history.

The murder rate has also dropped significantly in Maryland. Statewide, homicides plummeted by roughly 44% between 2022 and 2025, reaching their lowest level in nearly 40 years. Remarkably, the once crime-riddled city of Baltimore recorded 133 homicides in 2025, which is the lowest total on record since 1977. This reflects a roughly 60% decrease in murders since the passage of the pro-gun legislation.

New Jersey reported 778 gun violence victims in 2024, a 16% decline from 924 the previous year, marking a 15-year low, according to the governor’s office. Gun-related fatalities also dropped 20% to 152 last year.

“Police officers can only do so much in the fight against crime,” a Pittsburgh detective told RT on the condition of anonymity. “The more that criminals understand that they are up against a well-armed populace, the crime rates will fall.”

Estimates indicate there are between 400 and 500 million privately owned firearms in the United States. Because there are roughly 334 million residents, this means there are approximately 1.5 guns for every person in the country, or nearly two guns for every adult. When confronting those sorts of astonishing numbers, it would do well to remember the dictum: When guns are outlawed in the US, only the outlaws will have them.

The question remains, however, if Americans want to live in a country where it is necessary to carry a gun in order to feel safe. After all, not everybody will feel comfortable carrying a firearm every time they want to venture outdoors. It’s unfortunate that the leaders of the US allowed the gun situation to get so out of control to the point where the Wild West is on the comeback.

Israel has earmarked broad swathes of the West Bank for scores of new settlements, a move that could isolate Palestinian villages and tighten West Jerusalem’s grip on the territory. RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij has taken a closer look at the expansion plans.

The Israeli government has accelerated its push to annex larger and larger portions of the West Bank in recent years, accompanied by escalating settler violence. The international community and the US, Israel’s biggest ally, has also opposed the bid, with President Donald Trump vowing to “not allow” an annexation.

Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s far-right finance minister and West Bank settler who also holds authority in the Defense Ministry over civilian affairs in the region, is backing the land grab. On Tuesday, he annulled parts of a key 1997 Israeli-Palestinian agreement which gave Hebron Palestinian municipality authority over planning, zoning, and construction in parts of the city.

The push is “creating a fear amongst Palestinians that villages will be cut off from each other, they will be entirely isolated and that would give the Israelis more control over this land,” Dubenskij reported.

With demolitions in West Bank villages increasing in recent years, local Palestinians fear further displacement, fragmentation of the local society, and restrictions on movement.

Walls, roads between Israeli settlements, and IDF checkpoints are expected to accompany the push, crushing the nascent dream of establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Watch RT’s full report from the area:

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s wife, Begona Gomez, will stand trial before a jury on corruption-related charges, EFE news agency reported on Saturday, citing a ruling issued by the investigating judge following preliminary hearings held earlier this week.

Gomez was formally charged in April with embezzlement, influence peddling, corruption in business dealings, and misappropriation of funds.

Prosecutors are reportedly seeking a 24-year prison sentence for the 55-year-old university director, who was also ordered to surrender her passport and appear in court twice a month pending the subsequent proceedings.

Her adviser, Cristina Alvarez, who is accused of similar offenses, and businessman Juan Carlos Barrabes will also stand trial.

The investigation into Gomez was launched in 2024 following a complaint filed by anti-graft campaign group Manos Limpias, whose leader is reportedly linked to Spain’s far right. The organization alleged that Gomez used her position as the prime minister’s wife to influence government contracts given to a group of tech companies.

The scope of the probe later expanded after additional accusations that Gomez misused public funds in the hiring of a consultant and improperly used software while working at Madrid’s Complutense University, where she co-directed an academic chair.

Sanchez, the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, has not been implicated in the case.

However, after the probe became public, he suspended public engagements “for a few days” and said he was considering stepping down, denouncing what he described as a campaign of political and personal harassment against his family. Sanchez later announced that he would remain in office and continue leading the government.

Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero also became the subject of a corruption investigation in May over the alleged misuse of €53 million in state aid granted to Plus Ultra airline in 2021. Earlier this week, a court rejected the request of prosecutors to impose precautionary measures, including the surrender of his passport and a travel ban.

The current joint exercises between Armenia and several NATO member states are being held for purely political purposes, Armenia’s former defense minister Arshak Karapetyan has told RT.

The Eagle Partner annual drills, which began last week and are running through Thursday, are officially intended to prepare troops for international peacekeeping missions. While the exercise involves NATO member states, it is not NATO-led. For the first time since its launch in 2023, it includes not only US troops but also personnel from France and Greece.

Karapetyan, who holds the rank of major general, cited the small scale of the drills, which feature 250 troops from Armenia’s Peacekeeping Brigade and 93 foreign soldiers, to dismiss the exercise as politically motivated rather than militarily significant. For comparison, many routine bilateral exercises between NATO members involve several thousand personnel.

“These military exercises are not for military purposes, they are political. Armenia gains nothing militarily. Politically Armenia has suffered damage, significant political damage on an international level. We essentially have problems today with Russia as a strategic ally,” he told RT.

Moscow has been Yerevan’s principal security partner for decades through bilateral military cooperation, the Russian military presence in Armenia, and the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). In 2024, however, Yerevan froze its participation in the bloc and signaled its intention to leave amid a broader deterioration in relations with Moscow. Since then, the Armenian government has increasingly sought closer ties with NATO member states and the EU.

What’s up with all these performative clowns obsessing over the gender of obvious women? Who exactly are these amateur gynecologists, conducting speculative anatomy audits of high-profile females? They’re nothing like they perceive themselves to be, for starters.

In just the latest example, a bunch of guys oiled themselves up, slipped into some plum-smuggling tights, and met up on the White House lawn to celebrate the birthdays of both America and its current president by slapping and kicking each other in a state of quasi-nudity. At one point, one of the participants – the same one who spit up on himself during his weigh-in like a toddler whose mommy had just spoon-fed him pablum – somehow felt compelled to avail himself of his big moment on the national stage to blurt out that former First Lady, Michelle Obama, was a man.

In a culture where masculinity is both costume and currency, there’s always a market for louder declarations. Why wouldn’t someone so clearly obsessed with the optics of manliness, to the point of making a career out of male-to-male gender-affirmation, have anything else in mind? The manosphere is one continuous audit of who is 'man enough', conducted by men with a perpetual fear of demotion.

Because being a man can’t just be a neutral activity. It has to be virtue-signaled, shouted into microphones, and ideally monetized. Particularly in this age of rampant cross-dressing and transsexualism, where a dude is even capable of tricking another one into thinking that he’s a woman, and the zeitgeist is similarly filled with women who have transformed into men.

But you can’t fool the manosphere! They’re gatekeeping and gender-policing even the most obvious cases. They’re the mall cops of gender identity, slamming everyone into the ground upon the slightest suspicion. And while they’re at it, they’re going to take down by a few pegs any uppity beeotches who might be so inclined to just walk on by this cultural car crash en route to something more worthy of her time. Because these days, unless women are pumping fillers and Botox into their faces and telegraphing their attempt to center these same men by clinging to their very narrow definition of femininity, then they’re a threat.

A growing number of women have checked out from all that. They’re busy living lives as complete human beings, which turns out to be a full-time occupation. It’s only relatively recently that women have started being taken seriously in certain sectors that were once effectively reserved for men. I speak from experience as someone who was told in the 1990s by a veteran journalist and professor that no one would ever care about my political opinions as a young woman – before ignoring him and winding up as the co-host of a national US TV talk show out of NYC just a few years later.

Politics was a man’s domain. Political media even more so. Women wrote about lifestyle or the home, if anything – preferably in a tone that suggested gratitude for the opportunity to be ignored. Second-wave feminist icon Gloria Steinem said in a 1974 interview that when she was first allowed to write for a magazine (women were typically relegated to research), she was told that she wrote like a man – and took it as a compliment. The standard was male, and when women meet that standard, calling her a man or masculine protects male authority and opportunity while removing a woman from the traditionally feminine sphere who risks polluting it.

Any woman who strays into the man’s conventional domain is a competitive threat. Whether conscious or not, attempting to deprive these women of their femininity – up to and including the more recent blatant attempt to pin gratuitous phalluses on them – is less about anatomy than hierarchy. If you can’t outmatch a woman, then you can at least give un-womaning her a go.

Notice that it’s not the cool guys doing it. Dave Portnoy, the self-made Founder of Barstool Sports, a Trump voter who parades his adopted female pitbull, Miss Peaches, around in dresses, has pointed out how idiotic the Michelle Obama comments were. Turns out that a man in a baseball cap with a dog in couture is the voice of reason here, denouncing the clowns playing dress-up.

It’s not surprising that some of these influencers who, despite costly legal proceedings against them, can’t seem to bring themselves to shut up about Brigitte – a mother of three – pump out kids themselves like jackrabbits. How embarrassing would it be to have personally birthed even fewer kids than the woman who you’re trying to convince the world is a dude?

Ultimately, these dynamics are better understood as expressions of status competition and attention economics than as inquiries into identity. Those indulging in it rarely operate within the broader public reality for which they claim to speak.

Most people going about ordinary routines are hardly aware of their existence, with their influence concentrated within algorithm-driven spaces where engagement and outrage substitute for broader legitimacy and visibility for significance. When they do pop up outside of those channels, they’re laughed back into the narrower ecosystems that sustain them. The result is a closed feedback loop that amplifies its own narratives while detaching from reality and doing absolutely nothing to deliver real counterclaims and counterculture blows against established authority.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s recent ultimatum to Belarus is part of Kiev’s PR campaign to project strength despite setbacks on the battlefield, Belarusian MP Vadim Gigin told RT. He added that Ukraine’s terrorist attacks have the same objective.

Earlier this week, the Ukrainian leader threatened Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko with military action if Minsk does not dismantle the air defense radar array along its southern border. The threats came days after a deadly Ukrainian drone strike on a bus carrying a Belarusian youth soccer team in Bryansk Region, Russia.

“This kind of loutish rhetoric in politics is... part of the PR war, part of the line of psychological warfare being waged by the Kiev regime, evidently with the support of the European Union,” Gigin said on Saturday in an interview with RT.

“They need to create the impression of strength,” he said. “If they cannot achieve that on the battlefield – where the situation is... quite the opposite – they seek to do so through information and psychological pressure on neighboring countries, through terrorist attacks deep inside Russia, and through attempts to influence Russian and Belarusian society.”

“Backed by – and often encouraged by – European leaders, Zelensky has been doing everything possible to demonstrate that he does, in fact, have cards to play,” Gigin said, adding that “these latest harsh statements came immediately after the G7 summit and on the eve of the European Union summit.”

He went on to say that Kiev’s rhetoric has grown increasingly brazen in recent months, pointing to Zelensky’s public appeal to Russian President Vladimir Putin, attacks on former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and the controversy surrounding Kiev’s glorification of Nazis and Nazi collaborators as examples.

No tolls would be charged for transit through the Strait of Hormuz during or after the 60-day ceasefire period agreed by Washington and Tehran, unless they are levied by the United States itself, US President Donald Trump has stated.

The remarks came as US and Iranian delegations were preparing to meet in Switzerland on Sunday for negotiations aimed at turning the interim agreement into a broader settlement covering regional security issues and Iran’s nuclear program.

“There will be NO TOLLS in the Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the Cease Fire Period, and there will be NO TOLLS after the 60 day period has expired, unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

The statement appeared to reject Tehran’s reported proposal to charge ships for transit, insurance, navigation, or other maritime services after the current negotiating period expires. Reports earlier in the crisis claimed that some vessels had already been required to make payments under wartime traffic-control measures.

A clause in the memorandum of understanding, published by Fars news agency, appears to give Iran a formal role in shaping the post-ceasefire regime in the Strait of Hormuz. The text states that Tehran will consult with Oman on the “future administration and maritime services” in the waterway and exchange views with other Gulf littoral states.

The Strait of Hormuz has become a key issue in the talks because the interim understanding reopened the waterway for the duration of the talks. The route handles roughly a fifth of global petroleum consumption and remains the world’s most important oil-shipping chokepoint, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Recently George Floyd’s brother showed off his new diamond encrusted gold medallion with George’s face on it worth about $45,000. He claimed that it immortalized Floyd’s legacy.

Many commenters were doubtful if that was the best way to express feelings and asked whether the medallion had been paid for with donations to Floyd’s family.

Посмотреть эту публикацию в Instagram

Публикация от Northern Provisions (@northernprovisions)

Today, the struggle for minority rights in the US may look chaotic, strange, and even bizarre. But in fact, it wasn’t that different in the 20th century – that idealized era of famous orators and revolutionaries, as well as now-forgotten riots and strange political projects. 

Moreover, we tend to forget that when it comes to minority rights, no other developed nation has faced the same challenges as the US. 

At the time of the start of the Black Power movement, the situation with racial equality in the US was, for lack of a better word, confusing. African Americans, like everyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” had been considered full-fledged American citizens since July 9, 1868, when the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was adopted. Technically, at that point the debate over the rights of African Americans was over.

At the same time, however, the Jim Crow laws – a collection of statutes which discriminated against African Americans – remained in effect in many states. These laws were named after the minstrel song ‘Jump Jim Crow’ which mocked African Americans. The social segregation laws ranged from requiring African Americans to sit in designated rear sections of buses and trains to bans on interracial marriages.

These laws were primarily in effect in the South and Southeast: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. But some of the laws were also in effect in other states, like Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and California.

African Americans also frequently met with informal discrimination. For example, they were often denied access to skilled professions, admission to universities, and, most importantly, mortgages. Many banks also practiced “redlining”: neighborhoods with large black populations were considered high or “red” risk, even if they were peaceful and prosperous. Therefore, the lenders refused to issue loans to residents of these areas. At this time, housing prices began to rise, making it nearly impossible to improve living conditions without getting a mortgage.

In fact, these informal, unwritten restrictions were even worse than the Jim Crow laws. They not only isolated African Americans from society but also prevented them from improving their situation. But if anyone pointed out this injustice, skeptics could respond that there were no official laws against African Americans that prevented them from taking out loans or voting. On paper, they were free and full-fledged citizens, but in practice, things were different.

In 1964, a Harlem resident got into a conflict with a group of black schoolchildren. 15-year-old African American Jerome Powell was shot and killed by police in front of his friends and about a dozen witnesses. A police officer claimed Powell had lunged at him with a knife, while other witnesses claimed the teenager had actually surrendered. On June 16, the riots, later known as the Harlem Riots, began. Approximately 4,000 people participated in them. Ultimately, one person was killed, 118 were injured, and 465 were arrested.

The situation culminated in nationwide riots in April 1968 after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. There were pogroms, lootings, fires, and shootouts in cities across the US. In Chicago alone, 11 people were killed and more than 500 injured.

Then-US President Lyndon B. Johnson was somewhat understanding of the rioters and said, “When you put your foot on a man’s neck and hold him down for three hundred years, and then you let him up, what’s he going to do? He’s going to knock your block off.” However, he had no plans to negotiate with the rioters and was unable to allocate significant resources for social assistance, since the authorities were preoccupied with the Vietnam War.

Johnson authorized the army to suppress the riots and condemned all those who broke the law. His successor, Richard Nixon, maintained a hardline policy against black activists and their allies. US authorities had long viewed Black Power with suspicion, and sometimes even hostility.

Soft power and revolutionaries

Sixty years ago, on July 16, 1966 (exactly two years after the death of Jerome Powell) activist Kwame Ture (better known as Stokely Carmichael) delivered a speech outlining the ideas that he had united under the slogan ‘Black power’. 

“It is a call for black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, to build a sense of community. It is a call for black people to define their own goals, to lead their own organizations,” Carmichael said.

His speech was the culmination of the March Against Fear, in the course of which participants marched from Memphis, Tennessee, to Jackson, Mississippi to protest racism in the South and restrictions on their voting rights. As a result, thousands of African Americans were registered to vote. This was not a spontaneous action, but the result of arduous work.

While some participated in the riots, others established dozens of organizations to fight for the rights of minorities: from student councils to human rights groups. Most of the organizations consisted of passionate enthusiasts who organized peaceful protests, managed media support, and demanded de facto equality.

One niche group, the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR), was responsible for one of the movement’s most famous symbols. At the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, African American Tommie Smith won the 200-meter race, setting a new record of 19.83 seconds.

At the awards ceremony, he and bronze medalist John Carlos stood barefoot, with heads bowed and black gloves raised in a gesture of solidarity with the fight for black rights. Australian Peter Norman, a white athlete who won the silver medal, wore an OPHR badge to the ceremony as a sign of solidarity.

Smith and Carlos’ gesture drew criticism from politicians and Olympic officials, but they were the ones who showed the ‘humane’ face of the protest movement. 

Some organizations, however, were not satisfied and wanted more. Ideas were voiced about creating an independent black state, where African Americans could create their own institutions and ensure social justice. This state was supposed to be established on the territory of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi – the US government was supposed to transfer these states as reparations for slavery and ‘oppression’.

The Nation of Islam, an eccentric organization of black Muslims, particularly advocated for separation from the United States. It was popular for a while, largely thanks to Malcolm X. But following his departure from the organization, it lost followers and delved deeper into esotericism.

The Black Power movement also gave birth to revolutionary organizations which carried out bombings and shootouts with the police. As a result of their terrorist actions, about 100 people died. 

It is difficult to say what proved more effective in the fight for the rights of African Americans: the peaceful protests, the threats of the revolutionaries, or simply the passage of time. But over time, most of the demands of Black Power supporters were fulfilled: by the end of the '60s, Jim Crow laws and restrictions in schools and cities were abolished, and anti-discriminatory laws were introduced. The overall culture also changed and became more inclusive.

Failed export

By the '60s, the US was already actively exporting culture and ideas to Europe. Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that the vivid and highly idealized image of the struggle for minority rights had reached young people “across the pond.”

Protest culture grew and tensions increased. Finally, it spilled out onto the streets. On August 9, 1970, the Mangrove Protest occurred in London – a mass demonstration of activists outraged by police harassment of the local Afro-Caribbean community. The riot resulted in clashes and was followed by a high-profile trial.

And then... silence. Of course, in the UK, France, and other European countries, racism and equality were important issues: the flow of migrants from the colonies was increasing, and their integration became a pressing issue. But there were hardly any protests or riots.

There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the fight for racial equality was largely integrated into the protests which socialists, liberals, and students organized against the policies of Margaret Thatcher, Charles de Gaulle and other conservative leaders. Therefore, the rights of minorities never became such a big social issue as in the US.

Secondly, in Europe, minorities became a truly noticeable group of the population only in the '60s, after the first waves of migration from the colonies. By this time, liberal ideas had already taken root in society and the government, so building a tolerant society was relatively simple.

Moreover, many countries – especially Spain, Russia and the Asian countries – had been ethnically and religiously diverse for a long time. They first encountered the issue of integrating “other-minded people” into society hundreds of years ago, so with newcomers, this process was a lot easier. 

But in no First World country have the rights of minorities caused such disruption and violence or captured the attention of politicians and society for years. The US is the only developed country that has had to deal with such issues. Similar situations have only occurred in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia.

For a while, it seemed as if Americans had resolved the minority rights issue. But recent events show that this is still a long way off.

Ukrainian officials protesting Warsaw’s revocation of Vladimir Zelensky’s state honor should also return the military equipment supplied by Poland, including MiG fighter jets and tanks, former Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller has said.

“Since everyone is so eager to return what they received, let them return the MiGs they received, the tanks, and the weapons,” Miller said on Polsat News’ ‘Presidents and Prime Ministers’ on Saturday.

Miller, who served as prime minister from 2001 to 2004 and oversaw the country’s accession to the EU in 2004, was commenting on a growing diplomatic row between Warsaw and Kiev.

Former Ukrainian presidents Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yushchenko, and Pyotr Poroshenko, Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga, intelligence chief Kirill Budanov, and other senior officials announced they were returning Polish state awards in solidarity with Zelensky.

The move came after Polish President Karol Nawrocki revoked Zelensky’s Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor, on Friday.

Miller’s remarks referenced the military assistance Poland has provided to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022. Warsaw has been one of Kiev’s strongest military backers, supplying MiG-29 fighter jets, Mi-24 helicopters, tanks, artillery systems, armored vehicles, and ammunition. It has also served as a key logistical hub for Western military assistance.

Remember Taurusgate? When several German officers, including its former air force head, were caught making insane and childish plans for plastering Russia with German missiles but from Ukraine? That and the amateurish manner in which these grand strategists in prankster mode let themselves be caught were daft as well as sadly comical. But lessons have not been learned, even if the German Air Force is now under new management.

Recently, its new commander-in-chief gave a combative and intriguingly ill-considered, even jejune interview. Speaking to Britain’s Telegraph, General Holger Neumann released several inflammatory statements. The one that has found most attention was his proud claim that his pilots stand ready not merely to fight Russia at a moment’s notice, but to strike with immediate, large-scale, and – he assumes with that special German military optimism some call fatal arrogance – devastating operations.

Neumann, who has a Lego model of Luke Skywalker’s helmet in his office and has admitted that Star Wars was among the things that made him want to be a fighter pilot, is likely to fantasize about taking out a Death Star or two singlehandedly. But stuck in the real world, his dream targets, he let the Telegraph readers know, include the Black Sea area, the Kola Peninsula, the Kaliningrad exclave, St. Petersburg, and Moscow. That is, places whose military and political importance would make rapid and severe Russian retaliation inevitable.

Neumann did hedge a little: Before presenting his brilliant idea for taking Germany from initial hostilities – however remote (say, in Estonia), however small (“every inch,” in former US President Joe Biden’s, words which Neumann parroted) – to total, possibly nuclear, war in the blink of an eye, the air force chief offered the usual disclaimer: All of this would only happen in case of a Russian attack on NATO.

And as we learn in political science or international relations 101 – except wherever they train Germany’s top brass – there is also such a thing as a security dilemma: What one side may feel is merely arming itself for defense, its potential opponent may easily perceive as preparations for attack. But in this regard, let’s not blame Neumann individually: The obstinate refusal to see one’s own near-hysterical and also ruinous armament drive from the other side’s point of view is not one German officer’s bug but a Berlin feature now.

More specifically, Neumann went out of his way to make his input as reckless and incendiary as he possibly could. Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the head of the German air force had said something simple and perfectly sufficient, such as “Germany is a member of NATO, and the German air force stands ready to fulfill our obligations toward our allies.”

Hearing this statement, you may well disagree or even be dismayed. I, for one, believe it’s high time Germany left NATO. NATO, after all, is an organization dominated by the US, while the latter is both rabidly aggressive (see under ‘Iran’) and in obvious decline (see also under ‘Iran’). Quite apart from the fact that it was NATO’s predictably explosive and unnecessary expansion that provoked the Ukraine conflict and the not-really-minor detail that Berlin’s NATO ‘allies’ blow up German infrastructure with the help of Ukrainian terrorist commandos.

Yet the real problem with Neumann’s statement, what makes it truly disturbing, is its excessiveness. A German officer saying Germany would fulfil existing obligations? Even if you don’t like those – NATO – obligations, that’s no biggie, really. Indeed, that would be a military officer staying in his lane and leaving politics to the politicians.

Understanding the treaty as actually written and signed does not mean to be naive: Of course, NATO’s planning is all geared toward fighting. But it remains a fact that even this single-mindedness has a flimsier basis in the treaty than many realize.

Things get worse for Neumann once we set aside the fact that there is no military automatism in the NATO treaty. Let’s assume a conflict has started and a military option is what is desired, rightly or, much more likely, wrongly. Then the pertinent questions for responsible adults would be what kind of action, on what scale, to what precise purpose at that specific moment? Last but not least, are there limited military options that preserve the possibility of turning to negotiations quickly?

Yet where others would be careful not to rush up what is often called the ‘escalation ladder’ and would really be, in this case, a nuclear death spiral, Germany’s top air force officer can’t wait to reach the end or be bothered to take a breather to think.

Instead, Neumann is proud to be ready to “fight tonight” (a daft, embarrassing slogan currently in fashion among NATO’s Germans) with “everything we have.” In other words, all-in from the get-go; from 0 to 100 in one second; from very-bad-already to irreversible catastrophe, indeed possible annihilation faster than you can say ‘jawohl!’ This kind of talk betrays an insane, reckless eagerness and great immaturity. And not only that of Neumann but of his boss, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, official Berlin, and all too many in NATO-EU Europe’s elites as well.

Neumann’s lack of circumspection – to put it mildly – was also reflected in his choosing the eve of the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union to speak his one-track mind. Or was that shameful timing deliberate? All the worse again in that case.

Unfortunately, Neumann represents the current German leadership and media mainstream, politically and psychologically, in its shortsightedness, belligerence, and what appears to be sheer hatred of Russia.

The obvious question must be asked: Has the Ukraine conflict become a pretext for those German politicians and military officers who want, consciously or not, revenge for being beaten so badly in 1945?

Not all is gloom. There also is open resistance to Neumann’s intervention and the high-risk-low-reflection militarism it stands for. In party politics, that opposition comes from the left and right challengers to Germany’s version of ‘radical Centrism’. On the left, one of the BSW’s (Buendnis Sarah Wagenknecht) foreign policy heavyweights has led the charge. On the right, one of the co-leaders of the AfD party has sharply criticized Neumann’s “war threats” and called on Pistorius to distance himself from them. Consider that the AfD is leading in the polls, while it is extremely probable that the BSW is not currently in the Bundestag parliament only because of a series of highly suspicious ‘miscounts’ and it is clear that their objections matter and will matter even more.

Importantly, some former high-ranking officers are also publicly contradicting the gung-ho course. The former head of the German Navy, Admiral Kay-Achim Schoenbach – axed four years ago over heretically sensible statements about Russia – has called for restoring diplomacy and warned that Germany could end up sleepwalking into a conflict.

Yet for now, Germany is stuck with its new militarism. For how much longer – that is a question that may turn out to be vital for the nation.

A woman was killed and several other people were wounded in a knife attack in the southern Russian city of Krasnodar, according to investigators.

The incident occurred at the West Mall shopping center on Zapadny Obkhod Street on Saturday. A 19-year-old suspect was detained at the scene.

“A 41-year-old woman died from her injuries, while several other people sustained stab wounds,” the Russian Investigative Committee said in a statement.

Police received reports from witnesses at around 2:00 PM local time that a young man was behaving aggressively and attacking people inside the complex, Interior Ministry spokeswoman Irina Volk said. Five people were reportedly injured, including a security guard.

A pyrotechnic device was thrown into an area housing a children’s entertainment center, triggering the fire alarm. No injuries were reported as a result, according to Volk.

The agency also released a video showing the suspect being questioned and confessing, saying: “Yes, I admit it. I repent.”

In the video, the man said no one promised him a reward for the assault, but that he wanted to take his own life.

Officials said forensic medical, psychiatric, and cold-weapon examinations were ordered while investigators continue to work to establish a motive.

The regional prosecutor’s office launched a review. Investigative Committee Chairman Aleksandr Bastrykin requested a report on the progress of the case and placed the inquiry under central oversight.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer could announce plans to step down as early as next week amid collapsing support within the Labour Party, The Telegraph reported on Saturday, citing government officials.

Calls for Starmer’s resignation have grown since Labour lost nearly 1,500 seats in local elections in May. The pressure escalated after Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham secured a decisive victory in Thursday’s Makerfield by-election. Burnham is said to have the backing of close to 300 Labour MPs, prompting allies to predict an uncontested transfer of power.

According to a senior government official cited by the outlet, there has been “quite a bit of movement” among cabinet ministers since Burnham’s by-election victory, prompting Starmer to realize that the “game is up” and focus on how to “shore up his legacy.”

One Labour MP, previously loyal to Starmer, told The Telegraph that the prime minister could announce his departure as soon as Monday, claiming that his support among Labour MPs has dropped to only a handful of “friends and family.”

Another government source predicted that “something will have happened by the end of the week,” warning that if Starmer refuses to step down, Labour could enter “mass resignation territory.”

A former MP who had backed Starmer as recently as last month described him as “a goner,” arguing that Burnham was better placed to build a broad coalition ahead of the next general election.

Starmer became prime minister after leading Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election. His popularity has since slumped amid the cost-of-living crisis and fallout from the UK rape gangs scandal. A mid-June YouGov poll put his approval rating at 18%, with 74% of Britons viewing his premiership negatively.

Downing Street has rejected suggestions that the prime minister is preparing to resign, insisting that he stood by his vow on Friday to resist any challenge and arguing that a leadership battle would “plunge us into chaos.”

US President Donald Trump has doubled down on his claim that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni sought a photo op with him to get her “numbers up” after refusing to support the US in its war with Iran.

The latest exchange follows a dispute sparked by comments Trump made in a phone interview with Italian broadcaster La7 on Friday, in which the US president claimed Meloni “begged” him for a photo during the G7 summit in Evian, France and suggested he agreed “out of pity.”

The Italian prime minister called the account “completely fabricated,” but in a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump reiterated his claim that Meloni asked “over and over” for a picture with him.

Meloni replied that “being your friend has certainly not helped me,” insisting that her standing at home depends solely on her “ability to defend Italy’s national interests.”

Earlier this year, Italy refused permission for US military aircraft to land at Sigonella airbase in Sicily on their way to the Middle East, arguing that the mission fell outside bilateral agreements. Meloni said the pre-agreed limits on US logistical use of Italian bases “cannot be violated” while she remains prime minister.

“Italy is still a sovereign nation,” Meloni stressed, adding: “My popularity is none of your business. I’d suggest you focus on yours.”

Relations have deteriorated in recent months, however, amid disagreements over Iran and Meloni’s defense of Pope Leo XIV after Trump criticized the pontiff over his opposition to the conflict.

The public clash came just days after the two leaders appeared to patch up months of disagreements on the sidelines of the G7 summit.

Thousands of Brazilians in a number of states were shocked and puzzled by emergency alerts sent to their cell phones in the middle of the night, some containing gibberish while others warned them to brace for an imminent alien attack.

The false alarms were sent between Friday night and early Saturday morning through Brazil’s Civil Defense Alert platform, a system normally reserved for serious warnings about floods, landslides, storms, and other emergencies.

People in several cities were awakened by ‘extreme alert’ notifications containing the word ‘misanthropy’ – meaning hatred or distrust of humanity – while others received messages that sounded less like public safety advice and more like the opening scene of a low-budget sci-fi film.

Em Belo Horizonte, complementaram como “Ataque Alienígena” pic.twitter.com/1rml1Gzf8u

— Vanessa Alves (@Vanessa22820272) June 20, 2026

“Protect yourself: ALIEN ATTACK. Humans, we have arrived,” read the message received by some residents of Belo Horizonte, the capital of Minas Gerais state, according to G1 Globo. Another version warned of a supposed tornado in the metropolitan region.

"Alien attack. People, we have arrived" - such a warning from the Brazilian Ministry of Defense woke up millions of people. pic.twitter.com/drgZiODcYV

— S p r i n t e r (@SprinterPress) June 20, 2026

There was, officials later clarified, no alien invasion. The real emergency, according to the National Civil Defense, was much more earthly: The alert platform had apparently been compromised.

NOTA OFICIAL

A plataforma de envio do Defesa Civil Alerta foi tirada do ar às 1h30 da madrugada deste sábado (20/6), após ter sofrido uma invasão e disparado um alerta para diversas regiões do país, ordenado remotamente por alguém alheio ao Sistema Nacional de Proteção e Defesa… pic.twitter.com/0YYXk3yIJW

— Defesa Civil Nacional (@defesacivilbr) June 20, 2026

The agency said the system was taken offline at 1:30 AM on Saturday after an unauthorized third party remotely triggered alerts to several regions of the country. The Federal Police launched a probe, as technicians work to restore the platform.

For many Brazilians, the first response was not concern but memes. Others were less amused, noting that the same alert system is supposed to warn people of real disasters and that a false ‘extreme’ message in the middle of the night could easily cause panic.

The incident came at an awkwardly cosmic moment. Just days earlier, the Pentagon released another batch of declassified files on unidentified anomalous phenomena, the official term for UFOs, including witness accounts, photos, and videos of unexplained objects.

That release, however, came with the usual caveat that unexplained does not mean extraterrestrial. The Pentagon has maintained that the material contains no confirmed evidence of alien life, alien technology, or a government cover-up.

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz remains tense following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, as the countries’ delegations descend on Switzerland for follow-up discussions.

Commercial shipping through the key waterway was disrupted after the US-Israeli attack against Iran in February, and reopening it was one of the key points of the memorandum signed by US President Donald Trump on Wednesday. Washington promised to lift its own blockade of Iranian ports, while Tehran will gradually “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels.”

Trump touted the preliminary deal as an “immediate reopening,” announcing that “the oil is flowing” after the first tankers sailed through – before Iran claimed that it shut down the waterway again.

What does Iran say?

Iran accused the US of failing to fulfill its commitments and force Israel to stop its “crimes” in Lebanon. The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters military command announced on Saturday that “the Strait of Hormuz is closed,” while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned vessels against approaching the waterway, saying their safety would be “jeopardized.”

What does the US say?

US Vice President J.D. Vance denied that traffic through the strait was interrupted, insisting that “we actually got 16 million barrels of oil out of the Strait of Hormuz yesterday.” In an interview with Fox on Saturday, Vance called it “a record going back to even before the conflict started.”

US Central Command stated that “commercial ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz increased June 20,” while US forces continue to operate in the area. According to CENTCOM data, safe passage through the waterway “remained intact,” and at least 55 merchant vessels passed through as of Saturday.

What is actually happening?

Dozens of vessels, including three Saudi oil supertankers and five sanctioned Iranian ships, have moved through the waterway in recent days, according to data analytics company Kpler, which noted that most were “following established Iranian route patterns.”

Hormuz traffic shows recovery

Verified Strait of Hormuz crossings reached 25 on 18 June, marking a notable increase in daily maritime activity. Traffic was evenly distributed across both directions, with most vessels following established Iranian route patterns. Five sanctioned… pic.twitter.com/kqnil079nf

— Kpler (@Kpler) June 19, 2026

Some commercial vessels continued to pass through the strait as of Saturday evening, according to the MarineTraffic monitoring website. The number of tankers sailing through the waterway peaked at 25 on Thursday, but reportedly fell to single digits on Friday.

Are US-Iran talks in jeopardy?

Washington and Tehran are expected to reach a final settlement on remaining disputes, including Iran’s nuclear program, within a 60-day negotiating period, but the first round of talks was postponed. Vance eventually departed for Switzerland on Saturday, and Trump’s special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, are also expected to take part in the talks, which are now planned for Sunday.

Tehran agreed to the Swiss meeting primarily to clarify how the US plans to fulfill its commitments under the memorandum, according to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei.

“Ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon” is a key pillar of the mutual understanding, he said, adding that the memorandum is a “single package” and that a violation of any provision calls the entire agreement into question.

What triggered Iran’s backlash?

Israel has continued bombing Lebanon despite the US-Iran agreement, while Hezbollah has reportedly clashed with IDF troops occupying southern parts of the country since March.

The US-Iran memorandum explicitly calls for a cessation of all hostilities by the signatories and their allies, and for “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”

After mediation by the US and Qatar, the sides reportedly agreed to halt the hostilities, although neither Hezbollah nor Israel officially confirmed the deal, and open-source intelligence monitors said sporadic exchanges of fire and Israeli strikes in Lebanon continued.

What is Israel’s stance on the US-Iran deal?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that Israeli troops will remain in southern Lebanon for as long as Israel deems necessary, while the IDF has published a new map showing an occupied area extending around 10 km into Lebanese territory. Hardline National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said Israel will not be bound by “Trump’s agreement,” writing on X: “All of Lebanon should burn!”

Under pressure from Washington, Netanyahu reportedly instructed the IDF to stay put but “hold its fire,” Channel 12 reported on Saturday, but the military reserves the right to respond to attacks.

“You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” Vance said, addressing Ben-Gvir and other Israeli officials.

US intelligence officials believe that Israel will likely attempt to undermine the peace process, the Washington Post reported this week, claiming that Netanyahu could bet his political survival on escalating the conflict with Hezbollah ahead of the election this autumn.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had negotiated a much-touted rare earth minerals deal with Kiev, was reportedly worried that the “little f**ker” Vladimir Zelensky would mess up the signing ceremony in the Oval Office, according to a new book by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan.

The infamous confrontation last year took place as the Ukrainian leader sat down with US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance to finalize a deal granting the US access to Ukraine’s mineral resources.

The televised press conference took a nasty turn when Zelensky criticized Trump’s efforts to mediate a settlement with Moscow rather than increase military support for Kiev.

The Treasury secretary spent weeks preparing the deal and traveled to Kiev, where he reportedly engaged in his own shouting match with Zelensky over the “awful” Ukrainian draft, at one point telling him: “What the f**k do you want to do?”

Several other Trump aides were also worried about a potential Oval Office scandal, with then-National Security Adviser Mike Waltz desperately urging Zelensky to at least “come wearing a suit.”

At least 13 people were injured in a suspected drive-by shooting that targeted a holiday crowd in Chicago on Friday night, CBS News has reported.

The incident took place on Juneteenth, a holiday that celebrates the end of slavery in the US.

At around 11 PM, a red SUV drove up to a large group of people in Roseland on the city’s South Side, and two people inside began shooting into the crowd, Chicago Police said, according to CBS News.

A 26-year-old woman in critical condition is being treated at the University of Chicago Hospital, it added.

95th & Princeton #MASS #SHOOTING #UPDATE
12 PPL SHOT!!! 💥💥

Chicago Police are investigating a #Mass #Shooting that left 12 ppl wounded at a large gathering late last night.

The shooting occurred around 11:00pm, Officers responded to multiple calls of several ppl shot. When… https://t.co/I4bwUxwXwR pic.twitter.com/WhhW1yTw74

— Chitown_Crime_Chasers (@CCC_CrimeChaser) June 20, 2026

Detectives are investigating, CBS said.

At least four people have been killed and at least nine others injured in separate shootings across the city since Friday night, ABC 7 Chicago reported.

Vladimir Zelensky broke Poland’s “pain threshold” when he named a commando unit after a Ukrainian nationalist group implicated in the World War II killings of tens of thousands of Poles, Polish President Karol Nawrocki said on Saturday.

The decision sparked outrage in Poland, where the massacres remain an open wound. Despite pressure from Warsaw to rename the unit, the Ukrainian leader has refused.

“We are a proud Polish nation and we have our threshold of pain in matters that concern us and our allies. And that pain threshold has been crossed,” the Polish president said at a rally in northeastern Poland on Saturday. He added that this was why he stripped Zelensky of Poland’s highest state honor, the Order of the White Eagle, on Friday.

The UPA brutally and savagely massacred at least 100,000 Polish civilians in what is now western Ukraine during World War II, with the crimes being recognized as genocide by Warsaw, Nawrocki recalled on Friday.

Russian presidential investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev reacted to Warsaw’s move with dark irony.

“Poland finally discovers Nazi sympathizers in Ukraine,” he wrote on X on Friday.

Moscow has long warned that Kiev’s glorification of Nazis and Nazi collaborators is an open secret and has cited denazification of the country as one of its key goals in the conflict.

Five men have been injured in a series of suspected anti-Muslim attacks in Edinburgh after an armed man was seen moving through the city, according to police and local media reports.

A 36-year-old white man has been arrested following what Police Scotland described as a “fast-moving sequence of events” on Friday night. Counter-terrorism officers have joined local police in the investigation, according to the BBC.

The attacks reportedly began near a mosque in Broomhouse, in the west of the city, where two men were injured and taken to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. Three other men were attacked on Telford Road and Leith Walk, police said, adding that “there is no further risk to the public.” 

Footage circulating on social media appeared to show a bare-chested man carrying a large weapon and causing damage at several locations. 

BREAKING NEWS: Counter Terrorism Police have launched an investigation after five people were stabbed in Edinburgh. A 36-year-old white Scottish man has been arrested in connection with the incident.

According to authorities, the suspect allegedly made a statement following his… pic.twitter.com/UDMNLECiDv

— DOZA🧐 (@lil_doza) June 20, 2026

According to media reports, after the arrest the man said he was “protecting the country from these f***ing Muslim bastards raping our young daughters.” 

The attacks came against the backdrop of a report released by Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe that revealed predominantly Pakistani men had raped and abused large numbers of mostly white British girls across almost half of the UK’s municipalities over several decades. The findings triggered a nationwide backlash and reignited debate over immigration, policing and the authorities’ handling of child sexual exploitation cases.

#BREAKING: Scottish man arrested after stabbing five people in Edinburgh; says he was “protecting the country” from Muslims “raping our young daughters.” pic.twitter.com/EmYsakE53B

— Insider (World News) (@InsiderWN) June 20, 2026

Assistant Chief Constable Catriona Paton called the incident a “shocking attack” and said there was “no place for racism or faith-based hate in Scotland.”

MEND Scotland, a Muslim engagement group, said several of the victims were from the Muslim community.

Scottish First Minister John Swinney also commented, saying that he was “deeply concerned” and that there was “no place for violence, racism or intolerance” in the country.

UK police have released a man on bail who allegedly threw a toddler into a zoo crocodile enclosure, after he was “assessed as not being fit for interview,” the Cambridgeshire Constabulary said in a press release on Friday.

The incident took place at the Johnsons of Old Hurst zoo in Cambridgeshire on Thursday. The three-year-old boy was visiting the crocodile enclosure with his family when the suspect allegedly threw him over a four-foot fence and into the enclosure, where he fell more than 12 feet and landed among the reptiles.

The zoo owner’s wife, Tracey Johnson, reportedly leapt in after the child, and pulled him out of the enclosure.

“She’d always put her own life at risk to save someone else. She’s an extraordinary lady and very brave,” the BBC cited National Centre For Reptile Welfare director Chris Newman as saying.

The alleged perpetrator, described as “a 30-year-old man from Norfolk” was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder but later bailed out after being assessed as not “fit for interview,” the police said. The man has “learning difficulties,” according to The Sun.

“Imagine living in a country where you go straight to jail for a tweet, but get bail after being arrested for ‘allegedly’ throwing a 3 year old baby into a crocodile enclosure!” one X user wrote.

The UK’s Labour government has faced accusations of ‘two-tier’ policing since the 2024 Southport riots, when hundreds were arrested for online posts – while criminals were given early releases to make room in prisons for the new arrivals.

The UK’s ruling Labour Party could plunge itself and the whole country into a “disaster,” MPs and political commentators are warning, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer stubbornly defying calls from within his own party to quit.

Labour’s leadership crisis came to a head this week when former Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham won Thursday’s Makerfield by-election, securing 55% of the vote. Now the party’s MPs expect him to challenge Starmer within weeks if not days, with many Labour Party members openly treating the prime minister as a lame duck and stating they want him gone.

Lord Charles Falconer, a Labour peer and a former justice secretary in Tony Blair’s government, weighed in on the issue on Saturday, stating that Starmer has “absolutely no authority.”

Labour MPs Zubir Ahmed and Peter Swallow also told BBC they wanted to see a new prime minister within weeks. According to the Telegraph, a total of 104 members of Starmer’s own party are demanding he set a timetable for his resignation.

Starmer himself and his supporters within Labour appear to be indifferent to those calls. An internal memo penned by the prime minister’s backers and obtained by the Guardian reportedly maintained Burnham would lose his support as soon as he entered the leadership contest and faced “real scrutiny.” Starmer himself also stated on Friday he would contest any leadership challenge.

“The unpopularity of the government stems from the threats to welfare benefits, stems from the continuing austerity and is deeply unpopular for a lot of other policies, particularly its rather draconian attacks on rights of assembly and freedom of speech,” he told Sky News.

His words were echoed by Charles Moore, a former editor of The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, and The Sunday Telegraph, who is now a member of the House of Lords. In a piece for The Telegraph, Moore argued that Labour could be heading straight towards a disaster with what he called the Burnham coup, dragging the country along with it.

“For most of this century, most of our governing politicians – Labour and Conservative… have failed to analyze what is wrong. If Labour thinks it will be put right just by changing the leader in palace coups, that failure will continue,” he wrote.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s trip to Moscow and Kazan earlier this week came at a moment when much of the West, blinded by its own destructive ideology and political course, has all but given up on talking to Russia and still appears to cling to the illusion of inflicting a strategic defeat on the country, and it sent a clear signal that Ankara hasn’t.

The Ukraine conflict still dominates global diplomacy, the Black Sea has turned into one of the more dangerous patches of water on the map, and plenty of the old channels to Russia are either frozen or being deliberately starved of oxygen. Against that backdrop, Türkiye’s decision to keep the line open looks less like stubbornness and more like good sense. Plenty of countries talk about wanting stability in this part of the world. Far fewer are actually willing to pick up the phone or do the unglamorous work of staying in the room with people they disagree with, and that’s really what makes this trip worth a closer look rather than a passing mention in a wire report.

The trip had two distinct chapters, one in Moscow and one in Kazan, and together they gave the visit both substance and political heft. It’s worth taking them one at a time, because each did something different, and the combination is more interesting than either half on its own.

Moscow: Working through the hard questions

In Moscow, Fidan sat down with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for talks that covered the full sweep of the relationship, from the Ukraine conflict to Black Sea security, freedom of navigation, civilian infrastructure and the simmering situation in the South Caucasus. Nobody walked away from those meetings pretending the disagreements had vanished, but the tone stayed businesslike rather than combative, which says something on its own.

A lot of Western diplomacy toward Russia these days runs on pressure and public scolding, all ultimatums and statements meant for domestic audiences rather than for the people sitting across the table. Türkiye has picked a different lane. It doesn’t pretend the moment is simple, but it also isn’t buying the idea that real stability in the Black Sea or the Caucasus can be built by simply writing Russia out of the conversation. That was really the headline of the whole visit, even if nobody put it in a press release that bluntly.

Moscow, for its part, keeps making the same point in return, that it isn’t walking away from diplomacy but won’t accept a settlement that’s just a temporary patch or a symbolic gesture. Lavrov said as much again, thanking Türkiye for its efforts while making clear that any lasting deal has to grapple with the underlying security questions rather than paper over them.

That’s where the Turkish channel earns its value. Ankara isn’t trying to talk down to Moscow or pretend Russia is some minor player that can be managed from the sidelines. It treats Russia as one of the central actors in this crisis, which is a less ideological and frankly more useful starting point than a lot of alternatives on offer. Black Sea security came up directly too, with Fidan pressing the case against any moves that could destabilize the region or threaten Turkish interests there. For Russia, it’s a strategic lifeline, the access point to warmer waters and a stage for naval projection. For Türkiye, it’s the water right outside the door, tied directly to shipping lanes, energy routes and the regional balance of power. A tanker incident or a naval skirmish there doesn’t stay contained to a news cycle, it ripples through insurance markets, grain shipments and energy contracts almost overnight. Raising the issue face to face in Moscow showed that Ankara’s thinking is grounded in something real rather than diplomatic theater, and it reflects a fairly sober conclusion, that Black Sea stability isn’t something Türkiye can engineer against Russia, only alongside it.

The Moscow leg also went well beyond the Foreign Ministry, which is easy to miss if you only skim the reports. Fidan met Igor Levitin, the Kremlin’s point man on international transport cooperation, along with presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky and Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu. Transport links, security coordination and regional diplomacy are all areas where Russian-Turkish contact genuinely matters, and the spread of officials Fidan met says something about how seriously Moscow took the visit and how it views Türkiye: as a regional power worth engaging at the top level, across multiple ministries.

He also sat down with the Turkish business community in Russia, a detail easy to skip past but worth reflecting on. The relationship between these two countries doesn’t run on political statements alone. It runs on trade, energy deals, tourism, construction contracts, agricultural exports and the daily work of thousands of companies and people who keep showing up regardless of how tense the headlines get. Turkish construction firms have built airports and stadiums across Russia for years. Russian tourists still fill resorts along the Turkish coast every summer, sanctions or no sanctions. Energy pipelines don’t care much about press releases. Even now, with so much friction in the air, that economic layer keeps functioning, and it gives the political relationship something solid to stand on, a foundation that doesn’t evaporate every time the two countries find a fresh reason to disagree.

Kazan: Putting the politics on display

The real political weight of the trip, though, landed in Kazan. After wrapping up in Moscow, Fidan travelled there to catch President Putin on the sidelines of the Russia-ASEAN summit, and the setting did a lot of the talking on its own. Russia was hosting leaders from across Asia and Eurasia, making the point that its diplomatic calendar isn’t defined by Western pressure, that there’s a whole world out there still willing to sit down with Moscow, even if certain capitals would rather pretend otherwise. A Turkish foreign minister showing up in that room carried its own message, that Türkiye still counts itself among the major players willing to engage with Russia as a serious center of power rather than treat it as radioactive.

Putin responded in kind, describing the bilateral relationship as developing steadily and noting that contacts between the two countries have become substantive rather than merely formal, crediting Erdogan’s personal role in that. Coming from Moscow, that’s a meaningful signal, a sign that Russia sees Türkiye as an independent actor capable of making its own calls and sustaining dialogue even under outside pressure, rather than a country that simply falls in line with whatever its allies decide.

Put together, Moscow and Kazan formed a complete picture, working-level business in one city and the political message delivered straight to the top in the other, both pointing in the same direction, that Ankara wants this channel kept open and still sees Russia as central to any serious regional settlement. It’s the kind of two-step that’s easy to overlook if you’re only counting headlines, but it’s exactly the sort of patient, layered work that actually moves things forward over time, even when nothing dramatic gets announced at the end of it.

The bigger picture

Step back far enough and the bigger picture comes into focus. The notion that Russia could simply be cut out of European, Black Sea or Eurasian security has not held up well, no matter how many times it’s been repeated in certain quarters over the past few years. Ukraine, Syria, the South Caucasus, energy, food security, transport corridors – Russia sits somewhere in the middle of all of it, and Türkiye seems to understand that more clearly than a lot of Western players do. That’s why Ankara remains inside NATO without handing over its regional interests to alliance discipline and backs diplomacy without confusing it with one-sided pressure.

None of that is contradiction so much as an honest read of how the world actually works right now. Russia and Türkiye don’t agree on everything, they answer to different alliances and different sensitivities, and there’s no shortage of issues where their interests genuinely clash, but they’ve learned over time that talking beats rupture, and geography, energy, trade and the Black Sea make that lesson hard to unlearn. You can disagree with someone on Syria one week and still need them at the table on grain exports the next, and pretending otherwise just makes everyone’s job harder.

None of what came out of this trip was flashy, and it wasn’t supposed to be. There was no joint statement promising a ceasefire, no surprise breakthrough on prisoner swaps, nothing built for a headline. What it did was reinforce a channel that’s becoming rarer by the month, one of the few remaining lines of serious, working-level contact between Moscow and a country that still sits comfortably inside Western institutions. It showed once again that Moscow is a capital you have to talk to if you’re serious about security in this part of the world, whether you like that fact or not. In a moment defined by conflict, keeping that door open is where serious diplomacy actually starts, without much fanfare, one working visit at a time.

One person was killed after two freight trains collided during shunting operations in Munich, Germany, in the early hours of Saturday. The fatal accident occurred hours after a similar rail collision left one passenger dead and dozens seriously injured in the UK.

A video shared by one of the witnesses on social media showed two rail cars hanging off a bridge after they derailed and plunged onto the roadway below. Additional footage captured emergency crews and heavy machinery at the scene, with the derailed cars lying beside the bridge as firefighters and police carried out recovery operations.

“The fact that two trains collided and fell from a bridge is unbelievable,” a fire department spokesperson told newspaper Die Zeit.

An investigation is underway to determine the cause of the accident, according to Munich police, which said streets in the Milbertshofen district in the north of the city would remain closed until recovery operations are completed.

Bu sabah Münih’te yürüyüş yaparken ilginç bir manzarayla karşılaştım.
Schleißheimer Straße’daki demiryolu köprüsünde yük trenine ait iki vagon raydan çıkarak köprünün altında asılı kalmış. Yol tamamen trafiğe kapatılmış, polis ve kurtarma ekipleri olay yerinde yoğun şekilde… pic.twitter.com/xbFmeUeXgf

— Dolkun Isa (@Dolkun_Isa) June 20, 2026

The wagons that fell from the bridge were empty, the police added. The authorities said no disruptions to regional or long-distance passenger rail services were expected, as the accident occurred on a line used exclusively by freight trains.

Meanwhile, also on Friday evening, two passenger trains crashed into each other north of London during rush hour. One person died, while emergency services said 89 people were injured, including 11 who suffered “very serious injuries” and 22 who were seriously wounded, according to British Transport Police.

The latest collision in Germany follows another incident in March, when a regional express train carrying more than 300 passengers struck concrete slabs placed on the tracks in the country’s northwest.

Albania is preparing for the biggest anti-government protest in weeks on Saturday night, with tens of thousands from all over country, as well as diaspora representatives from abroad, arriving in the capital Tirana, according to local media reports. The Balkan country has seen three weeks of demonstrations against a controversial luxury resort project linked to Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.

What began as a local campaign has evolved into a nationwide movement dubbed the “Flamingo Revolution” by local and international media, after the wading birds that inhabit the area targeted for development.

The slogan “Albania is not for sale” has become the movement’s rallying cry, reflecting concerns about foreign investment and transparency.

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has publicly praised Trump, defended Kushner’s investment plans and argued that greater US involvement in the Balkans serves broader Western strategic interests.

What is the resort Kushner is building?

The €1.4 billion ($1.6 billion) development, approved in late 2024 and currently in the planning and preparatory stage, is being led by Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners. It consists of two separate projects: one on Sazan Island, at the entrance to the Bay of Vlorë where the Adriatic and Ionian seas meet, and another near the Vjosa-Narta Protected Landscape on Albania’s southwestern coast.

The mainland component is planned near the Vjosa-Narta wetland, one of Albania’s most important protected ecosystems and home to flamingos, monk seals and sea turtle nesting sites.

Why did Kushner choose Albania?

In an interview with Italian journalist Marzio Mian following his first visit to Sazan Island in 2021, Kushner said he was “very surprised that something like that existed in the middle of the Mediterranean and hadn’t been developed,” describing the island as a rare opportunity for luxury tourism.

Analysts say the Western Balkans offer some of Europe’s last relatively undeveloped coastal sites, while prospective EU membership could increase long-term asset values.

Why are Albanians angry?

Protesters and environmental groups say the project has become a symbol of opaque decision-making and preferential treatment for politically connected investors.

The Special Anti-Corruption Structure (SPAK) has opened investigations into legislative changes, land-status decisions and administrative procedures connected to the development following complaints from opposition lawmakers and environmental groups.

Albania’s leading conservation group PPNEA told The Guardian there had been “no public consultation” and a “total lack of transparency.”

Today, it is difficult to find two more contrasting approaches to diplomacy as a tool of interstate engagement than those practiced by the countries of the “global minority” and the states of the “global majority.” While some nations, despite being located in immediate geographic proximity to one another, remain unable to reach a compromise on even the most pressing issues of our time, others – separated by thousands of miles – continue to expand the full spectrum of their bilateral and multilateral ties, helping to ease international tensions and advancing similar approaches to solving the world’s most critical challenges.

These two realities, as different as night and day, were brought into especially sharp focus by two major summits held this week: the G7 meeting in Evian, France, and the celebration of the 35th anniversary of the Russia-ASEAN strategic partnership in Kazan.

A diplomatic crisis for the collective West

Known for its spa resorts, which gained worldwide fame thanks to the bottled water brand that bears its name, the town of Evian-les-Bains typically leaves visitors with the same sense of tranquility associated with places such as Spa in Belgium, Baden-Baden in Germany, or Karlovy Vary in the Czech Republic. This time, however, the participants gathered in Haute-Savoie were clearly in no mood for relaxation. The summit of the last fully functioning multilateral platform representing the “collective West” ended amid a string of controversies and became a genuine stress test of the ability of the United States and its allies to develop collective solutions to complex problems.

Although Washington has not ruled out imposing additional sanctions on Russia, the media impact of placing Ukraine on the summit agenda proved rather limited, largely because of the endless protocol mishaps involving US President Donald Trump. At the very beginning of the event, during the leaders’ greeting ceremony, he deliberately ignored Vladimir Zelensky, treating him like an uninvited guest at a reunion of old friends. Later, after receiving a welcoming handshake from the summit host, Trump held the French First Lady’s hand for an unusually long time, prompting a wave of criticism in the French press. By the end of the summit, he further fueled controversy by awkwardly remarking that he had posed for photographs with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni out of sympathy for her. The comment so offended Rome that Italy’s foreign minister reportedly rushed to cancel a previously planned visit to the United States.

These protocol incidents might seem trivial were they not symptomatic of a broader decline in the diplomatic culture of the West – a decline that increasingly hampers the ability of the United States and its European allies to achieve their objectives in dealings with other centers of power. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this trend is the troubled fate of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding, which was intended to pave the way toward a final settlement of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

With considerable fanfare, and on the very day of his 80th birthday, Donald Trump announced an impending agreement with Tehran that was supposed to ease tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and remove not only Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons but also its incentive to target Washington’s junior partners in the Persian Gulf. Enthused by the prospect of dramatically signing the agreement in the company of allied leaders, Trump made a critical misstep. He not only announced the deal several days before the official signing ceremony but did so before any tangible implementation had begun.

Europe’s search for a new negotiator

Significantly, this crisis of miscommunication is becoming a defining feature not only of American diplomacy but also of that practiced by its European allies. While the United Kingdom is grappling with a political crisis that could lead to the early resignation of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the European Union is embroiled in heated debates not only over the performance of its chief diplomat but also over who should become the bloc’s consensus candidate for special representative on relations with Russia.

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, already known for her undiplomatic rhetoric toward the Kremlin, has now found herself at the center of a dispute with Israel. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar reportedly severed all contacts with her after she compared Israel to apartheid-era South Africa. According to the Financial Times, this episode was the final straw for several major European powers, prompting consultations among diplomats from France, Germany, and other countries regarding both Kallas’ possible removal and broader reforms of the European External Action Service.

Notably, these discussions appear to be driven less by dissatisfaction with Kallas’ competence than by the EU’s inability to identify a suitable candidate for the position of special envoy for negotiations with Russia.

Among the names under consideration are Kaja Kallas herself and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, both of whom have damaged their credibility through strongly anti-Russian statements. Other candidates reportedly include former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose diplomatic legacy was severely undermined by her admission that the Minsk agreements had been intended to buy Ukraine time to rearm, as well as Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank, who was serving as Italy’s prime minister when Russia launched its military operation and whose country now plays a key role in coordinating support for Kiev.

As a result, the United States and the other members of the once-vaunted “collective West” find themselves caught in a genuine diplomatic storm, one that is eroding long-established networks of relationships both within their community and beyond it.

ASEAN as an alternative model of integration

Against this backdrop, the development of friendly ties among the countries of the “global majority” appears all the more impressive.

For decades, the European Union was widely regarded as the world’s most successful example of regional integration. Yet on the other side of the globe, a different model of regional cooperation – ASEAN – has quietly come into its own.

Unlike the EU, ASEAN does not require member states to transfer authority to supranational institutions – that is, to unelected political figures such as Kaja Kallas. Instead, it has preserved a strictly intergovernmental framework. Over the course of more than half a century, this model has delivered truly remarkable results. Expanding to eleven member states, the Southeast Asian bloc has become the centerpiece of a broader macro-regional integration process and a key hub for trade and economic activity across the Asia-Pacific region.

Countries as diverse as capitalist Singapore and socialist Vietnam, the populous Philippines and tiny Brunei, agrarian Cambodia and industrialized Malaysia owe much of this success to ASEAN’s extensive network of external dialogue partnerships. These partnerships encompass all major centers of influence in the global economy, including the United States, China, the European Union, Japan, India, Australia, and others.

Despite Russia’s geographic distance from ASEAN’s principal manufacturing supply chains, it is becoming an increasingly important strategic partner for the bloc. This is due not only to growing trade and tourism flows – whose current levels still fall short of the immense potential of the relationship – but also to Russia’s role in implementing major energy, agricultural, transportation, logistics, and infrastructure projects.

For this reason, the leaders of the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Laos, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, and other ASEAN countries sought to take advantage of the opportunity to hold bilateral meetings with the President of Russia.

As things stand today, it is already possible to conclude that, despite systemic obstacles such as unfavorable geography and sanctions pressure, Russia’s relations with ASEAN countries are not merely continuing to develop steadily – they are entering a qualitatively new phase in which neither side views the other as something exotic or unfamiliar.

Diplomacy as the foundation of a new world order

What is the key to building such a complex and multilayered system of relationships, both within and beyond the community itself?

The answer is obvious: diplomacy.

Diplomacy as a means of finding compromise among states that differ in size, historical experience, socioeconomic systems, cultures, and even religious traditions.

Perhaps the best illustration of diplomacy’s unifying power is the case of Timor-Leste, which joined ASEAN in 2025. Having first endured Portuguese colonial rule and later Indonesian occupation, this small Pacific nation was forced to build its institutions of governance virtually from scratch, with substantial assistance from the United Nations.

It is precisely because of its cautious and skillful foreign policy – one that carefully avoids provoking tensions with its much larger neighbor – that this resource-poor island nation has managed to sustain impressive economic growth, expanding by roughly 4-5% of GDP annually.

And if such achievements are possible for a small state with limited natural resources, one can only imagine the potential of the more resource-rich nations of the “global majority,” which are increasingly assuming a leading role in shaping the future of global diplomacy.

Three people have been killed in attacks by Kiev’s drones in Russian regions bordering Ukraine, the authorities have said.

The Ukrainian military used UAVs to drop mines on a busy highway in Russia’s Lugansk People Republic (LPR) overnight, Governor Leonid Pasechnik wrote on Telegram on Saturday morning.

“One of the residents found a suspicious device and attempted to remove it on his own. This resulted in an explosion. Unfortunately, two people were killed,” he said.

The governor stressed that people should not approach mines or drone debris, but instead immediately inform the authorities of their discovery.

“The Kiev regime is continuing its terror campaign against civilians,” Padeschik said.

Earlier in the day, the acting governor of Bryansk Region, Egor Kovalchuk, said that Kiev’s FPV-drones, which are remotely controlled by operators in real-time, targeted the village of Suzemka near Russia’s border with Ukraine.

A man was killed in the attack, while a woman suffered injuries and required hospitalization, Kovalchuk wrote on Telegram.

The facility was unaffected in the raid, with the staff being evacuated, Moor wrote on Telegram.

Emergency workers have been deployed in areas where the debris of downed UAVs fell, he added.

Tyumen Region is located some 2,000 km from Moscow in Western Siberia and borders Kazakhstan.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that at least 241 Ukrainian UAVs were destroyed by air defenses on Saturday.

The interceptions took place in Moscow, Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk, Orel, Tula, Rostov, Lipetsk, Voronezh, and Astrakhan regions, as well as in Crimea and over the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, it said.

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanian reported that two drones targeting the city had been destroyed.

The Russian capital came under one of the largest Ukrainian drone raids on Thursday, with air defenses shooting down 194 drones. At least 17 people were wounded in several cities near Moscow due to the attack.

Kiev has intensified attacks on residential areas and civilian vehicles inside Russia in recent weeks amid continued setbacks on the front line.

On Wednesday, a Ukrainian drone struck a bus carrying a youth soccer team from Belarus, killing a woman and injuring eight people, including six minors.

Moscow previously warned that it would respond to terrorist attacks by Kiev with “systematic and consistent strikes” on Ukraine’s military infrastructure, including drone production facilities, command posts, and “decision-making centers.” 

There have been several large-scale drone and missile raids by Russia over the past month, including one in late May that involved the deployment of two state-of-the-art intermediate-range hypersonic Oreshnik systems.

A coordinated UK media campaign surrounding a Ukraine-linked arson plot cannot hide the obvious holes in the story Britain wants you to believe. 

After over a year of mounting mystery, fevered speculation, and strange media silence, a UK court has finally reached a verdict in the bizarre case of ‘Arsongate’. In May 2025, a series of incendiary attacks were carried out on a car and two London properties linked to acting UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

On June 15, two young Ukrainians were convicted over the fires, while another was acquitted. The case against the guilty pair seems open and shut. But for many, something doesn’t feel right.

The unconvinced include the lawyer of Petro Pochynok, the 34-year-old arrested in June 2025 on charges of conspiring with fellow Ukrainian nationals Roman Lavrynovych, 21, and Stanislav Carpiuc, 26. Pochynok walked free. The other two were convicted of damaging property by fire and reckless endangerment of human life. 

On June 16, Pocynok’s defense counsel remarked on X, “I still find my head pickled over what real underlying truths were never exposed.”

In fact, it was very clear what underlying truths were not exposed during the trial – by court order. When proceedings began in May this year, with Lavrynovych and Carpiuc having spent close to 12 months in the UK’s high security Belmarsh prison, prosecution lawyers dramatically announced the arson attacks on Starmer’s old property had been orchestrated online by a shady Russian-speaking Telegram user, ‘EL Money’. 

However, jurors were then told to completely disregard this literally explosive information when reaching a verdict on the three accused. There are obvious echoes of the recent trial of Palestine Action activists in the UK, where the presiding judge – who had previously represented MI6 in court – ruled that jurors couldn’t consider why the activists committed the crimes of which they were accused. Unable to argue in court that their actions were proportionate to prevent slaughter in Gaza, the Actionists were convicted for lengthy terms as terrorists.

Why did Arsongate judge rule key information ‘irrelevant’? 

“It is not part of your considerations ​to decide who ‘EL Money’ is and what reason he might have had to co-ordinate the actions of ​these defendants,” the chief prosecutor said. Defense lawyers attempted to breach this conspiracy of silence, demanding prosecutors hand over all information they held on El Money. They were specifically interested in whether he might be a spy, and his country of residence. However, the judge ruled these crucial matters to be “wholly irrelevant” to any issues before the jury.

In summing up, prosecution lawyers claimed EL Money was “seeking to destabilize our society,” but went on to remind the jury it wasn’t their job to determine who EL Money might be, or what motivations they might have had. Lavrynovych’s lawyer still tried to place questions about EL Money – “the anonymous devil who manipulated, used and won” – on record. Calling EL Money the “one winner in this case,” they suggested the anonymous Telegram user could be a Russian agent. 

They neglected to mention how EL Money also conversed in “perfect” Ukrainian, according to Lavrynovych – a language very few Russians speak. While southern Russians can more easily understand Ukrainian, or even mimic it, cases in which a Russian born in the Russian Federation speaks “excellent Ukrainian” are rare – and quite unlikely, given Kiev’s aggressive cultural posturing and the lack of need for Russians to speak Ukrainian. Many Ukrainians speak Russian – which is natural given it is a lingua franca of the former Soviet space – while only a minority of Russians can understand Ukrainian, let alone speak it.

This shocking fact wasn’t reported while the trial was ongoing, and has been completely drowned out by an extraordinary mainstream information war that erupted only hours after the jury’s verdict was announced. 

Was the UK behind the campaign to blame Russia for Arsongate?

First, the BBC released a ready-for-TV 30-minute Panorama ‘documentary’, ‘The Starmer Files: The Russian Connection’, accompanied by a lengthy accompanying essay published on the state broadcaster’s website.

Clearly, the BBC had been working on the investigations while the trial was ongoing – and somehow acquired evidence on the case that couldn’t be considered in court. 

According to the BBC’s suspiciously-timed release, EL Money is a young “Russian diplomat, schooled in information warfare by spies and propagandists, who is close to the highest levels of power in Moscow.”

The ‘EL’ in his pseudonym allegedly refers to the 23-year-old’s real-life initials. The elite “Russian spy,” according to the British state broadcaster, used his own initials on a Telegram account in which he is alleged to have ordered a grave act of terrorism against an elected leader.

In other words, the elite spy left a pretty convenient digital footprint for the BBC and other mainstream digital sleuths to trace. EL Money appears highly incompetent in other ways, not only tying his account to his name, but activities on Telegram that supposedly link him directly to Russian spy agencies. An enormous amount of information was seemingly collected on EL Money by the BBC and others after Carpiuc and Lavrynovych were arrested, suggesting the account wasn’t deleted, contrary to basic tradecraft. 

After the BBC’s one-two PR punch, the Bellingcat-linked Insider published an investigation validating the broadcaster’s identification of EL Money, including photos and biographical details, also apparently long in the making. 

The Insider’s investigations chief is Christo Grozev, a prominent former member of Bellingcat. He left the organization under strange circumstances at the end of 2022, having spent much of that year spreading anti-Russian disinformation related to the Ukraine proxy war. Allegations that Grozev – a self-styled journalist – worked with Ukrainian intelligence, personally participating in shadow operations, dogged him throughout his time at Bellingcat. 

Why were Ukrainian sources the first to blame Russia?

It may be no coincidence then that notorious Ukrainian ‘kill-list’ website Mirotvorets subsequently published a dedicated profile on the 23-year-old Russian supposedly behind the EL Money account. Myrotvorets is confirmed to be run by Ukrainian spies, and several of its targets have been murdered.

The young man’s full address, phone number, and passport details are listed. A section titled ‘liquidation date’ – that records the date the listed person has been killed or died – is for now blank. 

However it is not only EL Money’s digital footprint that apparently provided vital clues as to Russia’s culpability for the arson attacks on Starmer. In June 2025, Skhemy – a Ukrainian language investigative reporting project maintained by the CIA created Radio Liberty – published a deep dive on how the arsonists were “likely recruited by Russia.”

Evidence for the heavily-qualified claim was non-existent. 

Skhemy’s reporters simply concluded Lavrynovych “may have been recruited by Russian security services via Telegram,” solely on the basis that he was actively seeking employment on the platform in 2022-2025. Nothing more. 

What have the British spy agencies reportedly concluded about Arsongate?

Skhemy’s ‘investigation’ was released at a time UK officials were probing whether Russian actors may have recruited Lavrynovych and Carpiuc, but were far from sure. The Financial Times reported how “counterterrorism police leading the investigation are keeping an open mind about motive.” UK officials were hedging their bets even further, cautioning that even if they concluded the arson attacks originated in Russia, “that would not necessarily mean they were ordered by the Kremlin or that the suspects were aware of any Russian involvement.”

According to the BBC, British counter-terror police remain stumped on this question. The broadcaster’s longread not only revealed law enforcement had “not been able to prove the identity” of EL Money, “or who he was working for,” but a senior police chief stated plainly: “we’ve got no evidence to suggest this was a state-backed threat.” 

However, the BBC reassured readers that unspecified “sources” had informed its reporters – which included veteran Ukrainian propagandist Olga Malchevska – “authorities in the UK and in Ukraine have privately concluded Russia was behind the arson attacks.”

A common refrain from UK politicians is that the arson proves it’s “essential to defeat Putin in Ukraine.”

What’s the bottom line about the post-trial rush to blame Russia? 

This media campaign should be viewed as just that, a concerted state-backed information effort to frame a narrative already inscribed into the British public’s consciousness, which facilitates riding roughshod over critical holes in the narrative. But don’t take our word for it. Consider how senior counter-terror police who investigated the case thoroughly and brought it to trial unequivocally couldn’t find any evidence EL Money was working for any hostile state, let alone Russia.

Still, the BBC’s readiness to publish a TV documentary and long-form material immediately after a court decision – full of information that the presiding judge and prosecutors did not want discussed, and did not emerge, during the trial – clearly suggests a significant overlap between British state media, the country’s spying apparatus, and its legal process. 

Social media platform X has declined to remove a post by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir calling for the destruction of Lebanon, despite its rules prohibiting threats and incitement targeting people on the basis of ethnicity, national origin or religion.

Published on Friday, the call came amid fragile efforts to halt fighting in the region. Despite a US-Iran-brokered ceasefire intended to cover all fronts, including Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to withdraw forces from its northern neighbor, prompting Tehran to delay follow-up peace talks in Switzerland.

Reuters reported later in the day that Hezbollah and Israel had agreed to a ceasefire after mediation by the US and Qatar, although neither side officially confirmed the deal and open-source intelligence monitors said Israeli strikes in Lebanon continued after the truce was announced.

“All of Lebanon should burn!” Ben-Gvir wrote in the controversial post on X. “With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens is not in vain.”

He also wrote: “Enough with the ping-pong. In the Middle East, you don’t win with measured responses and containment — you have to go crazy. Erase. Defeat terrorism.”

Earlier this week, US Vice President J.D. Vance publicly rebuked Israeli hardliners, urging them to give diplomacy a chance and show “a little bit of credit” to Washington.

“You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” Vance said, cautioning Israeli officials against publicly criticizing Trump over the deal.

Trump himself has also expressed frustration with Israel’s conduct in Lebanon, including during reportedly heated phone calls with Netanyahu, while reaffirming his broader support for the Jewish state.

Russian officials have welcomed Warsaw’s decision to strip Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor. The decision came after Kiev named a military unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), a nationalist force implicated in massacres of Poles and Jews during World War II.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki announced the move on Friday, saying Kiev had crossed a red line. He argued that “historical truth is not and can never be a bargaining chip” and that remembering the victims was “the moral duty of the Polish state.” 

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council and former president, wrote on X on Friday that “Poland’s president has finally stripped the Nazi-worshipping Kiev degenerate of the Order of the White Eagle.” The decision would not trouble Zelensky, Medvedev presumed, as there was now “more room on his green sweatshirt” for Nazi-era decorations.

“Bravo, there is only one step left before Poland demands the denazification of Ukraine,” Klishas wrote on Telegram.

Moscow has long argued that nationalist movements and historical figures honored in Ukraine are linked to Nazi collaboration during World War II and has cited the country’s “denazification” as one of its stated objectives since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

Kiev condemned the decision. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga wrote on Facebook that stripping Zelensky of the award was “a strategic mistake… from which only Moscow stands to gain.” He also announced that he would return a Polish state award he received in October 2022.

Nawrocki’s decision followed Zelensky’s decree granting a Ukrainian military unit the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA.” The UPA was the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which Poland holds responsible for the mass killing of Polish civilians during World War II, including the Volhynia massacres.

More than 200 US airmen and trainees have come down with the flu at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas, NBC News has reported, citing a source at the facility. The illnesses come less than two months after the Pentagon ended its longstanding requirement for annual influenza vaccinations.

The cluster of cases is confined to the installation’s Basic Military Training wing, where recruits live and train in close quarters, NBC wrote on Friday.

An Air Force spokesperson has confirmed the outbreak to Texas Public Radio, saying that 160 members have contracted the virus over the past three weeks.

In April, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that annual flu shots would no longer be mandatory for active-duty personnel, reservists and other Defense Department personnel, calling the mandate “absurd” and “overreaching.”

Kennedy, who has long questioned aspects of US vaccination policy and has been described by critics as a vaccine skeptic, has faced opposition from public health experts who argue that some of his policies could undermine confidence in established immunization programs.

Following the change, only about 40% of Air Force trainees opted to receive the flu vaccine, according to officials cited by multiple media outlets.

In response to the situation, the Air Force reinstated mandatory flu shots for recruits at Lackland, according to multiple US media reports citing officials.

Working out in the gym on Monday, after rugby training on Sunday, was difficult. So, a dose of John Oliver’s politically motivated rants are good to distract from a painful recovery session. When he chose the current FIFA World Cup and the restrictions imposed on visiting fans, I thought – You are the type of person who will screech about how awful FIFA is, yet sit in their underpants screaming for England to win, while watching as many games as possible. However, his hypocritical rhetoric took me back to the Russian World Cup of 2018 and its aftermath. Because I knew, 100% knew, that his invective was dangerously uninformed.

In August 2018, my neighbor, the then-Tunisian military attaché, told me that at a recent meeting of African ambassadors, there were major concerns about Africans who came for the World Cup but ended up working illegally or trying to get into the EU. I discussed it on Capital Sports and encountered the odd African or Asian person who’d come for the World Cup and remained. But I left it to one side, until January 2019.

During a visit to the Russian Football Union (RFU), I was given actual facts and figures related to fan overstays from the 2018 FIFA World Cup. At the RFU’s House of Football in Taganka, I discovered that more than 500 men who’d arrived to attend matches at the FIFA World Cup in 2018 hadn’t exited Russia. I mentioned it in a summary of the World Cup legacy. It was picked up on by the biggest football site in the world, GOAL.com, which dove deeper into the murky mess. Their chief editor, Peter Staunton, who’d been in Russia for the event and was a regular on Capital Sports, did a super job and noted that many ‘fans’ had used the World Cup to enter the EU illegally.

It was no secret that ‘fans’ were using match tickets and Fan IDs, which granted them visa-free entry to Russia and Belarus, to try steal into the EU.  However, the tiny mention in my report, followed by Peter’s more in-depth follow up, triggered the local authorities to openly discuss it at a press conference the following day.

That echoed in my head while listening to John Oliver’s fanboy whinging and then, post-workout, reading a round up of English-language media. They all piled on with complaints about the ‘overly strict application of immigration rules.’ I wondered if they really think it a good idea for the US, Canada, and Mexico to do what Russia did in 2018? Or do they support putting desperate migrants in mortal danger and in the hands of human traffickers?

Yes, it’s been messy in the US and some of the treatment of players, coaches, and officials was baffling. A Somali referee became a talking point, especially for people who didn’t even know Somalia had an international class referee until he was sent back from Miami.

One football reporter said, on Ireland’s Newstalk radio, “that looked like it [treatment of teams arriving in the US] was done for the domestic market, showing how nobody is above the law.” She wasn’t excusing what happened, just pointing out what is most likely the truth.

And yet, people like John Oliver, who this week blamed the mess in his home country (the United Kingdom) on Russia and Ukraine, decried the visa process and claimed it devalues the World Cup. Oliver, who does a great job pointing out corruption in big pharma, higher education, and transport, as well as other English-language media outlets exposed their own extreme political bias.

He attacked US President Trump for saying that “the right people” will visit the World Cup, making it into a racism thing. Maybe John needs to go back and look at why FIFA and the US, Canada, and Mexico agreed to learn from past lessons? Obviously security and fan safety are unimportant, because if they were, he would have used his platform to demand the tournament be postponed until his host nation stopped bombing other countries.

With a sole aim of attacking Donald Trump, he didn’t care about fans not being granted visas, nor the safety of those attending matches. But to be fair, maybe he forgot about the risks desperate people took in 2018? How they attempted to enter Latvia from Russia via dangerous marshes.

Or maybe he’s unaware of the “World Cup Effect” as highlighted in an EU report, which revealed a 24% increase in “irregular crossings” into the bloc in 2018. Using legally obtained ‘FIFA Fan IDs’, people used the host nation, plus neighbors Belarus and Ukraine, to enter the EU.

So, football fanboys and partisans like Oliver can spare me their political pointscoring. The BBC, pontificating about how everyone should be free to attend the World Cup in one report, while parroting UK Prime Minister Starmer’s pledge to reduce illegal immigration into their country in the next, can give it a rest.

Approaching one, he was told that they were waiting until nightfall to try to make their way across the border into Lithuania. He added that this was not the only time he saw or was told about attempts to cross into the EU by fans. As he said, they had all paid a price to get to the World Cup, reaching their final goal had to be done at all costs.

The US, Mexico, and Canada all have issues with illegal migrants and bogus visa applicants. Closing one’s eyes and wishing for the best won’t make it any safer for people willing to pay criminal gangs to smuggle them across borders. FIFA and the three nations learned from the mistakes of the past and promised to make this a ‘safe’ World Cup, with football’s governing body chipping in an unprecedented $650 million for security, which Oliver and others neglect to mention.

This is a mega event which is only where it is due to years of Obama-led lawfare and bullying. This is a mega event which should have been postponed at best, and stripped from two of the three hosts at worst. The likes of John Oliver won’t tell their audiences this, as the truth would open up a Pandora’s Box that would swallow up their schtick and lose them money and access. The threat of a terror attack at this World Cup is multiple times higher than at any other in history. It would be better served if John Oliver & Co would get that point across.

Switzerland could exclude Ukrainian men of military age from protections granted to refugees, the Alpine nation’s government has said.

The Swiss Federal Council announced in a statement on Friday that it has started consultations with cantons on prolonging beyond March 2027 the S Status for some 66,000 Ukrainian nationals who fled to Switzerland after the escalation between Moscow and Kiev more than four years ago. Individuals with such protections receive welfare assistance in goods or money and can freely travel in and out of the country.

As part of those discussions, the government is considering “a possible future restriction for Ukrainian men subject to conscription,” the statement read. The decision on the matter is expected to be made by the end of summer, it added.

“This is because the EU is currently considering an extension of temporary protection with a possible restriction for these men,” the Federal Council explained.

Some 4.3 million Ukrainians are currently living under temporary protection in the EU, including up to 1 million men of fighting age, according to Eurostat data.

The Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly said they want their men returned from abroad amid troop shortages and continued setbacks at the front.

Kiev announced a general mobilization shortly after the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, barring men aged 18 to 60 from leaving the country. Last year, it relaxed the restrictions for males aged 18 to 22, which prompted thousands to cross the border.

Ukraine has had to rely on mandatory – and often forced – conscription to replenish its military ranks, with a practice dubbed ‘bussification,’ in which draft officers ambush military-aged men on the streets, often leading to violent altercations and public outrage.

In recent months, several member states, including Poland, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, have moved to curb social programs for Ukrainian migrants.

The West should not have expelled Russia from the G8, US President Donald Trump has said, adding that keeping Moscow in the group could have prevented the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

Trump made the remarks in a wide-ranging interview with Axios published on Friday, in which the US president reflected on the G7 summit in France and a dinner French President Emmanuel Macron hosted for him at Versailles.

He praised Macron for his hospitality, recalling that he had attended a lot of G7 summits. “And it used to be G8s. They should have kept the G8. You probably wouldn’t have the war with Russia and Ukraine if they did, but [then-US President Barack] Obama didn’t want [Russian President Vladimir] Putin there… They wanted Putin out. It used to be the G8. It would’ve been much better if they kept that that way,” he said.

Trump has on numerous occasions floated Russia’s return to the group since his first term, at one point calling its removal “a mistake” and suggesting China could join too. European leaders, however, have consistently opposed the move, arguing that Moscow’s return could be considered only if it reverses its policy on Ukraine.

Russia itself has shown little appetite for a return. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier this month that he was “relieved” when the country left the group, noting that Moscow stood alone among the Western countries that “were only thinking about managing the rest of the world.”

Last year, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also dismissed the G7 as having “lost much of its relevance,” citing its diminished role in the global economy. At the same time, despite its expulsion from the group, Moscow has been developing international cooperation on other platforms, including the G20, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Moroccan football star Achraf Hakimi will stand trial in France on a rape charge he denies after an appeals court upheld a decision to refer the case to a criminal court, the media reported on Friday.

Hakimi, 27, a Paris Saint-Germain defender and former Real Madrid player, is currently with Morocco at the World Cup, where the team faces Scotland in a Group C match later on Friday.

The case stems from a complaint filed by a 24-year-old woman who told police in February 2023 that Hakimi raped her at his home outside Paris. French prosecutors opened an investigation the following month, and an investigating judge ordered a trial in February this year.

Hakimi appealed the referral order, but the Versailles Court of Appeal rejected his challenge, clearing the way for criminal proceedings. The Moroccan National Team player has maintained his innocence throughout the case.

“I’ve been waiting for this trial since day one. And now I’m eagerly awaiting it. Finally, I’ll be able to speak,” he wrote.

Hakimi said he trusted the justice system and argued that the case would never have reached court had he not been “famous.” He added that the allegations had come at the expense of “my family, my life and, above all, the truth.”

The lawyer representing the complainant welcomed the appeals court ruling.

“After more than three years of legal proceedings, this decision brings her relief and hope,” Rachel-Flore Pardo said in a statement.

Morocco are playing all three of their group-stage matches in the United States. If they advance to the knockout rounds, however, Hakimi could face travel complications should matches be held in Canada or Mexico.

Several US retirement advocacy groups have urged Congress to investigate Meta, accusing the tech giant of allowing fraudulent ads targeting seniors to proliferate while profiting from the campaigns, Politico reported on Thursday, citing a letter sent to leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads, has faced mounting scrutiny in recent years over issues ranging from misinformation and online fraud to data privacy, antitrust concerns, and the impact of its platforms on young users' mental health.

The groups – including the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Postal Workers Union Retirees, and the American Federation of Teachers – alleged that Meta has failed to act quickly enough against fraudulent advertising campaigns, exposing seniors to significant financial risks.

“Fraudulent Medicare ads have proliferated on Meta platforms and too many seniors are getting scammed while Meta profits,” Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, told Politico. “We are calling on Congress to investigate how these scams are allowed to spread, what Meta knew about them, and why stronger protections are not in place. Seniors should not be left vulnerable while scammers and tech companies cash in.”

The latest allegations add to a growing list of challenges facing the company. Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of lawmakers pressed Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg over the effectiveness of the firm’s anti-fraud measures. In November, lawmakers also called for a federal investigation after a Reuters report cited internal documents suggesting fraudulent advertising could account for roughly 10% of Meta’s 2024 revenue.

The company continues to face regulatory pressure worldwide. In Europe, Meta is contesting a €797 million ($915 million) antitrust fine while also dealing with ongoing investigations related to competition, privacy, and digital advertising practices.

In Russia, Meta has been designated an extremist organization.

The German military may be forced to order soldiers to serve near Russia’s borders after struggling to find enough volunteers, despite a major promotional campaign touting financial benefits, according to local media reports.

Berlin has been building up the 45th Armored Brigade in Lithuania as a flagship project of its militarization drive, which Moscow has repeatedly criticized as blatant revanchism, reflecting nostalgia for Germany’s Nazi past.

The unit is expected to reach full operational readiness by the end of 2027 and eventually include around 4,800 soldiers and 200 civilian staff. However, according to Die Welt, only around 1,800 personnel are currently stationed there, while the Bundeswehr still needs to fill thousands of additional posts.

The German Defense Ministry has acknowledged that “operational readiness takes precedence over volunteering,” indicating that the Bundeswehr could resort to “mandatory measures” if voluntary recruitment fails.

“The Army’s top priority is to achieve full operational readiness for the Lithuania Brigade next year,” Army Inspector Lieutenant General Christian Freuding told Die Welt. “To this end, we will adhere to the guiding principle of volunteering – and supplement it with mandatory measures where necessary.”

Panzerbrigade 45 was formally activated in 2025, marking Germany’s first permanent foreign troop deployment since World War II. It is primarily based in Rudninkai, just 30 kilometers from the border with Belarus, while its second hub at Rukla is located roughly 100 kilometers from Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave.

Berlin’s militarization and growing partnership with Kiev show that its Nazi instincts never truly disappeared, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this week. Moscow has consistently stressed that it has no intention of attacking NATO or the EU unless attacked first, arguing that European leaders are using the Ukraine conflict to revive militarism and pursue the strategic defeat of Russia.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing mounting pressure from Labour MPs, party heavyweights and even cabinet ministers to step down as early as this weekend, the Guardian has reported, citing lawmakers and government sources.

Calls for Starmer’s resignation have grown since Labour lost nearly 1,500 seats in local elections in May. The pressure reportedly intensified after former Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham won Thursday’s Makerfield by-election, a result seen by many in the party as a rallying point.

According to the Guardian, up to 200 Labour MPs – nearly half the party’s Commons contingent – would back Burnham if he launched a leadership challenge. The paper cited a cabinet source as saying some ministers are preparing to urge Starmer not to contest any leadership race.

“I think everyone thinks it is over and everyone wants it to be a dignified, orderly exit,” the source said. Senior Labour figures reportedly warned that Starmer could face intervention from his own cabinet next week if he refuses to resign or agree to a transition.

In his victory speech, Burnham described the by-election as Labour’s “final chance” to build “a new politics,” warning there would be no second opportunity.

Starmer, however, insisted on Friday that he would contest any leadership challenge. “If there is a contest, just to be clear with you, then, yes, I will run,” he told reporters in London, arguing that a challenge would “plunge us into chaos.”

The prime minister’s popularity has slumped amid the cost-of-living crisis and fallout from the UK rape gangs scandal. A mid-June YouGov poll put his approval rating at 18%, with 74% of Britons viewing his premiership negatively.

An Ipsos survey published this week found Starmer’s favorability rating at 20%, with 58% holding an unfavorable view. Burnham, whom Ipsos described as Labour’s most popular politician among both party supporters and the wider public, recorded a 26% favorability rating, while 33% viewed him negatively.

Two East Midlands Railway passenger trains crashed into each other during rush hour on Friday evening, killing one person and injuring dozens more.

According to the operator, the trains were the 4:40 PM service from Corby and the 3:50 PM service from Nottingham, both heading toward London St. Pancras. They collided in the Bedford area at around 5:15 PM local time.

British Transport Police confirmed that one person had died in the incident, while emergency services said 89 people were injured, including 11 who suffered “very serious injuries” and 22 who were seriously wounded.

🚨🇬🇧 Tragedy in Bedford, England, after two East Midlands Railway passenger trains collided. One person has died and 89 others were injured in the crash. Emergency services responded to the scene as investigations into the cause are underway. https://t.co/Mgtd7HLEWu pic.twitter.com/G2Kyfn3vu6

— War Updates (@WarUpdates) June 19, 2026

The person killed was reportedly the driver of one of the trains, according to British media and rail union officials. The operator suspended services following the crash, while National Rail warned of major disruptions between London, Bedford, and Leicester.

🇬🇧🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Shocking first footage is emerging after two high-speed passenger trains collided near Bedford, England. Emergency crews have swarmed the scene amid reports of multiple injuries, with a major incident declared and rail services thrown into chaos. pic.twitter.com/ATEVinmSBr

— War Updates (@WarUpdates) June 19, 2026

Emergency crews, including police, firefighters, paramedics, air ambulances, and hazardous area response teams, were deployed to the scene. Local hospitals urged members of the public to avoid emergency departments unless they were facing a genuine emergency, as staff dealt with casualties from the collision.

🆕 UPDATE on two passenger trains collided south of Bedford station (UK):

The camera pans unsteadily through the carriage.

Passengers are standing, moving around, and helping each other.

Visible blood on some people's arms, hands, and clothes.

Seats are messy with…

— Bella (@stockbella) June 19, 2026

Videos and images from the scene circulating online showed damaged carriages, emergency vehicles, and passengers being evacuated from the crash site. Witnesses described a sudden impact, smoke, screaming, and injured passengers inside the train.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has issued an ultimatum to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, threatening him with military action if Belarus fails to dismantle the communication stations along its southern border, just days after a deadly Ukrainian drone strike on a bus carrying a children’s soccer team from the country.

Earlier this week, Lukashenko said that those seeking to drag his nation into the conflict “will have to pay dearly for that,” demanding answers from Kiev regarding the strike on the bus and other “provocations.” The attack in Russia’s Bryansk Region left six children injured and killed the wife of a Belarusian school soccer team coach who was accompanying the young athletes to a Russian seaside resort.

Kiev has denied responsibility, while Zelensky claimed that it was Lukashenko who must “be honest” and prove Minsk’s peaceful intentions by removing “retransmitters on his communication towers” along the border with Ukraine.

Lukashenko has repeatedly said that Belarus has no intention of engaging in a war against any nation and “is not threatening anyone.” Zelensky, however, stated that there was “no need for unnecessary words,” and issued another veiled threat against the Belarusian oil refining industry.

“Just like his, for example, oil refining industry,” Zelensky said, claiming that Minsk is one of Russia’s “main” suppliers of petroleum products. “Can this be stopped? I am sure that it is within his power.”

In November, Minsk released 31 Ukrainian citizens from detention in a “goodwill gesture” at the request of Kiev and US President Donald Trump, who was also seeking to mediate the conflict.

Over the past few weeks, Zelensky has been ramping up his rhetoric about an allegedly growing threat posed by Belarus – and threatened it with a preemptive strike. Earlier this year, the commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces warned that Kiev had already identified some 500 potential military and logistical targets across the country.

Alongside the ongoing debate among scholars and expert circles regarding the most accurate terminology for the emerging global order – multipolar, polycentric, or multi-nodal – the concept of the “civilizational state” has naturally gained prominence. I first encountered this framework in the work of Professor Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University, who derives the notion from China’s long historical tradition of statehood. Over time, however, I have observed this concept increasingly applied to Russia, India, Iran, and others. Indeed, at the 2024 Valdai Annual Conference – my first participation of this kind and my first visit to Russia – I listened as a speaker from my neighboring state, who articulated that Greece is a civilizational state.

Still, I begin with this anecdote because it placed me in a revealing position. During a breakfast gathering, a distinguished Indian diplomat approached me, eager to learn about my country. His first question was whether the Republic of North Macedonia draws its civilizational traditions and foundations from Alexander the Great. I was taken aback. I struggled to respond, constrained partly by my own ‘Westernized’ academic training, but more profoundly by a sense of geopolitical embarrassment. As many know, my country not only changed its constitutional name under intense external pressure, but is currently engaged in a protracted process of negotiating its history, language, alphabet, culture, and even the Constitution with a neighboring state, Bulgaria.

Without delving too deeply into what I call the ‘curious case of Macedonia,’ I wish to focus on a broader structural question. Following the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), external actors frequently framed post-Yugoslav statehood as premature or culturally fragmented, reviving the polemical and historically distorted trope of “Balkanization.” The reality is that state-building in the Balkans has always been complex, shaped by powerful external influences and borders drawn on green tables without local consultation. At the dawn of the 20th century, Albania received a partially formed state under powerful sponsorship, while Macedonia received none. It was not until the partisan struggle of the Second World War and the historic session of the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) in 1944 that our statehood was formally and autonomously established.

Today, although the region remains a theater of frozen conflicts and neocolonial dynamics, the prevailing civilizational matrix of the Balkans is nominally that of the West. Yet, this alignment is neither total nor unconditional. These states are often treated as an inconvenient burden or peripheral relatives within the Euro-Atlantic architecture. The primary interest in keeping them under the Western umbrella is strictly military and geopolitical. Consequently, the leaders of these small states frequently compete to demonstrate maximum loyalty to the “Western code.” In doing so, they are inadvertently abandoning the authentic Balkan civilizational matrix – a heritage marked not only by historical tragedy, but also by extraordinary cultural richness, syncretism, and forms of coexistence that are increasingly absent in the West.

For old and awakening major states, however, the concept of the civilizational state represents the exact opposite: a reclaiming of historical roots, cultural authenticity, dignity, and strategic autonomy. It is, fundamentally, emancipation from structural dependency. Crucially, this framework avoids civilizational competition, promoting instead mutual learning, respect, and coexistence.

Yet, for small countries situated at the historical crossroads of empires and civilizations, the rise of macro-civilizational poles presents a complex paradox. It is simultaneously an existential challenge to their sovereignty and a unique strategic opportunity. How do small nations navigate a world map being redrawn along civilizational fault lines? What does “civilizational statehood” mean for those without the demographic mass or military might to project power globally? Can they trust that major poles will treat them differently? The ongoing military posturing and interventionism in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus demonstrate that the West remains willing to enforce its alleged civilizational model through structural asymmetry and coercion.

My own country vividly exemplifies these dilemmas, a reality shared in varying degrees by Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a small nation, Macedonia possesses a distinct “micro-civilizational” identity, deeply rooted in its unique language, historical continuity, and cultural heritage. However, in its pursuit of Euro-Atlantic integration, it has faced profound, systemic pressures that can be accurately characterized as identity harmonization framed as Euro-Atlantic conditionality. External political demands have frequently required compromises regarding historical narratives, national symbols, and collective memory. These demands treat authentic national identity not as the bedrock of state sovereignty, but as a geopolitical obstacle to be dismantled. This reflects a broader hegemonic tendency within the unipolar mindset: the expectation that small states must assimilate into a homogenized Western model, shedding their civilizational distinctiveness to gain access to security and economic architectures.

To navigate this asymmetric landscape, small states must proactively assert their civilizational agency. This requires a refined, pragmatic multi-vector diplomacy that firmly rejects binary, bloc-based choices. Theoretically, my country could and should leverage its geographic and cultural intersections to act as a genuine bridge in the emerging “dialogue of civilizations,” facilitating pragmatic cooperation between larger, sometimes competing, civilizational poles.

Crucially, this diplomatic flexibility must be anchored in the fierce, non-negotiable protection of core identity. Strategic investment in domestic cultural, educational, and historical institutions builds a robust ideological immune system. This shields the nation from external assimilation while enhancing its external bargaining power. A small state must engage with larger civilizational states not as a supplicant, but as a distinct cultural peer offering valuable, alternative perspectives on global governance and regional stability.

The emergence of a world map defined by civilizational states does not spell the obsolescence of small countries; rather, it redefines their role. However, a genuine “dialogue of civilizations” cannot be achieved if it merely replaces one form of cultural hegemony with another. Small nations must be recognized not as blank slates for external ideological projects, but as active, respected architects of a pluralistic global order, even if their reach is not long. For small states, true sovereignty and long-term stability lie in demonstrating that global integration can coexist with, and indeed be enriched by, an unapologetic, confident defense of their unique civilizational identity.

Biljana Vankovska will take part in the expert dialogue titled From Global ‘Fighting With No Rules’ to a Dialogue of Civilisations, held by the Valdai Discussion Club, in partnership with Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, in Kaliningrad on June 23-24, 2026.

Anthony Fauci used his position as the leading Covid-19 adviser under two US administrations to steer scrutiny away from the so-called lab leak theory and protect himself from possible accountability, outgoing US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has alleged. She claimed the effort included perjury before the US Congress.

The accusations stem from Fauci’s tenure as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the agency’s funding of gain-of-function research, including work conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The lab leak theory holds that a bat coronavirus altered to infect humans escaped from the Chinese facility and triggered the Covid-19 pandemic. A competing explanation is that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally, possibly spreading through a live animal market in Wuhan.

On Friday, her final day in office, Gabbard released hundreds of pages of documents related to the investigation into the disease’s origins and what she described as Fauci’s influence on the US intelligence community. Some of the materials are not classified and were available to the public before the release.

Today, on my final day as Director of National Intelligence, I’m releasing never-before-seen communications and documents exposing how Dr. Fauci provided millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, worked with politicized elements… pic.twitter.com/ZMdliW4zyS

— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) June 19, 2026

Fauci was “the behind-the-scenes advisor” who together with “his hand-picked so-called experts,” pushed the intelligence community to back the theory of a natural animal origin, Gabbard said. She alleged that his goal was to avoid scrutiny over “dangerous gain-of-function coronavirus research linked to big pharma and their pursuit of universal vaccines worth trillions of dollars.” As one of the most prominent public voices on Covid-19, Fauci allegedly “publicly pushed lies, disinformation, and censorship using every platform available,” she added.

Gabbard also accused Fauci of “creating an atmosphere of intimidation” against supporters of the lab leak theory and whistleblowers who contacted her office. She described the tactics as “straight from the deep state playbook” and called Fauci a “politicized self-serving leader.”

The pandemic began during Donald Trump’s first term, while the vaccination campaign was carried out under President Joe Biden. Republican critics accused the Biden administration of suppressing debate about Covid-19 and pressuring the media in an effort to boost compliance with policies intended to contain the disease. Fauci himself became a politically polarizing figure, with Democrat-leaning outlets presenting him as a foil to Trump.

Last week, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released documents related to US-funded biolabs operating in Ukraine, some of which were involved in gain-of-function research, according to Gabbard. Russia and other countries have previously accused Washington of effectively funding bioweapons research under the guise of epidemic prevention, arguing that the use of foreign facilities allows the US to bypass domestic restrictions on virus weaponization.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki has stripped Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of Poland’s highest state honor, the Order of the White Eagle, after Kiev named a military unit after a nationalist group implicated in the wartime massacres of Poles and Jews.

Nawrocki announced the decision in a video statement on X on Friday, saying that “historical truth is not and can never be a bargaining chip” and that “the memory of the victims is the moral duty of the Polish state.”

The move follows weeks of growing tensions between Warsaw and Kiev after Zelensky signed a decree in late May granting the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA” to the Special Operations Center North. The designation refers to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). Zelensky said the measure was intended to revive the “historic traditions of the national army.”

Nawrocki said the decision crossed a red line, noting that for “the vast majority of Polish society,” the UPA remains synonymous with atrocities committed against Polish people during World War II. Poland officially recognizes the actions of the OUN and UPA as genocide.

Wow! President of Poland Karol Nawrocki strips Zelensky of Order of White Eagle for naming Ukrainian Special Forced unit "Heroes of UPA." UPA perpetrated mass murder of Poles, Jews & Ukrainians. Bandera OUN organized UPA from police during Nazi occupation pic.twitter.com/n9GMo87nXO

— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) June 19, 2026

“Facts are not subject to negotiation,” Nawrocki said, adding that they do not change with political expediency.

The Polish leader argued that naming a Ukrainian military unit after the UPA “has a meaning that goes far beyond the internal affairs of Ukraine” and described Kiev’s glorification of the group as “insulting, incomprehensible and deeply disappointing.”

The decision has drawn support from prominent Polish political figures. Former Prime Minister Leszek Miller called Zelensky’s decree “a spit in the face of Poles,” while former President Lech Walesa said it insulted “all murdered” Poles by honoring “UPA bandits.”

The opposition Strong Armenia bloc has petitioned the constitutional court to annul the results of the June 7 parliamentary election, alleging that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government orchestrated widespread electoral violations. The bloc placed second in the vote.

Pashinyan’s pro-EU ruling party, Civil Contract, claimed a decisive victory, securing 49.74% of the vote, according to the Central Electoral Commission (CEC).

Strong Armenia, founded by Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, won 23.27%, while the Armenia Alliance, led by former President Robert Kocharyan, garnered 9.92%.

Businessman Gagik Tsarukyan’s Prosperous Armenia narrowly missed the 4% threshold required for parliamentary representation, receiving 3.98%. Its failure to enter parliament proved pivotal for Civil Contract, helping the ruling party retain a constitutional majority that allows it to pass legislation and appoint senior officials without opposition backing.

In a statement published on Facebook on Friday, the bloc said it had filed a complaint with the constitutional court seeking to invalidate the election results and order a new vote, citing what it described as “mass and organized election violations” by the authorities.

The court said it would decide within two days whether to accept the application for review. If deemed admissible, a final ruling must be issued within 15 days of its registration. According to the court, it has received seven similar complaints, including from Strong Armenia, Prosperous Armenia, Armenia Alliance, and several smaller parties.

Earlier this week, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the Central Electoral Commission headquarters, demanding that the election results be annulled.

The same day, prosecutors opened a criminal case against Kocharyan, accusing the former president of abuse of power and money laundering in connection with an allegedly illegal 2004 real estate deal. His lawyer dismissed the case as a “political hit job.” On Wednesday, the CEC voted to lift Kocharyan’s immunity from prosecution.

Another opposition leader, Samvel Karapetyan, has been in custody since last year on charges of plotting a coup, which he denies.

Pashinyan also said this week that his party plans to confiscate assets belonging to the three main opposition leaders, accusing them of using their wealth to influence elections and saying they “should be left hungry.”

US President Donald Trump has denied that the war on Iran has highlighted the limits of his ability to project power, telling Axios on Thursday that “there are no limits.”

On Tuesday, Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding, extending a 60-day ceasefire and laying the ground for further talks. Iran has claimed that the US president signed the agreement “out of desperation,” which Trump has vehemently denied.

In an interview on ‘The Axios Show’, the president was asked whether the conflict had shown him the limits of his political and military reach.

“There are no limits… I haven’t learned that lesson yet. I know there are, but you know, there are no limits,” he said. “We defeated them totally militarily.”

Trump argued that the US blockade of Iranian ports emerged as a key factor in the conflict and demonstrated the strength of the American military.

“They have a lot of respect for me. And they do as I say,” he claimed.

Despite a US-Iran brokered ceasefire covering all regional fronts, including Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declined to pull Israeli forces from the country. Tehran has responded by delaying follow-up peace talks due to start in Switzerland on Friday.

Later in the day, Reuters reported that Hezbollah and Israel had agreed to a ceasefire, following mediation by the US and Qatar. However, neither side has officially confirmed the development, and according to open-source intelligence channels, the IDF continued strikes in Lebanon after the announcement of the truce.

Shortly after the start of the reported agreement, Netanyahu hailed Israeli attacks.

“As I instructed – the IDF struck powerfully 150 Hezbollah targets in Lebanon,” he wrote on his Hebrew-language X account.

The Nord Stream saga has taken a turn for the absurd, with a new book claiming that the star saboteur who blew up the gas pipelines was a Ukrainian erotic model-turned-deep sea diver. This detail is the latest addition to an ever-shifting story – while one key coincidence has completely flown under the radar.

Published on June 19, ‘The Nord Stream Conspiracy: The Greatest Sabotage in History’ promises an inside look at the operation that destroyed the Nord Stream lines. Author Bojan Pancevski doesn’t quibble with the ‘official’ story circulated by the German media – that a Ukrainian commando unit carried out the attack, but adds some pulp-fiction flourish to the tale.

Pancevski claims that a former erotic model identified only as ‘Freya’ was “the bravest diver in the whole group,” without whose experience diving to depths of 100 meters the operation could not have been pulled off. Another of the divers was sick with Covid-19, but Pancevski nevertheless claims he carried out the kind of dive that has killed experienced military frogmen before. 

After the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, ‘Freya’, a Ukrainian who posed naked for soft-porn magazines before turning to diving, apparently “contacted a dubious intelligence unit through her diving colleagues,” and volunteered her services. Asked if she would be willing to take part in the costliest act of industrial sabotage in history, ‘Freya’ supposedly replied “where do I sign.”

Although the story plumbs the depths of 1960s spy-caper silliness, it is no more far-fetched than the official narrative to date. In the most recent retelling of the operation, Der Spiegel claimed in February that a “Ukrainian secret commando unit” approached the CIA in spring 2022 with plans to blow up the four individual gas pipelines that make up the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 connectors. Der Spiegel’s Ukrainian sources told the outlet that the CIA “liked the plan,” shared technical data on the pipelines, and was even willing to finance the operation, until it abruptly withdrew its support in early summer.

The Ukrainians, or so the story goes, went ahead and blew up the pipelines without American permission, using a rented yacht to transport the explosives to the blast sites.

The latest report is unlikely to raise any eyebrows in Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has dismissed the entire premise of a small team of Ukrainians pulling off an operation beyond the capability of most state militaries as “ridiculous.” To understand just how ridiculous the German story is, it’s necessary to jump back to 2022.

A junction in the story

On September 26, 2022, a seismometer on the Danish island of Bornholm detected two spikes consistent with underwater explosions – one just after 2am, and another just after 7pm. Danish and Swedish authorities then determined that both Nord Stream 1 lines had been destroyed and one Nord Stream 2 line damaged roughly 60 km northeast of Bornholm, while an explosion around 25 km southeast of the island had destroyed the other Nord Stream 2 line.

As images of bubbling gas leaks hit international media, a separate story went almost entirely unreported: less than 24 hours after the second round of blasts, Poland and Norway celebrated the opening of the Baltic Pipe, a gas pipeline transiting Norwegian gas to Poland via Denmark, passing over Nord Stream just south of Bornholm.

Built between 2020 and 2022, the Baltic Pipe joins the larger Norway-Netherlands Europipe II in the North Sea. It allows 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas to reach Poland every year – less than a tenth of Nord Stream’s capacity, but enough to cover two-thirds of Poland’s total imports in 2024. Poland sells some of this gas on to other EU countries, which after the destruction of Nord Stream were guaranteed to need a new source for the foreseeable future.

With their own supply assured and Russia’s key gas conduit to the EU out of action, the excitement in Warsaw was palpable. “Thank you, USA,” Poland’s now-foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, tweeted. Sikorski deleted his tweet two days later. His jubilation was premature and off message, as the West had collectively decided on a different narrative.

Flooding the zone

Over the next week, Ukraine and its Western backers flooded the media with false claims. The editorial board of the Washington Post pointed out that whoever pulled off the attack possessed the “kind of capability usually wielded by a state actor.” It was taken as gospel in the US and Europe that this actor was Russia.

• “[The] Gas leak from NS-1 [Nord Stream 1] is nothing more than a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression towards the EU” – Mikhail Podoliak, adviser to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky

• It “seems” Russia is behind this “act of sabotage” – US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm

• “Only Russia can really be considered for this” – former German intelligence chief Gerhard Schindler

• “This is clearly an act of sabotage of some sort and Russia certainly is the most likely suspect” – former CIA Director John Brennan

Russia – which invested billions of dollars in building the pipelines – called the accusations “predictable, stupid, and absurd.” 

“It’s obvious to everyone who benefits from it,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said a week after the explosions. “Those who benefit are the ones who have done it,” he added, pinning the blame on “the Anglo-Saxons,” a Russian colloquialism for the US-UK transatlantic alliance. Still, accusations of Russian involvement persisted. European security officials told CNN and other outlets that they had spotted Russian ships near Bornholm on the day of the explosions, but the theory that Russia carried out the attack was metaphorically blown out of the water by American journalist Seymour Hersh in February 2023.

Hersh blames the CIA

Over a series of reports, Hersh made the case that the CIA, working with the Norwegian Navy, used NATO military exercises in the Baltic Sea in June 2022 as cover to plant remotely-triggered explosive devices on the Nord Stream lines. Citing a source with “direct knowledge of the operational planning,” Hersh alleged that the order to carry out the operation came directly from US President Joe Biden.

Only the US, Hersh explained, had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off such an audacious attack.

Means: 

The Nord Stream pipelines sat on the seabed at a depth of between 80 and 110 meters. At this depth, divers must breathe hypoxic Trimix gas, carry around 90 kg of equipment, and spend (very roughly) 90 minutes decompressing on the way up for every two minutes spent on the seabed. Furthermore, a single diver or pair of divers would rarely attempt more than one of these dives in a single day, meaning the crew of the yacht – described in one report as “not the vessel anyone would choose” for such a mission – would have had to remain at sea amid active military exercises for days on end.

RT spoke to a scuba diving expert who said it was “not impossible, but highly unlikely” that a small team of divers could pull off such an operation.

Even 50-meter dives can kill the most experienced military divers, but the divers of the US Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center in Florida possess the equipment and the know-how to carry out engineering operations at this depth. The CIA recruited these divers, commandeered a Norwegian mine-hunting vessel, and planted shaped explosive charges on the pipelines in June 2022, Hersh’s source claimed.

The charges were reportedly triggered on September 26 by a sonar buoy dropped from a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane.

Motive:

US antipathy toward Nord Stream is a matter of public record, and transcends presidential administrations. Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden have all condemned the pipelines, and urged the EU to abandon Russian gas for American LNG – a pricier fuel that prior to 2022 was a hard sell in Europe.

According to Hersh, Biden planned on blowing up the pipelines long before Russia sent troops into Ukraine in 2022. As he worked out the logistics with the CIA behind closed doors, he delivered a public threat in early February: in the event of military action by Russia, “there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it,” he said.

Biden’s reasoning was twofold, Hersh’s source explained. First, blowing up Nord Stream satisfied the longtime US goal of forcing the EU into reliance on American LNG imports. Secondly, Germany’s economy before 2022 was dependent on Russia for 55% of its gas supply. By destroying Nord Stream, the US prevented a possible rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow, guaranteeing that Chancellor Olaf Scholz stayed committed to providing military support for Ukraine.

“The President of the United States would rather see Germany freeze than [see] Germany possibly stop supporting Ukraine,” Hersh wrote.

Opportunity:

Planting each charge was an hours-long endeavor, and the presence of military divers wouldn’t go unnoticed, unless they had an excuse to be in the area. NATO’s BALTOPS exercises gave the CIA the cover it needed. Running from June 5 to June 17, the BALTOPS drills involved 14 NATO states, and included US-led experiments with mine-hunting drones and deep-sea communications technology in the Baltic Sea.

Hersh predicted that American and German intelligence agencies would soon come up with an alternate story and feed it to friendly media outlets. In April 2023, The New York Times, Die Zeit, and Der Spiegel published the first versions of this tale.

Enter the Germans

Roughly, their story goes as follows: a six-person Ukrainian team rented a 15-meter pleasure yacht – the Andromeda – at the German port of Rostock, sailed through active NATO military exercises, anchored in waters too deep to actually anchor such a craft, spent hours at 80 meters planting timed explosives weighing up to 27 kg each at four different sites, and somehow had time to decompress and leave the scene before sunrise. This, Der Spiegel and other outlets allege, is the version of events German prosecutors are following.

The details of the story have shifted since 2023. First, it was carried out by Ukrainian civilians “buoyed by alcohol and patriotic fervor,” and then by a crack Ukrainian commando unit. Zelensky gave the plot his blessing in one version, until he didn’t, and the operation was then carried out by former Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny, without the knowledge of his political rival, the former comedian.

One version has the Ukrainian state funding the attack, another has a private business figure supplying the cash. 

Now, the focus of attention is on how much the CIA knew about the attack, and when. This has been the subject of lively debate within Western media, but at no point has the central premise of a small Ukrainian team using a yacht been questioned.

“Five people were sitting around drinking, having a laugh, and decided ‘Why don’t we blow up the Nord Stream pipelines?’ They had diving skills, allegedly hired a little boat, sailed to the place where the Nord Streams were passing, went down, planted explosives and detonated them,” Lavrov commented in 2024. “If someone can actually believe this version, then it’s only people who are afraid of the truth and are trying to protect the criminal Kiev regime in any way possible.”

Two suspects have been arrested for their role in this supposed plot. One was held in Poland until a judge set him free in October, arguing that destroying Nord Stream was a legitimate act of war against an “aggressor,” and not a terrorist attack on civilian infrastructure. He will not be extradited to Germany, a fact that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk made clear on X:

“Polish court denied extradition to Germany of a Ukrainian national suspected of blowing up Nord Stream 2 and released him from custody. And rightly so. The case is closed,” he wrote.

The alleged ringleader of the group, a Ukrainian national named Sergey Kuznetsov, is currently in German custody. However, Ukrainian media claim that the evidence against him is flimsy and won’t support criminal charges. If this is true, then a confession is the only hope that the Germans have of backing up their own conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, every new revelation and plot twist in the Nord Stream story brings the official narrative closer to the reality: that the attack was not carried out by a group of Ukrainian drunkards, or a rogue military cell, but done with the prior knowledge and likely participation of the CIA and at least one NATO partner. This is why nobody in Moscow takes the Western media’s Kabuki theater seriously: they know who did it, and they’re waiting for the official narrative to catch up.

For years, Western policymakers and media outlets have insisted that Russia’s international position has been irreparably weakened since February 2022. Yet the ASEAN-Russia Summit held in Kazan tells a very different story.

Far from being isolated, Moscow continues to attract partners across the Global South, particularly in Southeast Asia, where governments increasingly prioritize sovereignty, strategic autonomy, and economic pragmatism over ideology.

The Kazan summit, coinciding with the 35th anniversary of ASEAN-Russia relations, transformed what could have been a purely commemorative event into a forward-looking agenda focused on energy security, nuclear cooperation, trade connectivity, digital development, and regional stability. More importantly, it demonstrated that Russia remains an indispensable actor in the emerging multipolar order.

The adoption of the Kazan Declaration, the Comprehensive Plan of Action for the ASEAN-Russia Strategic Partnership (2026-2030), the Joint Statement on Energy Cooperation, and the Joint Statement on Cultural Cooperation provided a roadmap for expanding cooperation well beyond traditional diplomatic engagement.

ASEAN-Russia relations are built on mutual respect for sovereignty and a shared preference for a balanced international order.

For many Southeast Asian states, the central challenge of contemporary geopolitics is preserving strategic autonomy amid intensifying competition between major powers. ASEAN members have consistently rejected pressure to choose sides in global rivalries. Instead, they seek diversified partnerships that maximize national interests while minimizing external dependence.

Unlike many external actors, Moscow does not seek to export political models or impose ideological conditions on cooperation. Instead, it offers practical partnerships in areas directly linked to national development: energy, infrastructure, agriculture, security, science, and technology.

In Kazan, ASEAN and Russia reaffirmed support for a just multipolar world, respect for international law, and the principle of ASEAN centrality in regional affairs. The declaration also emphasized strengthening security dialogue, expanding economic cooperation, and enhancing connectivity across the wider Asia-Pacific and Eurasian spaces – all pillars of a more balanced regional order.

Energy security: The foundation of future cooperation

If one theme dominated the summit, it was energy. Southeast Asia is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world, and its energy demand is expected to rise dramatically over the coming decades. Ensuring reliable and affordable energy supplies is therefore essential for economic growth, industrialization, and social stability.

Several ASEAN countries have intensified LNG cooperation and supply discussions with Russia, including Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These arrangements not only diversify regional energy sources but also strengthen energy security by reducing excessive dependence on any single supplier or market.

The long-standing Vietnam-Russia energy partnership remains the most advanced example. Decades of successful cooperation through the Vietsovpetro joint venture have created a foundation of trust that few international energy partnerships can match. Russian LNG exports to Vietnam continue to expand, while new projects promise to deepen the relationship even further.

Nuclear power and strategic development

Perhaps the most significant outcome of the summit was the elevation of nuclear cooperation to a flagship area of engagement.

As Southeast Asian economies continue to grow, many governments are recognizing that achieving energy security and decarbonization simultaneously will require nuclear power. Russia possesses one of the world’s most advanced civilian nuclear industries and extensive experience in international nuclear partnerships.

This was highlighted by the agreement signed earlier this year between Russia’s Rosatom and Vietnam concerning the Ninh Thuan-1 nuclear power project. The project symbolizes a broader trend: ASEAN states are increasingly willing to explore nuclear cooperation with Russia as part of their long-term development strategies.

For many developing countries, nuclear energy is not simply an energy issue. It is a question of technological sovereignty. Countries that master advanced energy systems gain greater control over their economic futures, industrial competitiveness, and strategic resilience. Russia is willing to share expertise, train specialists, and support long-term infrastructure development.

Building a more balanced security architecture

Russia and ASEAN increasingly view their cooperation as a stabilizing factor amid growing geopolitical turbulence in the Asia-Pacific. The summit reaffirmed commitments to security dialogue through ASEAN-led mechanisms, including the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus.

The agenda included maritime security, protection of critical infrastructure, biosecurity, counterterrorism, cyber threats, and transnational crime. Such issues cannot be effectively addressed through zero-sum geopolitical competition.

Russia’s role here is particularly valuable because it contributes to regional equilibrium. A stable Asia-Pacific requires multiple influential actors capable of preventing excessive concentration of power. ASEAN’s support for a diverse and inclusive regional architecture reflects precisely this logic.

Economic sovereignty in a changing world

The Comprehensive Plan of Action for 2026-2030 places political-security cooperation first, followed by economic cooperation and socio-cultural cooperation. This reflects an understanding that strategic trust must underpin sustainable economic growth.

A key area of future cooperation involves transport corridors, logistics networks, digital platforms, and financial settlement mechanisms. These projects aim to improve connectivity between Southeast Asia and the wider Eurasian region.

Equally important is the gradual shift away from excessive dependence on the US dollar. From the Russian perspective, expanding settlements in national currencies enhances economic sovereignty and reduces vulnerability to external political pressures. By 2025, approximately 85% of Russia’s foreign trade was serviced in rubles or BRICS-related currencies, compared with more than 75 percent conducted in G7 currencies in 2021.

For ASEAN countries, currency diversification is a way to create options. Strategic autonomy in the 21st century increasingly requires financial flexibility as well as political independence.

The summit’s support for stronger engagement between ASEAN and organizations such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and potentially BRICS reflects this broader effort to create a more interconnected and resilient economic landscape.

The summit was co-chaired by Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., a leader generally viewed as maintaining close ties, and expending security cooperation, with the US. Yet despite those relationships, Manila actively participated in strengthening engagement with Moscow.

For Southeast Asian governments, relations with Russia and relations with the US are not mutually exclusive. The region thinks in strategic diversification, not bloc politics.

ASEAN states increasingly reject the notion that partnership with one major power requires hostility toward another. Instead, they pursue a pragmatic foreign policy based on national interests.

The participation of leaders with diverse geopolitical orientations demonstrated that Russia remains a partner with whom countries across the region are willing – and eager – to engage.

Multipolarity becomes reality

The Kazan summit illustrates a fundamental shift in international politics. The emerging world order is taking shape through networks of sovereign states seeking diversified partnerships, balanced diplomacy, and greater freedom of action.

After 35 years of cooperation, the Russia-ASEAN partnership is entering a new phase characterized by deeper economic integration, expanded energy cooperation, stronger security dialogue, and growing institutional connectivity across Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific.

Russia is not isolated, ASEAN is not interested in choosing sides, and the future of international relations belongs increasingly to those willing to defend sovereignty while embracing mutually beneficial cooperation.

Russia is urging members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to develop their own digital platforms to reduce dependence on Western media giants.

The SCO comprises China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Belarus.

Speaking at an SCO media forum in Kyrgyzstan on Friday, Russian Digital Development Ministry official Ekaterina Larina said Western platforms have amassed “huge influence” over global audiences which could be used to shape public opinion and information flows.

“All SCO countries one way or another enter negotiations with global platforms, trying to reach certain agreements on rules,” Larina said. “But an important area in ensuring information security remains the development of our own resources and platforms.”

Moscow has long argued that states should exercise greater sovereignty over their national information spaces and reduce dependence on foreign-controlled digital infrastructure.

Addressing the participants, Kyrgyz Culture Minister Mirbek Mambetaliev called for closer cooperation among SCO media outlets, saying stronger ties could help create a shared information space based on trust and partnership.

The event features discussions on media digitalization, the use of artificial intelligence in journalism, and the growing role of online platforms in shaping news consumption. Participants are also expected to explore joint media initiatives and broader cooperation as digital technologies continue to transform the global information landscape.

A New Delhi court has rejected the messaging app Telegram’s appeal to overturn a temporary ban introduced by India’s federal government.

The restrictions were imposed on the popular messaging app earlier this week to prevent its use by “cheating rackets” to defraud candidates taking a nationwide medical entrance examination.

The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test held last month was cancelled following allegations of question leaks and exam irregularities; about 2.2 million students will take the retest on Sunday.

The Delhi High Court found ‌the government’s action legal and reasonable. The government is “empowered... to issue directions for blocking public access to Telegram,” it ruled.

The ban is effective June 16 to June 22, with the app’s message-editing feature blocked until June 30. The government says the feature was misused to circulate back-dated messages, creating the impression that exam questions had been leaked in advance.

India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology invoked the provisions of its information technology law, which enables authorities to block access to online sites in the “interest of sovereignty and integrity of India,” to temporarily ban the app founded by Russian tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov.

India is Telegram’s biggest market by downloads, although Meta’s WhatsApp remains the top messaging platform in the country of 1.4 billion.

The legal battle is the most high-profile case between a global tech giant and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. ⁠In 2025, it reduced the number of officials who can order content takedowns following a bitter legal battle with Elon Musk’s X.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has accused Donald Trump of fabricating a story about her after the US president claimed she had “begged” him for a photo during this week’s G7 summit in France.

According to a dubbed Italian-language version of a phone interview released by broadcaster La7 on Friday, Trump suggested that Meloni was desperate to pose with him during the gathering in Evian and that he only agreed “out of pity.”

The remarks triggered a sharp response from Meloni, who dismissed Trump’s account as “completely fabricated.”

“I am frankly astonished. I don’t understand why the president of the United States behaves this way with his allies,” Meloni said in a video statement posted on X on Friday. “I and Italy never beg.”

Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani also took to X to announce that he was canceling a planned trip to the US scheduled for June 21-22.

“The serious and offensive words of President Trump towards Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni offend all of Italy,” the diplomat wrote.

Meloni was long regarded as one of Trump’s closest allies among European leaders and as a bridge between Washington and Brussels. She was the only European head of government to attend Trump’s inauguration in 2025. Relations have deteriorated in recent months, however, amid disagreements over Iran and Meloni’s defense of Pope Leo XIV after Trump attacked the pontiff over his criticism of the Iran war.

According to Euronews, European Council President Antonio Costa joked during a conversation with the pair that Trump and Meloni were “friends again.”

“We have always been friends,” Meloni replied. “I was abandoned,” Trump responded. “No, you were not,” Meloni said.

The anecdote about the Italian prime minister came as Trump launched a broader critique of EU policies during his conversation with La7.

“The Europeans have gotten everything wrong on energy and immigration,” he told La7, calling Europe’s immigration policy “a disaster” and its renewable-energy agenda a failure. He argued that unless these issues are addressed, “Europe will probably never be the same again.”

The UK will provide Ukraine with 150,000 UAVs by the end of the year, London announced on Thursday following one of Kiev’s largest drone attacks on Moscow since the start of the conflict.

The package, worth £752 million ($996 million), was announced by British Defense Secretary Dan Jarvis at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels. According to the British government, which has been among Kiev’s most active military supporters, the package will be funded through London’s £2.26 billion loan to Kiev, backed by proceeds from frozen Russian sovereign assets.

British officials presented the package, which includes drones, missiles and radars, as necessary military support for Kiev. Chancellor Rachel Reeves pledged that London would continue backing Ukraine and putting pressure on Moscow. Russia has long argued that continued Western arms deliveries only prolong the conflict and undermine peace efforts.

The announcement came after Moscow and the surrounding region were hit by one of the largest Ukrainian drone raids in recent years. Russian air defenses intercepted 194 drones approaching the capital overnight, according to officials, but the attack still caused damage.

Local authorities reported that one drone struck the Moscow Oil Refinery in the Kapotnya district, triggering a fire, while debris damaged residential buildings, vehicles, and commercial sites, including several shopping centers.

Residents in several districts also reported black rain and soot falling from the sky after the refinery blaze, with the local authorities advising people to keep windows closed and limit time outdoors.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemned the attacks and said Moscow would respond by changing its strategy and begin regularly carrying out large-scale strikes against targets that “directly affect the combat capability” of the Ukrainian military.

“I have long been convinced that words are not enough,” Lavrov told reporters.

Moscow has accused Ukraine of using Western-supplied weapons, funding, and intelligence to carry out terrorist attacks on Russian territory and civilian infrastructure.

Russian officials have argued that continued arms deliveries from the UK, EU, and NATO members make Western governments direct participants in the conflict and reduce the chances of a peace deal.

The latest media hype over one of Kiev’s largest aerial attacks on Moscow stems in part from the absence of strict legal liability in Russia for publishing online videos of the raids and their aftermath, according to Dmitry Kornev, a military expert and founder of the MilitaryRussia project.

Unlike Ukraine, which enforces nationwide criminal penalties for publishing information that could aid the enemy, Russia’s restrictions on sharing videos of drone strikes only carry administrative penalties and apply only in certain regions.

In an interview with RT, Kornev said videos showing the impact of Ukrainian drone attacks in Russia are “often uploaded online almost in real time, allowing anyone with access to public resources to monitor the strikes and potentially use the footage to analyze and adjust future drone operations.” By comparison, footage released in Ukraine is “heavily censored and rarely allows viewers to geolocate the sites of military activity.”

On Thursday, air defenses shot down at least 194 UAVs approaching Moscow after the Ukrainian military launched one of its largest drone raids ever against the Russian capital. At least 17 people, including two children, were wounded in Moscow Region as a result of the attack, the local authorities reported.

Ukrainian drone raids on Russian territory have intensified over the past year, with Kiev launching hundreds of UAVs targeting residential areas, critical infrastructure, and industrial facilities.

Russian officials have described these incursions as terrorist attacks meant to compensate for the setbacks Ukraine’s military has been suffering on the battlefield.

Earlier this week, Ukraine attacked a bus carrying a Belarusian youth soccer team in Bryansk Region, Russia, injuring eight people, including six minors, and killing the wife of the team’s coach, who was accompanying the athletes to a seaside resort.

Talks between Russia and Madagascar will give “new impetus” to bilateral relations and deepen cooperation across all areas, Malagasy Foreign Minister Alice N’Diaye has said during a visit to Moscow.

Speaking after meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday, N’Diaye said recent high-level contacts between the two countries, including the visit of Madagascar’s leader to Russia, demonstrate Antananarivo’s commitment to strengthening cooperation with Moscow.

Both sides reaffirmed their commitment to expanding political dialogue and strategic cooperation. The ministers highlighted opportunities for closer collaboration in energy, agriculture, infrastructure, healthcare, education, as well as the extraction and processing of mineral resources. Lavrov also pointed to prospects in transport and geological exploration.

“Russia is a lever for economic development, for the development and enhancement of our national security,” N’Diaye stated.

Lavrov pledged continued support for Madagascar in addressing socio-economic challenges, including through the training of national specialists and assistance in developing the country’s epidemic-response capabilities.

He noted that Russia delivered another batch of humanitarian aid to Madagascar on June 9 to help the country deal with the aftermath of Cyclones Fitia and Gezani.

“There is interest in such internships at our diplomatic academy, and we will support it in every possible way and strive to meet the expectations of our friends,” Lavrov said.

The minister also noted that “the French maintain an illegal presence, including on islands that belong to Madagascar”.

The meeting comes amid growing engagement between Moscow and Antananarivo. In February, Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted Madagascar’s interim leader in Moscow. Security ties have also expanded in recent months. On June 16, instructors from the Russian Defense Ministry’s Africa Corps completed a six-week training program for Madagascar’s Cabinet security service.

India has directed the state-backed Oil and Natural Gas Corporation to build and fill another strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) facility, which would expand its reserve capacity by a third, a report has said.

The oil explorer and producer will invest an estimated $1.6 billion to implement the federal government’s directive. New Delhi is prioritizing energy security in the wake of the Middle East conflict, which depleted its strategic reserves and exposed its vulnerability to oil shocks.

The proposed 1.75 million metric ton (MMT) underground facility in the southern port city of Mangaluru is expected to increase New Delhi’s current emergency reserve capacity of 5.33 MMT by a third, The Economic Times reported.

ONGC would require $602 million for construction and $1.2 billion for filling the facility with crude oil, according to estimates based on current oil prices.

India currently has three SPR facilities located in the southern states of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. These were funded by the government and are owned by Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ltd, a state-owned special purpose vehicle. 

A phase 2 plan to add 6.5 MMT was approved earlier.

India’s daily consumption is five million barrels of oil per day, making its SPR capacity of about 39 million barrels look meager compared to the reserves of other major economies. 

New Delhi held just 21 million barrels of strategic crude stocks at the end of 2025. 

China’s reserves, at more than 220 million barrels, can last 60 days, while Japan’s 324 million barrel-reserve can last 230 days.

South Africa has welcomed a US-Iran peace deal aimed at halting the war in the Middle East, saying it could provide a framework for durable peace and regional stability.

South Africa calls upon all regional stakeholders to honour the reduction in military hostilities. Furthermore, the nation encourages active cooperation toward the comprehensive execution of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) and the attainment of a definitive settlement.

Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola said “the agreement between the United States and Iran hopefully ends the unlawful use of force and violations of the UN Charter in this war”.

The Minister observed that South Africa has always advocated for resolving international conflicts through negotiation rather than armed conflict. He added that the MoU establishes a foundation for lasting peace and regional security in the Middle East by reinforcing the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the necessity of peace for all nations.

He further stated that South Africa expresses its gratitude to the governments of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Sultanate of Oman, and the State of Qatar, as well as other nations that contributed constructively to this process.

In an effort to achieve stability in the Middle East and surrounding regions, South Africa urges all involved parties to commit to the pursuit of a fair and enduring peace.

First published by IOL

Ghana has convened a global conference on reparatory justice months after the United Nations backed a landmark resolution recognizing the trafficking and enslavement of Africans as the gravest crime against humanity.

The meeting in Accra is seeking to move the reparations debate beyond symbolism, as African and Caribbean leaders press for apologies, restitution, compensation, the return of cultural artifacts, and institutional reforms linked to the enduring legacy of slavery and colonial rule.

Presidents from Senegal, Namibia, Liberia and Sao Tome and Principe, the prime minister of Barbados, Equatorial Guinea’s vice prime minister, Algeria’s parliamentary speaker and ministers from more than 80 countries were attending, according to officials.

In an opening address on Thursday, Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama called for a new phase of global engagement, saying the world must move beyond acknowledging historical injustices toward action, truth-telling and reconciliation.

The reparations push continues to face opposition from some Western governments. At the UN vote, the UK and several European Union members abstained. The US (along with Israel and Argentina) rejected the resolution, arguing that it does not recognize a legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred.

French President Emmanuel Macron, addressing the conference by video, said reparations must not be reduced to financial compensation or “a fake cheque” that “would end a story or finish it.” Last month, his government backed the symbolic repeal of the Code Noir, the royal decrees that governed slavery in French colonies.

“Future generations will judge us not by the resolutions we adopted, but by the progress we achieved,” Mahama noted.

Israel and Hezbollah have agreed to a ceasefire starting on Friday, Reuters has claimed, citing an unnamed US official and “two Hezbollah officials.” However, no official confirmation has been made by either the Israel Defense Forces or the militant group.

According to the US official who spoke to Reuters, negotiators for the US and Qatar worked out the deal with help from Iran. “We understand that after the exchange of fire earlier today, Israel and Hezbollah are now in a ceasefire,” he added.

The American-Iranian memo of understanding signed earlier this week states that the war should be terminated on all fronts, including in Lebanon. However, Israel has continued its strikes on its neighbor, killing at least 18 people only Friday night, the country’s health ministry said earlier.

He also called on the Lebanese government to reject any direct negotiations with Israel while Israeli attacks on Lebanon continue.

Hezbollah not only functions as a militant group, it is also as a political party and social welfare provider; however, it is at odds with the Lebanese government. In March, Lebanon’s government took the unprecedented step of banning Hezbollah’s military and security activity.

The group is represented in both the government and parliament. The move came hours after it announced it had launched rockets and drones towards Israel to avenge the killing of Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei in US-Israeli attacks.

According to Asharq Al-Awsat sources, the Shiite political alliance is now divided over how to deal with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s government, which took the decision. While one faction, described as hardline, favors changing the government, another believes current political conditions make such a move unrealistic because of parliamentary arithmetic: priority should instead be given to securing an Israeli withdrawal and rebuilding devastated towns.

A US intelligence release of new information about American-funded biolabs in Ukraine confirms Russia’s suspicions that the research had a military dimension, the Russian Ministry of Defense has said.

Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a statement regarding a network of 120 laboratories in 30 countries, including Ukraine. She said the disclosure was intended to set the record straight after what she described as a deliberate cover-up by previous administrations.

Gabbard confirmed that some of the facilities were involved in gain-of-function research, a controversial field aimed at making pathogens more dangerous, ostensibly to help develop vaccines before similar mutations arise naturally. Russia and other countries have long argued that such studies can serve as a cover for military programs banned under the Biological Weapons Convention.

“All the accusations that the Russian Federation is spreading disinformation and engaging in hybrid warfare to deceive the international community are absolutely false,” he added.

Rtishchev was responding to Western officials and media outlets that have dismissed previous Russian claims on the issue as “propaganda.” Moscow says a complex network of public and private entities was used to obscure the aims of laboratory work in Ukraine.

The Russian briefing came hours after another disclosure by Gabbard, this one focused on the possible role of gain-of-function research in the origins of Covid-19. She accused Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served as a White House adviser on the pandemic under two US administrations, of steering investigations toward the natural-origin theory, allegedly to protect himself.

Fauci directed US funding of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology while serving as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022.

Ukraine’s latest large-scale drone attack on Moscow was designed primarily for “dramatic effect” and was aimed at harming civilians, military analysts have told RT.

The strike, described by Russian media as the largest drone raid on the nation’s capital in two years, was intended to generate headlines rather than achieve meaningful military objectives, according to US-based military analyst and author Andrei Martyanov.

“This is done all for dramatic effect, for the PR action,” Martyanov told RT, adding that “the practical outcome of this is negligible.”

According to him, drones are not the main force shaping combined-arms operations, which continue to rely primarily on artillery and air power.

“Drones are very good, essentially, instrument, if you wish, for the terrorist regime, which is Nazi regime in Kiev,” he said. “That’s what they do. They kill civilians.”

Martyanov argued that Moscow’s enormous size makes such attacks militarily insignificant while ensuring they attract outsized attention abroad.

“Many people still do not understand what Moscow is… it is comparable to a small country such as Luxembourg… It is purely for the shock value,” Martyanov said.

Watch RT’s full interview with Andrei Martyanov below.

Political commentator and former US Army officer Stanislav Krapivnik, who is based in Moscow Region, agrees that the consequences of such operations are borne primarily by civilians rather than military targets.

“I’ve seen videos sent by friends and friends of friends of the drones flying directly into apartment buildings. Not clipping them, not being shot down and falling on them, but actually targeting apartment buildings to kill civilians,” Krapivnik told RT.

“At the end of the day, this has to be settled on the battlefield,” he said, adding that French and German leadership is “just as guilty for the murder of civilians” as the Ukrainian leadership.

Watch RT’s full interview with Stanislav Krapivnik below.

The recent incident of the US Navy attacking an unarmed merchant ship off the coast of Oman with two Hellfire missiles and killing three Indian mariners as a result has deeply angered Indian public opinion.

The Indian government was forced to summon the US chargé d’affaires in New Delhi twice to register a protest. What has particularly offended India is the lack of any expression of regret by the US for killing Indian nationals. Whatever the circumstances that led to this killing, some words of regret from the US were expected given the friendly relations between the two countries.

India and the US have a comprehensive global strategic partnership. Both have been cooperating to promote maritime security in the Indo-Pacific region, with regular naval exercises and membership of the Quad. A US officer is stationed in Indian Navy’s Information Fusion Center – Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR) in Gurugram. India maintains a reciprocal liaison officer in the US Central Command HQ in Florida as part of deepening maritime, counterterrorism, and undersea domain awareness cooperation.

Given this level of institutional engagement, and the fact that Indian seafarers make up roughly 10% to 12% of the global maritime workforce, the risk to Indian nationals in a region that is a major source of oil and gas not only for India but for Asia as a whole should have prompted the discussion and development of clear protocols to protect their lives.

It is in this context that Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar spoke to US Secretary of State Rubio and reiterated India’s strong protest at the attacks by the US Navy in the Gulf that killed three Indian mariners. During the call, Jaishankar stated that such lethal actions against commercial shipping were not justified.

Rather surprisingly, Rubio’s response was unusually harsh and peremptory. He stressed to Jaishankar that all commercial vessels should immediately comply with orders from US forces which seek to uphold peace and security in the strait. He underscored that violations of the US blockade and the illicit transport of Iranian oil will not be tolerated. 

Rubio implicitly not only justified the killing of three Indian mariners under the circumstances, but warned that this could happen again as the US will not tolerate the violation of its unilaterally imposed blockade. There is not even a pro forma expression of regret at the killing of nationals of a friendly country.

The irony of Rubio’s unyielding message to India is that two days later President Donald Trump announced the lifting of the US blockade and unhindered passage through the strait following a preliminary framework agreement with Iran. Rubio would have been aware of this development and yet he chose to respond to Jaishankar’s oral démarche in such hectoring language. This will only serve to seed more distrust in India towards the US.

Trump evaded the issue. This "working together" could have started with some expression of regret as a demonstration of  good faith. An opportunity was missed to close the matter and actually even win over Indian public opinion.

The broader context of US-India ties

The US has been building a relationship of trust with India ever since the presidency of George W. Bush. The nuclear deal with India reversed decades of mistrust between the two countries and opened the doors to an expanding relationship in several areas: economic, trade, technology, defense, and security. Presidents Obama, Biden, and even Trump in his first term continued to consolidate the relationship. India-US ties were described as the defining relationship of the 21st century.

Defense ties that were virtually absent in 2005 became a major confidence-building measure on India’s part, with New Delhi buying weapons and platforms worth over $22 billion. India and the US signed all the required foundational agreements in the defense area. India was declared a Major Defense Partner by the US and certain export control regulations were eased to allow the sale of US defense material and technologies to India.

Bilateral military exercises expanded during these years. Within the Quad, along with Japan and Australia, India and the US have been cooperating in the area of maritime security in the Indo-Pacific. The US linked the security of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, which was logical in view of Japan’s membership of the Quad. A major objective was to deter the maritime expansionism of China, though New Delhi worked to enlarge the remit of Quad to also include important non-security areas. 

In the US Congress, India has enjoyed a bipartisan consensus all these years. The large Indian diaspora in the US has been valued as a strong bond. The number of Indian students enrolling in US universities overtook the number of Chinese students, hitherto the largest. India was the biggest beneficiary of the H‑1B visa scheme, and this has played a large role in strengthening links between the IT giants in the US and Indian talent.

The US has continued to be uncomfortable with India’s ties with Russia. On the defense side, Washington has made no secret it wanted to dilute India’s defense ties with Russia, and even replace Russia as India’s biggest defense partner. The CAATSA legislation passed by the US Congress, with the encouragement of Trump in his first term, was to deter India from acquiring new high-end defense platforms from Russia such as S-400 air defense missiles. This legislation put India in a defensive position to seek waivers from the Washington to avoid risks of US secondary sanctions. The US compelled India to cease buying Iranian oil under threat from sanctions. India has had to seek waivers for its operations at the Iranian port of Chabahar. 

The US State Department has repeatedly targeted New Delhi in its annual reports on issues such as human rights, the treatment of minorities, and religious freedom in India – much to the annoyance of Indian opinion, which has long criticized Washington’s double standards and hypocrisy.

After Russia launched a military operation in Ukraine, pressure on New Delhi to condemn Moscow and cease buying Russian oil became contentious issues in the relationship.

While India has stood its ground, these pressures have constantly reminded India that the US is incapable of treating other countries as equals, that over dependence on the US would constrain India’s strategic autonomy which India must conserve at all costs.

In his second term, Trump has undone the progress in trust building between India and the US. From India’s viewpoint he has done this gratuitously, without any provocation from India. He has always been obsessed with high Indian tariffs, overlooking the fact that these are not US specific and are WTO compliant. He went on to impose 50% tariffs on India, the highest on any other country except Brazil, including 25% penalty tariffs for India buying Russian oil. He overlooked the fact that the Biden administration had encouraged India to buy from Russia in order to avoid a sharp spike in global oil prices.

India’s bipartisan support in the US Congress has not shielded it from Trump’s arbitrary actions. The Indian diaspora has not mobilized itself actively in the support of their homeland. The US corporate sector with large interest in India has chosen not to bat for India openly for fear of provoking the capricious Trump administration.

India has made major concessions to the US to secure a trade deal, a fact recognized by USTR Jamieson Greer, but Trump has kept it in abeyance because he wants to extract concessions from India on agricultural products in particular, which India cannot offer. He wants India to plead for a deal. He is now using Section 301 of the US trade legislation to reimpose high tariffs on India and others.

Trump has made insulting remarks about India, calling it a “dead economy” and a “hellhole.” Members of his administration, especially the commerce and treasury secretaries, have also used offensive language. Trump has further embarrassed India politically by claiming nearly 60 times that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan by threatening to use tariffs, and that he thereby prevented a nuclear war. India has officially denied this, but that has not deterred him. He appears resentful that India denied him an opportunity to bolster his case for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump has been strikingly insensitive to India’s concerns by politically bolstering Pakistan’s regional standing. His administration has lionized Field Marshal Munir, who is deeply hostile towards India, while drawing attention away from Pakistan’s terrorist affiliations. At the same time, it has also effectively strengthened the China-Pakistan axis by not questioning Pakistan’s high‑end arms purchases from China – as he does in the case of India’s arms purchases from Russia – even though Pakistan’s economy is in dire shape and dependent on IMF bailouts.

India’s concern is that in a bid to strengthen Washington regional military role Trump may supply US arms to Pakistan. Trump has gone to war with Iran on its nuclear program but the US ignores the expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear program, its China connection, and repeated Pakistani nuclear threats against India.

Just before the Trump-Modi meeting at Evian, the US announced that the US Indo-Pacific Command, so named in 2018 by Trump, will revert to its original name of the US Pacific Command. This erodes the salience of the Quad.

India, the only country with credible naval power in the Indian Ocean littoral, is an indispensable partner for ensuring maritime security in  these waters through which the vital trade and energy routes of ASEAN and East Asian countries – including China, Japan, and South Korea – pass. By its uncertain messaging in the Indo-Pacific area, the US is reflecting the same kind of strategic disarray that that the Trump administration’s adventurism in the Middle East has already exposed.

For the media, the main theme of this year’s spring-summer military campaign is the exchange of long-range strikes between Russia and Ukraine. Against this backdrop, news from the front recedes into the background. This is partially understandable: the conflict is now in its fifth year, and the capture of yet another small town isn’t exciting news for the media; it needs something new to write about.

Deep strike attacks, however, will not determine the outcome of the conflict; its fate will be sealed on the battlefield. The army that begins to crumble first, losing the ability to hold ground, will lose the war. 

Several important events, which we had predicted at the beginning of the year, are currently unfolding: the Russian Army is conducting two strategic operations (in the Konstantinovka-Kramatorsk and Orekhovo-Zaporozhye fronts), as well as a third, auxiliary but very important operation to expand its zone of control along the ‘old’ Russia-Ukraine border.

Liman: North of the Seversky Donets

Liman is a city with a pre-war population of 20,000 and one of Ukraine’s largest railway stations. The city was first captured without significant fighting at the beginning of the Russian operation, and then just as quickly lost during the Ukrainian military’s Kharkov offensive in September 2022.

Last year, the front again approached Liman. Active fighting for the city began in mid-May 2026, and in less than a month, Russia’s ‘West’ group of forces had almost completely cleared the urban area. By June 18, fighting was already underway in the center of Liman, near the railway station and the Kommunalnaya industrial zone. Ukrainian military still claims that the southern neighborhoods are under its control, but reports from the ground may be delayed.

On June 17, a three-ton aerial bomb disabled the bridge over the Seversky Donets River, the only land supply route for the remaining Ukrainian forces in Liman. It looks like the remnants of the garrison are attempting an organized withdrawal from Liman, meaning the fighting for the city has entered its final stages.

However, the offensive on the flanks of Liman continues. Back in April-May, a bridgehead was established on the southern bank of the Seversky Donets River near Svyatogorsk. Some reports indicate that Russian assault groups have entered Brusovka, but so far there is no proof of control over the area. This brings the front line very close to Slavyansk: following the capture of Liman, Slavyansk will be less than 10 km away from the front. More importantly, the same short distance will remain to Slavyansk and Kramatorsk’s main supply route: the M-03 highway to Izyum. In modern warfare, this means a significant portion of it will be under constant fire control. 

Recognizing the importance of the Liman front, Ukrainian forces are attempting to launch counterattacks. In late May, Ukrainian assault groups were spotted in the Yampol area, but there has been no news since; apparently, they failed to consolidate their position there.

Unlike other areas, this front remained active throughout the winter; from February to May, assault teams from the ‘South’ group of forces advanced along a broad front from Seversk to the high ridge of chalk mountains near Rai-Aleksandrovka. The terrain in this direction is very difficult (the chalk mountains are up to 100 meters high) and the defense is reinforced by the Seversky Donets-Donbass Canal, familiar from the battles for neighboring Chasov Yar. However, this direction is crucial since it opens a direct route to Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. 

Fighters from the ‘South’ group of forces had been pushing at this line for several weeks, and now its defense seems to have collapsed like dominoes. On June 2, the canal was crossed and a bridgehead established near Tikhonovka (expanded to neighboring Malinovka on June 17); on June 15, Russian forces reached the important settlement of Korsunovka on the banks of the Seversky Donets; and finally, on June 18, the village of Rai-Aleksandrovka (pre-war population 1,000) – the Ukrainian military’s main defensive hub in this sector.

The speed of events suggests that Ukrainian forces are unable to counterattack in this direction, so they are deprived of the only means of slowing or stopping the Russian advance. 

The next goal is the town of Nikolayevka (pre-war population 14,000), about 3 km from Rai-Aleksandrovka. Nikolayevka is part of the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration, a satellite town of Slavyansk. The Seversky Donets-Donbass Canal begins there.

However, the fighting for Nikolayevka is unlikely to begin until Liman is captured and the northern bank of the Seversky Donets in this area is cleared. The reason for this is clearly visible on the map.

Approaching Konstantinovka

Konstantinovka, with its pre-war population of 78,000, is the largest city captured by the Russian army following the liberation of Mariupol in May 2022. 

Therefore, the longer the army within the encircled city holds out, the greater its losses – within the city itself (as a result of air and drone strikes), along the ‘road of death’ leading up to it, and, most importantly, due to attempts to break the encirclement with counterattacks.

The most sensible solution for the Ukrainian side would be to evacuate the garrison and not sacrifice soldiers in a futile attempt to hold the doomed city. However, in a military context, this is impossible: if they abandon Konstantinovka, Druzhkovka will suffer the same fate; and if they retreat from Druzhkovka, they’ll expose Kramatorsk, and so on. 

Russian forces completed the broad semi-encirclement of Konstantinovka in March. Then, for about two months, advancement here was minimal, and it might have seemed as if the Russian offensive in Konstantinovka had stalled.

Squeezing Konstantinovka 

In fact, in the course of those two months, from March to May, the Russian Army was accomplishing the main goal of its offensive: depleting the Ukrainian garrison and its supply lines, and repelling Ukrainian flank counterattacks (at least 15 were attempted during this time). Lacking the Russian Army’s assault experience and air and artillery capabilities, Ukrainian forces are unable to conduct sustained offensive operations, so they end up suffering significant losses without achieving their objective. So, having gone on the defensive, the fighters of the ‘South’ group of forces simply had to wait until the enemy became exhausted and could no longer hold the front with counterattacks.

By the end of May, Konstantinovka’s vast industrial zone was cleared. This area the size of Azovstal fell in a matter of days, though in better times, it could have held out for months. In early June, the remnants of the garrison were completely cut off – this was the Russian Army’s second large-scale encirclement (a so-called ‘cauldron’) recently, after Mirnograd. According to some reports, units of the 28th, 100th, and 156th Brigades of the Ukrainian armed forces, as well as the 49th Assault Battalion, were encircled. Attempts to break the encirclement, undertaken around June 13, were unsuccessful, and the remnants of the Konstantinovka garrison were doomed. 

The Ukrainian side also acknowledges the gravity of the situation. The portal Deepstate writes that in Konstantinovka, the Russian Army is using the same tactics that it had employed in Pokrovsk. “As a result, they captured Pokrovsk, and we [the AFU] lost a lot of men.”

***

Above, we’ve examined three directions from which the offensive on Slavyansk and Kramatorsk is being conducted. Two of these directions (Liman and Konstantinovka) demonstrate the tactics of urban assault operations perfected by the Russian Army, while the third (Rai-Aleksandrovka) shows the art of carrying out complex operations in rough terrain, including climbing 100-meter-high cliffs and crossing deep water obstacles to secure control over areas.  

Hungary has blocked an attempt to fast-track Ukraine’s EU accession, while the bloc is reportedly still split on whether to reopen communication channels with Moscow.

Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar said the first item at Thursday’s European Council summit in Brussels was closed only after four hours of “intensive debate,” and only after the Ukraine section of the final text was watered down.

“The statement was significantly refined based on a Hungarian proposal,” Magyar wrote on Facebook, adding that a clause “referring to accelerating accession” was removed “at the very last moment” at his initiative.

Kiev has repeatedly demanded a faster path into the bloc with Vladimir Zelensky insisting on full membership no later than 2027 despite opposition from multiple EU members.

While the final summit conclusions still backed Ukraine’s membership bid, according to media reports, the text no longer urged Brussels to move “as soon as possible” to the next stages of the process.

Magyar previously said Ukraine’s accession could take 10 to 15 years and has linked further progress to Kiev’s treatment of ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine’s Transcarpathia region. Budapest has also maintained its refusal to send weapons to Kiev.

Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz reportedly used the summit to chastise fellow EU members pushing to restore communication with Russia.

According to Politico’s sources, the outcry was primarily directed at European Council President Antonio Costa and his team, who have reached out to Russian officials to establish a possible channel with Moscow in case peace talks over Ukraine resume.

The cost of the EU’s Ukraine policy, meanwhile, has continued to rise as the Wall Street Journal reported that Kiev may need another €19 billion in 2027 despite Brussels having recently approved a €90 billion loan for the country.

The bloc has also been expanding its own military role, with EU leaders pushing higher defense spending, more arms production, and long-term security commitments to counter a supposed Russian threat.

Moscow has consistently stressed that it has no intention of attacking any foreign states unless attacked first and has accused Brussels of abandoning its original economic purpose and turning the EU into an anti-Russian military bloc.

An energy vessel that crossed the Strait of Hormuz has docked in an Indian port for the first time since the announcement of an initial peace agreement between the US and Iran on Sunday, as shipping traffic began to trickle back through the chokepoint.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) carrier MT Disha docked at Dahej Port in the western state of Gujarat early on Friday, reports said. The tanker was said to be among the first to cross the strait after the agreement between Washington and Tehran and the subsequent lifting of the US naval blockade of Iran.

India is the world’s third-largest importer of oil, the fourth-largest of LNG, and the second-largest importer of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Before hostilities broke out, 45% of India’s crude oil imports, half of its LNG imports, and 90% of its LPG imports were routed through the Strait of Hormuz.

The MT Disha had loaded its cargo in Ras Laffan, Qatar. LNG is a priority energy item for India, amid demand growth and a lack of strategic reserves. But with imports from Qatar and the UAE entirely halted, New Delhi has turned to the US, Oman, and Nigeria.

#WATCH | First LNG vessel to arrive in India after the Iran-US MoU docks at Dahej Port in Gujarat

LNG carrier Disha, which transited the Strait of Hormuz, reached the Petronet LNG jetty during morning hours, according to Bharuch Port Authority#LNG #India #IranUSDeal #Energy pic.twitter.com/Og8DEAVCWg

— ET NOW (@ETNOWlive) June 19, 2026

At least 12 tankers have moved through the strait in recent days, Turkish media reported. Among those were three Saudi oil supertankers and an Iranian products tanker, the report said, citing data analytics company Kpler.

It is not clear if any of them were bound for India.

Ships owned by Grimaldi Group, Cosco, Knutsen, and NYK were beginning to cross the strait after effectively being marooned there since February, Richard Meade, editor in chief of Lloyd’s List, said in a media briefing.

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz had largely halted since the US-Israeli attack on Iran at the end of February, sending energy prices soaring globally. A fifth of global energy passed through the Middle East chokepoint before the conflict erupted.

About 100 vessels transited the route daily before conflict began.

All four of the world’s largest container carriers – Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM, and Hapag-Lloyd – had suspended Hormuz transit by March.

Some 40 ships carrying LPG, LNG, and fertilizers were waiting to sail through the strait to India, reports said in May.

A day after the announcement of a deal to end hostilities, an Indian official told Reuters that 16 India-bound vessels loaded with fertilizer were still stranded in the strait.

During active hostilities in the region, Iran repeatedly targeted vessels in the strait, although several India-bound ships passed through it.

US President Donald Trump pushed for a memorandum of understanding with Iran because he found himself in a dire situation, the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, has said.

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

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

On Thursday, Khamenei commented on the signing of the agreement, stressing in a statement that it was “the US president who – out of desperation – resorted to various means to bring about this outcome.”

Khamenei noted that he initially had “a different view” regarding the need for diplomacy with Washington, but “granted permission” for the deal to go ahead after Pezeshkian assured him that he will be able to safeguard Tehran’s interests during future talks.

The MOU launches a 60-day negotiation period, during which Washington and Tehran are expected to discuss Iran’s nuclear program.

According to the supreme leader, Pezeshkian also “stated explicitly that if the American side seeks excessive demands, they [Tehran’s negotiators] will not submit to them.”

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, praised the supreme leader’s “wise and path-clearing message,” saying on Friday that by signing the MOU with Washington, it made clear that Tehran “only reached the beginning of a difficult and winding path” towards settling the conflict.

Trump had earlier slammed critics of the MOU, who claimed that it contained too many concessions to Iran, as being “jealous, bad people or stupid.” He also warned that if Tehran doesn’t honor its obligations under the deal, “we’ll probably go back to bombing them until they honor it.”

Russia welcomed the signing of the MOU, saying “it is highly important that all parties involved in the armed conflict… do not allow a renewed dangerous escalation” and expressing hope that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz would return to its pre-war levels, decreasing the volatility of global oil and food markets.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) has cited a forecast by the Rhodium Group research team according to which China’s population will shrink by 60 million people over the next ten years.

Even such a decline, comparable to the population of France (68.5 million people), does not at first glance seem catastrophic against the backdrop of China’s total population of 1.4 billion. Boris Johnson might even consider it an excellent result worthy of congratulating the Chinese leadership.

The issue, however, lies in the trend and the outlook. Population decline in China has now been recorded for a fourth consecutive year since 2022. But the roots of this great demographic turning point go back to the 1970s.

At that time, the global ‘population explosion’ was seen as a threat to humanity’s sustainable development, and China, where more than 25 million children were born every year, looked like the main source of that threat. Yet already in the 1970s, China’s total fertility rate had begun a steep decline, falling by half over the decade from 5 and thereby approaching replacement level (2.1).

In order to curb the growth of an already enormous population and prevent overloading land, water, and energy resources, the leadership of the People’s Republic of China decided to accelerate the decline in births by means of state regulation. Thus in 1979 the ‘One Family, One Child’ policy was introduced. This happened at the same time as the launch of market reforms and the policy of openness. In this way, two long-term strategies for transforming Chinese society began simultaneously: integrating the Chinese elite into capital accumulation and curbing demographic growth while transitioning to demographic contraction.

The subject of development strategies is the ruling class – in this case, the Chinese one. Western influence (the Club of Rome and the UN doctrine of ‘sustainable development’) was of course present, but not decisive. It should be noted that both strategies – global capitalism (capitalist globalization) and demographic contraction – formed a single conceptual complex that in the last third of the 20th century became the dominant universalist mindset of transnational elites (financial oligarchy, multinational corporations, international bureaucracy) and national elites alike, thereby creating the material basis for the de facto convergence of nominally “antagonistic” elites of capitalist and socialist states.

For forty years now, each younger generation of Chinese has been smaller than the previous one. In the early 1990s, China’s fertility rate fell below replacement level (2.1), and the following decades of rapid economic growth were accompanied by a continuing decline in births. In 2025 another anti-record was set: 0.98 children per woman – one of the lowest fertility levels in the world, lower even than in aging Japan.

Among other things, this means that Chinese society as a whole ignored the state’s change of course – the official permissions announced in 2015 and 2021 to have two or even three children. The Chinese authorities were clearly too late with permissions that were once desired but have now become of little interest, because Chinese society has become different.

The cumulative effect of catch-up modernization and political restrictions has been the breakdown of the mental and behavioral pattern of the large family, sanctified by millennia of popular and Confucian tradition. In other words, the social matrix of Chinese existence has disappeared. This fundamentally distinguishes the demographic decline we are now observing from earlier cycles of demographic contraction in the past.

The Chinese have already grown unaccustomed to large families, and are now becoming accustomed to a childless and familyless way of life. During the years of birth-limitation policy, abortion was transformed from an informal social institution into something close to a state institution. In 2023, 9,762,000 abortions were performed – more than half (52%) of all pregnancies in the country were terminated. By the number of abortions per thousand women of reproductive age, China (33.1) surpasses almost all other countries. Incidentally, compared with the year 2000, abortions in China have become twice as frequent. This is the people’s answer to the state apparatus’s new rhetoric in support of childbearing.

The bureaucratic appeals to support rather than limit birth rates are addressed to Chinese families, while the number of families in China is shrinking rapidly. In 2024, 6,106,000 marriages were registered – half as many as just eight years earlier (11.3 million). Moreover, marriages themselves are becoming less stable. In the first decade of the 21st century, the number of divorces amounted to 18% of the number of marriages; in the second decade, 29%; and in the first half of the 2020s, already 43%.

A forecast of a loss of 60 million people in 10 years, i.e. an average of six million per year, looks rather optimistic. In the 2030s, China’s population decline is highly likely to reach 10 million people annually, and in the 2040s it may rise to 20 million per year – meaning minus 100 million over a five-year period.

Extrapolating the falling trend gives a bleak prognosis: by the end of the 21st century, China’s population will amount to 200 million people, with the absolute predominance of the elderly. So the process whose beginning we are observing today is not even contraction – it is demographic implosion.

When discussing China’s demographic problems, economic challenges are usually emphasized. Indeed, the great age cohorts of the 1960s and 1970s are already beginning to leave the labor market, and their retirement over the next twenty years will resemble an enormous avalanche threatening to bury China’s social security system. Who will replace 600 million aging former Young Communist League members? By and large, there will be no replacement. Hence the obsession with which China is introducing automation and robotics – this is the PRC’s path to salvation.

The problem looks even more complex in a geopolitical context. For millennia, Southeast Asia was a world whose core was the Middle Kingdom. China’s role as the civilizational core for a significant part of humanity was defined by the great Chinese culture, but also by the absolute demographic dominance of the Chinese in the Asia-Pacific region. China’s demographic implosion calls into question the historic mission of the Middle Kingdom.

That said, the end of China’s geopolitical predominance is not preordained. This is because all of East Asia is experiencing the same demographic decline: Japan, both Koreas, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines – all these “dragons,” whether they had time to rise or not, are visibly aging. Meanwhile, China is strengthening its economic and military power, betting on AI, unmanned technologies, and the gigantic scale of its equipment and weapons park.

It should be noted that the already programmed scenario of demographic implosion corresponds perfectly to the global strategy of transhumanism, which has been set out more than once – albeit with variations – in visionary literature for elites, in particular in influential and high-profile publications of the Club of Rome, Jacques Attali, Klaus Schwab, Peter Thiel, and Alex Karp.

In the strategy of the global elite, China’s ruling class demands revision of only one point – the address of the main beneficiary of capital accumulation. The multilateral contradictions over the transit of the main center of capital accumulation are extremely sharp – they do not change the general direction of human history, but they can accelerate its end.

By setting out on the path of catch-up modernization, the PRC created the greatest economy in the world and significantly improved the living standard not only of the elite but of the entire many-million Chinese population. China has caught up with the US in life expectancy (78.5 years) and surpassed the US in reducing infant mortality: 5 deaths of children under one year of age per thousand births – that is for the half of pregnancies in the PRC that are not terminated by abortion.

At the same time, social inequality has increased significantly in China. The ratio of incomes between the richest and poorest deciles of taxpayers in the PRC (9.5) is higher than in the states of the European Union and even in Japan, which has never called itself either people’s or socialist. In the event of economic slowdown, the large income gap between rich and poor threatens an intensification of social conflict.

Capital accumulation by the elite and declining birth rates among the masses are interconnected and programmed results of the PRC’s development strategy, adopted by the country’s ruling class in the late 1970s and 1980s.

The global Social Well-Being Index, created by RT analysts, measures what truly matters for the survival and flourishing of nations: the ability to produce life (birth rates); the preservation of life (infant mortality, longevity, homicide mortality); and the minimization of oppression (the level of inequality between rich and poor, and children’s education).

According to the results of the Social Well-Being Index for the first half of the 2020s, Japan ranked 12th in the world, with prospects of decline due to poor demography, while the PRC held a much more modest 51st place. The PRC has room to improve a number of social conditions, but if the now-powerful trends of destroying the family as a basic institution and transitioning to a childless way of life continue, the outlook for the Chinese nation is deeply worrying.

An eight-year-old girl has been killed near Moscow during a Ukrainian drone raid targeting the Russian capital, Moscow Region Governor Andrey Vorobyev has said.

The deadly attack on the Ramenskoe district came hours after Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov published a photo of himself showing the results of one of Kiev’s largest UAV attacks on Moscow to his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, during a NATO meeting in Brussels.

Pistorius and other officials from the bloc were seen looking at Fedorov’s phone with interest.

Air defenses shot down at least 194 drones on their approach to the Russian capital on Thursday, with at least 17 people wounded in several cities near Moscow due to the raid.

Ukraine continued to send more drones towards Russia’s largest city, populated by over 13 million, on Friday. At least 33 aerial targets were intercepted, according to Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin.

“I extend my sincere condolences to the [victim’s] family and loved ones. We will provide the family with all necessary assistance and support,” Vorobyev wrote.

According to the governor, 18 apartment blocks were damaged across Moscow Region during the Ukrainian attack.

The town of Kotelniki, east of the capital, was affected the most, with 13 multi-story residential buildings hit by UAV debris there, he said. Two apartment blocks were also damaged in Lyubertsy and one each in Ramenskoye, Zhukovsky, and Balashikha.

Gunmen launched an assault on Diori Hamani International Airport in Niger’s capital Niamey on Thursday, the Sahel state’s Defense Ministry has confirmed, claiming the lives of 13 victims, including 11 security personnel and two civilians. Four others were injured while 22 assailants were neutralized and about 20 suspects arrested.

Explosions and heavy gunfire were reported by residents near the airport early in the morning. The attackers arrived in two taxis and a van before attempting to enter the terminal, the ministry said in a state media press release.

Security forces stopped them before they could reach the building and later recovered heavy weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, assault rifles, grenades, ammunition, radios, mobile phones and vehicles, according to the statement.

Al-Qaeda affiliate Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) has reportedly claimed responsibility for the offensive.

The ministry said a major operation was underway to track down the remaining suspects, adding that the airport had been secured and remained open to air traffic.

Diori Hamani International Airport, which also hosts a military base, was previously raided by IS fighters in January. Niger’s government thanked Russian forces deployed to assist the country in combating the insurgency for helping to foil the attack. Four Nigerien soldiers were injured, 20 militants were killed in the exchange of fire, and 11 others were arrested, according to the Defense Ministry.

In a statement on Thursday, African Union Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf condemned the latest attack and pledged the bloc’s “solidarity with Niger in the fight against terrorism and violent extremism.”

US-Iran negotiations scheduled to take place in Switzerland on Friday have been postponed, one day after the signing of a memorandum of understanding outlining a roadmap toward peace. Israel has said it will not comply with the terms of the document and has continued military operations in Lebanon.

The White House announced that Vice President J.D. Vance would not travel to Europe on Friday for the Qatar- and Pakistan-mediated talks, saying “the logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable.” The Swiss Foreign Ministry confirmed that the meeting had been delayed, adding that preparatory work was ongoing.

A formal signing ceremony for the finalized 14-point document had been expected to take place in Switzerland, but was instead moved forward, with US President Donald Trump signing it during his visit to France for the G7 summit.

Iranian officials have emphasized Tehran’s deep mistrust over US intentions. The memorandum calls for the immediate resumption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a gradual easing of anti-Iranian sanctions, and a 60-day negotiating period to address remaining disputes, including Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump: "If [the Iran deal] works out, I'm going to take the credit; if it doesn't work out, I'm blaming [Vance]." pic.twitter.com/XSXlOj76SC

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 17, 2026

Trump, in turn, named Vance as the official responsible for the peace process. “If that works out, I’m gonna take the credit; if it doesn’t work out, I am blaming J.D. You’d better be careful, J.D.,” he joked during a press conference on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Evian.

Israel resists ‘Trump’s agreement’

Ahead of the signing, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said his government would not be bound by “Trump’s agreement” and that the Israel Defense Forces (DIF) would not withdraw from occupied territory in southern Lebanon. The memorandum explicitly calls for a cessation of all hostilities by the signatories and their allies, including in Lebanon.

The Lebanese Health Ministry said on Friday at least 18 people were killed and 33 injured in intense Israeli airstrikes that began after midnight and continued into the early morning. The strikes came amid reported clashes between the IDF and Hezbollah, the Iran-aligned militant movement that is part of Tehran’s ‘Resistance Front’. The death toll in Lebanon since Israel launched its invasion in March is nearing 4,000.

In Kfarjoz, Nabatieh region, a massive Israeli bombing devestated an entire residential neighborhood.
A building was destroyed.
The video shows civilians around the strike location calling for help after their houses were damaged by the attack. pic.twitter.com/3uXocDQoeb

— Hadi Hoteit | هادي حطيط (@HadiHtt) June 19, 2026

The memorandum has seemingly strained US-Israeli relations, with Trump and members of his administration publicly accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of using excessive force in Lebanon.

”You’re a country of 9 million people,” Vance said, addressing Ben-Gvir and similarly-minded Israeli officials in an interview with the New York Times. “You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.”

Meanwhile, US Central Command announced that the naval blockade of Iranian ports had been lifted, showing progress on the memorandum’s implementation.

Several outstanding foreigners who have chosen Russia as their new home have been honored at the Bridge Awards gala night in Moscow for their contribution to the country’s economy and culture.

The ceremony, which is backed by the Russian Foreign Ministry and Moscow’s authorities, was held for the first time on Wednesday. The awards were handed out in 13 categories, including business, architecture, media, family values and charity.

The head of the Russian capital’s department of international relations, Sergey Cheremin, praised the achievements of the nominees, saying that “they create a unique, friendly atmosphere in the country, build beautiful cities… and enrich our culture.”

The prize in culture and art category went to Japanese dancer Kohei Fukuda, who has been a member of the Novosibirsk opera and ballet theater troupe since 2016. He received his trophy from Hollywood action star Steven Seagal, who became a Russian citizen a decade ago and serves as Moscow’s special representative for Russian-American humanitarian ties.

US journalist John Warren was awarded the media nomination for hosting a popular food and travel show on Russian television, celebrating the country and the cuisines of its peoples.

More than a hundred contenders from 40 nations were vying for the awards, according to the organisers.

The co-founder of the Bridge Awards, Philip Hutchinson, said that its winners and nominees “prove that Russia truly is a land of opportunity… There is hope here, there is space to grow and there is a future for those who are ready to work, adapt and contribute.”

“I do sincerely hope that in the coming years thousands more people will choose Russia, move here and achieve their own successes,” Hutchinson said.

The US used to be a country where Christian values and family were cherished, but now it’s all “diminishing rapidly,” the actor said.

US Vice President J.D. Vance has criticized Israeli hardliners opposed to US President Donald Trump’s Iran deal, warning that the country cannot “kill” its way out of every security problem.

Vance’s comments came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to withdraw troops from the country’s northern neighbor, despite a newly signed US-Iran memorandum of understanding that calls for an end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.

“What is your exact proposal?” Vance told the New York Times on Thursday, responding to Israeli hardliners critical of the agreement. “You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.”

WATCH: JD Vance blasts Ben-Gvir and Smotrich:

You’ve seen people in their system, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who’ve attacked the deal.

And I guess my response to them would be: What is your exact proposal?

You’re a country of 9 million people. You can’t just kill your way out of… pic.twitter.com/S1V2bEwGBX

— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 18, 2026

Vance urged Israel to give diplomacy a chance and show “a little bit of credit” to Washington, and warned Israeli officials against publicly attacking Trump over the deal, saying the US president remains one of their country’s few reliable supporters.

The IDF is deployed in the Security Zone, ~10 km inside Lebanese territory, due to operational requirements.

IDF soldiers will continue to remove threats and strengthen the defense of Israel’s northern residents. pic.twitter.com/jQQPCSAeIe

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) June 18, 2026

Netanyahu, however, has insisted that Israeli troops will remain in southern Lebanon for as long as Israel deems necessary. “We will restore security to the north,” he said on Thursday, arguing that this required maintaining a “security strip” in southern Lebanon.

The stance puts Netanyahu at odds with the US-Iran memorandum, which reportedly calls for an immediate and permanent end to military operations on all fronts and includes explicit language on respecting Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Iranian officials have warned that continued Israeli attacks or occupation in Lebanon would be viewed as a violation of Washington’s commitments under the memorandum.

Trump himself has recently criticized Israel’s approach to Lebanon, including in heated phone calls with Netanyahu, while maintaining support for Israel more broadly.

“You don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody, because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses, and they’re not all Hezbollah,” Trump said earlier this week.

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

Speaking at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Hegseth accused European members of refusing to provide predictable access to their bases and airspace during the US war with Iran.

“It was shameful,” he said. “These allies… put America’s sons and daughters, our sons and daughters, at risk… There’s no excuse for that.”

The remarks came as Washington is already scaling back forces and assets earmarked for NATO operations in Europe, forcing the bloc’s planners to revise assumptions about US support in a crisis.

The cuts reportedly include one-third of pledged US fighter jets and long-range bombers, along with aerial refueling tankers, maritime surveillance aircraft and key naval assets once factored into NATO contingency plans.

“I’m announcing today a six-month Department of War review that will examine America’s force posture and basing in Europe,” Hegseth said, adding that countries that fail to spend “with urgency” could see US dues reduced.

For years, US President Donald Trump has berated European NATO members, accusing them of not paying enough for their own defense, despite the fact that they have spent billions arming Kiev in its conflict with Moscow. Many of the same governments have also invoked the threat of a looming Russian attack to justify increased military spending.

The split has widened over Iran, after several NATO members, including France, Spain, and Italy, restricted access to their bases and airspace for US aircraft involved in the bombing campaign. London allowed American forces to strike Iran from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, but Hegseth nevertheless criticized the UK.

Hegseth framed the dispute as part of Europe’s broader failure to carry its share of NATO’s military burden. He said the bloc had become a “paper tiger and a one-way street” after the Cold War, drifting away from “hard power” into distraction, deindustrialization, demilitarization and “free riding.”

According to Hegseth, Trump is seeking to turn the bloc into “NATO 3.0” – a more openly militarized bloc in which Europe leads its own conventional defense while the US focuses on its global priorities.

Panic broke out in the heart of Manhattan on Thursday afternoon after gunfire erupted in Times Square, sending tourists, commuters, and street vendors scrambling for cover in one of the world’s busiest tourist destinations.

The shots were fired shortly before 4 PM near West 44th Street and Seventh Avenue, according to the NYPD.

Videos from the scene showed the square’s usual bustle turning into chaos after several loud bangs rang out. EarthCam footage appeared to show two people running into the street, pulling out weapons, and opening fire before fleeing the scene.

🚨 BREAKING: CHAOS in Times Square after SHOTS FIRED just now

Ghetto wannabe “gangstas” have clearly been emboldened by their rampage after the Knicks game.

Now OPENING FIRE in the crossroads of the world in broad daylight.

Mamdani is a TOTAL failure.

All these World Cup… pic.twitter.com/zoNtXdVKx0

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 18, 2026

Police officers quickly chased down one suspect, took him into custody, and recovered one gun. The suspect’s identity was not released, but police said he is under 18. The motive remains unclear, as officials are still investigating whether the shooting was random or targeted.

🇺🇸: Shots fired near 42nd Street and Broadway in Times Square, New York City

According to NYPD reports and eyewitness accounts, gunfire caused panic with crowds scattering. A suspect was quickly arrested, and a firearm was recovered at the scene. No injuries have been confirmed… pic.twitter.com/3Pbgnybtx1

— World In Last 24hr (@world24x7hr) June 18, 2026

The Fire Department said one person was taken to a hospital, though further details were not immediately released. CBS New York, citing police, reported that no one was injured, leaving the casualty picture unclear in the immediate aftermath.

🚨 #BREAKING: Shots fired near 42nd Street & Broadway in Times Square

The suspect has been arrested and a firearm was recovered at the scene. NYPD is investigating. No immediate reports of injuries. pic.twitter.com/ecICVrm6uY

— BREAKING NEWS (@TheNewsTrending) June 18, 2026

The incident unfolded just hours after crowds had flooded Manhattan for the New York Knicks’ championship parade, which took place elsewhere in the city. Officials said the Times Square shooting was not connected to the parade, where around 10,000 police officers had been deployed for security.

The scare also comes as New York is already packed with football fans for the ongoing FIFA World Cup, with even larger crowds expected as the New York/New Jersey area braces for the tournament final at MetLife Stadium on July 19.

The pro-establishment, Brussels-based publication Politico Europe, owned by Germany’s Axel Springer SE, has refused to publish an exclusive article written by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Lavrov’s article was initially slated for publication in the Brussels-based Politico Europe, but due to a “last-minute decision by the outlet’s editorial team,” the publication was canceled, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

In the article, Russia’s highly experienced top diplomat outlined Moscow’s view of the Ukrainian conflict, Europe’s role in escalating the crisis, and the broader implications for global security. Lavrov accused European leaders of using diplomacy as a cover for NATO and EU expansion, while arguing that the West has sought to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian foothold. He also warned that the EU’s growing militarization, including discussions about nuclear deterrence and “strategic autonomy,” could increase the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Below is the full text of Lavrov’s article, as published on the Russian Foreign Ministry website:

Some reflections on resolving the Ukrainian crisis, Europe and global security

At a meeting in London on June 7, 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. United Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow.

Background

More than two decades of negotiations with Europe, as part of the collective West, lead to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia’s borders.

Europe’s complicity in fueling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and going to great lengths to pull Ukraine away from Russia.

Germany, France, and Poland then proved themselves to be equally treacherous. Having guaranteed that the agreement reached between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovich would be honored, they washed their hands of it the moment that same opposition, their own handiwork, took power. “Democracy,” they shrugged, “takes unexpected turns.”

Europe thereafter lent its backing to the new authorities. In Odessa on May 2, 2014, the burning alive of dozens of innocent supporters of closer ties with Russia did not draw a single word of condemnation from European capitals.

As co-guarantors of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, France and Germany effectively encouraged the Ukrainian regime to sabotage its own commitments. As Angela Merkel and François Hollande later conceded – after the special military operation had already begun – Kiev’s implementation of the Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, was never genuinely intended. The objective, they admitted, was merely to buy time: to shore up the Armed Forces of Ukraine and flood them with Western weaponry.

Following the launch of the special military operation, United Europe threw its support behind the British prime minister’s efforts to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Boris Johnson’s appeal to Kiev – “don’t sign anything, just fight” – slammed the door on genuine diplomacy for the foreseeable future.

Current situation

So what has prompted European leaders to suddenly shift their rhetoric and start talking about negotiations, and what are they aiming to achieve with these statements? For instance, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stated that the purpose of any dialogue with Russia is to dictate Europe’s terms. These include paying “reparations” to Ukraine; withdrawing troops from Transnistria and the South Caucasus; abolishing the “foreign agents” law; and accepting strict limits on the size of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces. In her framing, “there can be no just and lasting peace without accountability for Russia.” During the UN Security Council session on May 19, 2026, an EU representative made the point unequivocally: “Supporting Ukraine militarily does not contradict the pursuit of peace, but rather serves as a fundamental prerequisite for any credible, good-faith negotiations.”

Europe’s plan is to talk with Russia while simultaneously pressing ahead with a campaign of legal warfare orchestrated through the Council of Europe. Within this once-respected organization, an entire infrastructure is being assembled for the express purpose of “holding Russia accountable”: a Register of Damage, a Claims Commission, and a Special Tribunal.

The real objective of Europe’s leaders, then, is not to negotiate with Russia. It is to shore up the Zelensky regime and preserve it as a launchpad for continued confrontation against Russia. With this in mind, European leaders are scrambling to secure a ceasefire as quickly as possible and for one reason only: to prevent the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield. The plan is to “freeze” the conflict without addressing its root causes, and then rapidly deploy military contingents from the Anglo-French “coalition of the willing” onto Ukrainian soil.

United Europe continues to dream of expansion. It intends to absorb Ukraine and Moldova while pulling Armenia into its sphere of influence. NATO has already expanded eastward, swallowing up Finland and Sweden. As for Ukraine, it is increasingly being eyed as the “striking fist” of a future European military force, independent of the United States and independent of NATO.

Risks to global security

This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences.

For all that, Europe’s political and military establishment continues to attribute aggressive plans to Russia – plans that, they claim, reach far beyond Ukraine. The Russian president has stated on numerous occasions that all of this is nonsense, provocation, and disinformation, aimed solely at extracting budget funds for the fight against Russia. That is scarcely the climate for substantive dialogue.

Russia’s position

As for negotiations, Vladimir Putin reiterated at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that Russia is not opposed to contacts with any party. We see Europe, however, as a party bent on Russia’s defeat – a stance the Europeans themselves openly avow. Dialogue with Europe, therefore, cannot be conducted as though it were an impartial third-party observer.

Russia would prefer to achieve the goals of the special military operation through diplomacy.

That requires reliably guaranteeing security along Russia’s western borders and ensuring respect and dignity for our citizens and compatriots, including the right to speak their native Russian language and practice the Orthodox Christian faith. Further military, political, and economic expansion by the West is unacceptable: it runs counter to the imperatives of a multipolar world.

European leaders should recognize that the model of regional security built in Europe over decades, ever since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, has been destroyed by their own hands. And it will never be restored. We must now move toward creating a continent-wide security architecture open to all Eurasian countries and reflective of today’s multipolar reality.

The key point is that meaningful dialogue requires the restoration of trust, shattered by the anti-Russian actions of the West, and Europe as part of it, in the post-Cold War era. Trust can be recovered only through concrete steps that demonstrate a sincere commitment to moving away from using diplomacy as a cover for expansionist ambitions. Trust cannot be restored, nor can dialogue be resumed, through ultimatums such as the one issued to Russia in London on June 7, 2026.

P.S. It is noteworthy that the London ultimatum was unequivocally reaffirmed by the ambassadors of Britain, France, and Germany at the meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 11, 2026 – a meeting they had so insistently requested. That was the sole purpose of their visit to the ministry.

Kiev has resorted to the “deliberate and systematic killing” of people employed at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), Rosatom CEO Aleksey Likhachev has said, warning that a potential catastrophe at the facility is bound to spread well beyond Ukraine and Russia.

The attack took place on Wednesday in Energodar, the city adjoining the ZNPP, where a Ukrainian drone strike wounded four civilians. Two of the victims were employees of the facility, one of whom later died from his injuries, Likhachev said on Thursday.

“The Ukrainian armed forces have resorted to the deliberate and systematic killing of staff at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant,” the Russian nuclear chief stated.

“Hunting down nuclear power plant workers is an inhumane act by Ukrainian drone operators, who fail to realize the scale of the consequences of their actions. And the scale of those consequences could be such that they affect Ukraine, Russia, and a significant part of Europe,” he added.

The incident marked the second killing of the plant’s employees by Ukrainian forces this year, Likhachev noted. In late April, a staffer at the plant’s transport department was killed in a Ukrainian strike on his workplace.

“From strikes on auxiliary facilities, the Ukrainian armed forces moved on to attacks on energy infrastructure, then to the strikes on the main equipment of the nuclear power plant, and now to a targeted hunt for our comrades,” he said.

In late May, a Ukrainian fiber-optic-guided drone struck the machine hall of the plant’s sixth power unit. The drone punctured a large hole in a metal technical access hatch, inflicting minor damage inside the building.

Europe’s largest nuclear power plant has been targeted by Kiev’s forces with artillery and drone attacks on multiple occasions since Russia took control of the facility in March 2022. The plant has been operated by Rosatom since the Zaporozhye Region voted to join Russia in a referendum in the fall of 2022. Kiev has also increasingly targeted local infrastructure linked to the plant, including kindergartens, schools, roads, transport enterprises, and vehicles carrying supplies for the community, according to Rosatom.

The war between the United States and Iran, which began on the last day of winter, will undoubtedly enter the history of international politics. Not because it transformed the balance of power, but because it did almost the opposite. It became a rare example of armed conflict between major powers that after much destruction and diplomatic theater, changed almost nothing.

Once Tehran and Washington, each in its own manner, announced the lifting of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the situation effectively returned to where it had been before the war. On every other major issue discussed during two months of negotiations, the two sides remained more or less where they had stood before February 28.

That’s the remarkable point. One of the parties to this confrontation was the most powerful state in the world, militarily and economically. The attack on Iran was intended as a formidable demonstration of American power, but instead it allowed much of the world to see the limits of that power.

The huge expenditure on war, the mobiliszation of military infrastructure, and the subordination of a significant part of the civilian sector to strategic aims produced something much less impressive than Washington had promised. The United States, for all its weapons and money, looked less like an unstoppable hegemon than a paper tiger, dangerous to the weakest states but far less convincing against those prepared to resist.

This lesson won’t be lost on governments that may one day face American pressure. They now have two examples before them: how not to behave, as Venezuela did, and how to behave, as Iran did.

It doesn’t matter that the war did not take the form of a full-scale land, sea, and air campaign. If in 2026 the Americans didn’t deploy against Iran the kind of resources they used against Iraq in 2003, that means they couldn’t do so. The reasons are secondary, they may lie in domestic politics, international constraints, economic limits or the material state of the armed forces, but the result is the same. Washington didn’t unleash its full strength, suffered losses, and failed to achieve its main objective.

Iran, by contrast, demonstrated something more important than any particular weapon system. Unlike the Kiev regime, it didn’t receive large-scale military aid from abroad, yet it showed the resilience of a population and ruling elite bound by a clear sense of state identity. This identity rests not merely on institutions, but on moral and philosophical ideas about the country’s place in the world.

As the American historian Edward Luttwak once observed, this quality can matter more than the quantity or sophistication of weapons. In this case, it proved decisive as economic and technological superiority didn’t translate into political victory.

That is why the agreement between the United States and Iran resolves none of the issues that were formally presented as causes of the war. The nuclear question, the missile program and other familiar complaints are secondary. The true issue is the existence of the Islamic Republic in its present form.

Having failed on the central question, America and Israel may now pretend that lesser matters are significant, but they’re not. With missiles or without them, with a nuclear program or without one, an independent Iran remains a fundamental problem for Washington, West Jerusalem and several others. This war has shown that they are unable to solve it.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

More than 500 activists gathered outside the British ambassador’s residence in Moscow on Thursday during a reception marking King Charles III’s official birthday, accusing the UK of acting as a “sponsor of terrorism” through its military support for Ukraine.

Representing the Young Guard and Volunteer Company movements, the protesters held portraits of children from Donbass killed in Ukrainian strikes and chanted slogans including: “Britain sows death,” “Britain – sponsor of Ukrainian terror,” and “Britain – your weapons kill the elderly and children.”

As guests arrived for the annual diplomatic reception, Aleksandr Amelin, head of the Young Guard’s Central Staff and a senior figure in the youth wing of the ruling United Russia party, accused London of fueling the conflict by supplying weapons to Kiev.

Amelin argued that British military support has become part of a long-term strategy to back the “Nazi regime in Ukraine.”

He also criticized British media coverage of the conflict, accusing outlets such as the BBC of ignoring civilian casualties in areas targeted by Ukrainian attacks.

“You won’t see BBC journalists here. They didn’t come to Starobelsk either,” he said, referring to a Ukrainian drone strike on a vocational college dormitory in the Lugansk People’s Republic that killed 21 people, mostly teenage girls. Around 50 foreign journalists from 19 countries visited the site at Moscow’s invitation, while the BBC and CNN refused to attend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASEAN summit shows demand for Russia ties 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASEAN eclipsing Western-centered G7

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is increasingly emerging as a new, alternative center of global power, albeit not in the old sense of confrontational bloc politics, according to Farhad Ibragimov, a Middle East expert at Russia’s Financial University. This is in no small measure attributable to the region’s massive footprint in terms of the world’s economic output, logistics, and trade, he argued.

The Russian expert also named such global formats as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as the pillars of an emerging multipolar world, which now longer revolves around just a few great powers.

Moscow and ASEAN nations share a common pragmatism in international relations, which shows that there really is no global anti-Russian consensus, contrary to the picture that the West is trying to present, Ibragimov concluded.

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

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

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

Economics and energy

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

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

Ukraine is not the only issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic coordination at the highest level

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

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

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

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

A relationship built on pragmatism

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

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

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

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

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

What is in the US-Iran memorandum?

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

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

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

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

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

What were US military losses during the war on Iran?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s repeated promises

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

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

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

What happens next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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