Israel has condemned Spain after a fireworks-filled effigy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was blown up during an Easter festival in the southern town of El Burgo.

The long-strained ties between Madrid and West Jerusalem have deteriorated even further in light of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, with Spain emerging as one of the most vocal Western critics of the aggression.

Last month, Spain permanently withdrew its ambassador from Israel, formally downgrading the level of diplomatic relations with the country.

This week, West Jerusalem kicked Madrid out of a US-backed coordination center in Kiryat Gat that oversees the Gaza ceasefire, calling it retaliation for opposing Israel and “defaming” its military.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry called out Spain over the El Burgo festival on Saturday, branding the display an “appalling anti-Semitic hatred” and accusing Madrid of “systemic incitement.” The Spanish chargé d’affaires was summoned over the incident, it added.

Footage from El Burgo, taken during Easter Sunday festivities, shows the massive effigy of the Israeli prime minister going up in flames. The seven-meter (23-foot) figure was packed with 14 kilograms (31 lb) of fireworks that exploded to cheers from a crowd of onlookers.

The appalling antisemitic hatred on display here is a direct result of @sanchezcastejon government’s systemic incitement.
And even now, the Spanish government remains silent.
The Spanish chargé d’affaires was summoned for a reprimand. pic.twitter.com/2Bguhs7Ce8

— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) April 11, 2026

El Burgo’s mayor, Maria Dolores Narvaez, defended the act, pointing out that it was a part of a decades-old local “Burning of Judas” tradition that previously never caused any issues. Speaking to a local television station, she said that foreign leaders’ effigies had been on numerous occasions been featured during the festivities.  

Vladimir Zelensky’s chief of staff Kirill Budanov has acknowledged that mobilization has created what he called a “huge” problem in Ukrainian society, exposing an increasing gap between Kiev’s calls to “fight until victory” and widespread draft evasion.

The Ukrainian military faces a severe manpower crisis driven by battlefield losses, draft evasion, and desertion. With few volunteers, Kiev increasingly relies on mandatory conscription – a highly divisive policy. Recruitment officers are often accused of heavy-handed tactics, and videos of so-called ‘busification’ – the forced detention of military-age men – circulate widely.

In an interview with Ukrinform earlier this week, Budanov conceded that society is split, though he stopped short of linking the divide to growing backlash over coercive mobilization.

“There are real problems... in our society. Because on the one hand, everyone says we need to fight until victory – and on the other, everyone is running away from mobilization. It's a huge, huge problem,” he said, acknowledging a contradiction in which both frontline troops and draft dodgers are lauded as “heroes.”

Tens of thousands of draft-age men have been caught attempting to flee since 2022, Ukrainian border authorities reported, with dozens dying while trying to cross dangerous routes such as into neighboring Romania, a top destination for draft evaders. Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov recently revealed that around two million potential recruits are wanted for draft evasion, while some 200,000 troops have deserted.

Public backlash against mobilization has been mounting with videos showing civilians intervening in forced conscription. Earlier this month, three enforcement officers were stabbed, one fatally, while performing their duties.

A March survey cited by Slovo i Delo found roughly that 40% of Ukrainians would refuse military service, while only 16% said they would willingly serve.

In mid-2025, Gallup reported that 69% of Ukrainians favored a negotiated end to the conflict, a massive swing from 2022, when 73% were in favor of fighting until victory.

Polish Defense Minister Władyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz suggested that draft-age Ukrainians should return home, while Estonian Interior Minister Lauris Laanemets even offered to track down and extradite Ukrainian draft dodgers.

China has unveiled a set of new economic incentive measures for Taiwan, offering to resume some ties with the island. The announcement comes after a visit by the head of Taiwan’s main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), to Beijing.

Taiwan has been a de-facto self-governing territory since 1949, when Chinese nationalist forces fled there after losing the civil war. Beijing regards the island as an integral part of its territory under the One China policy, which is backed by the overwhelming majority of the UN member states.

Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled the 10-point economic incentive package to the island on Sunday, which includes fast-tracking a full resumption of regular direct flights across the Taiwan Strait and facilitating access for Taiwanese food products to the Chinese market. The plan also envisions sharing energy and water supply with Matsu and Kinmen, Taiwanese-governed islands that are geographically closer to the mainland, as well as working on constructing a bridge to them.

Cheng said she was “very thankful” to China’s leadership for the proposed preferential measures. “As I said during the Cheng-Xi meeting, things must be done one by one,” she stated.

Taiwan’s authorities, however, openly signaled their mistrust towards Beijing and expressed displeasure at getting sidelined by the KMT. Presidential Office spokesperson Karen Kuo said that “any exchanges should not be subject to political preconditions, nor should they be used as tools for political maneuvering or deals by specific parties.” 

The MAC urged caution over Beijing’s latest announcement, stating that similar measures had been repeatedly rolled out and suspended by China in the past. “The same pattern is now being repeated, without any institutional safeguards for Taiwan’s industries, farmers, fishers or the rights and interests of the public, making the measures highly risky,” it said in a statement.

The US-Iran talks in Islamabad ended exactly as they were bound to end under the current balance of power – without a deal, without a handshake, without even the faintest sense that the two sides have moved closer to a durable peace.

Nearly 21 hours of talks, an unprecedented level of representation, extraordinary security measures in the Pakistani capital, the high hopes of mediators, and the jitters of global markets changed none of the essentials. What now lies between Washington and Tehran is no longer mere political distrust, but an entire layer of military memory, and that layer proved stronger than diplomatic protocol. It would have been a surprise if the talks turned out any different.

Talks about the past, not the future

From the outside, the talks looked historic. They marked the highest-level direct US-Iran contact in decades. The American delegation was led by Vice President J.D. Vance and included Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Iran was represented by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Pakistan, for all practical purposes, turned Islamabad into a sealed security zone, while the Serena Hotel became a fortified diplomatic venue. Yet it was precisely this contrast between the historic form and the emptiness of the results that revealed the true essence of the moment. Formally, the two sides were talking about the future. In substance, they were arguing about the past and about the right to dictate the terms of the present. The US demanded Iranian concessions on non-proliferation, the nuclear program, and freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran responded with demands for reparations, the unfreezing of assets, recognition of its regional interests, and a broader de-escalation that would also extend to Lebanon. That alone showed that the parties had not come to Pakistan in search of compromise, but to stake out their outer limits.

The central reason for the breakdown lies in a word that appeared almost routinely in official statements, yet in reality explains everything: Trust. Iran spoke openly of its absence, while the American side effectively confirmed that absence through the rhetoric of ultimatum. When Vance declared after the talks that the US had presented Tehran with its “best and final offer,” it sounded less like an invitation to peace than an attempt to dress up the failure of diplomacy in the language of American superiority. For Tehran, this tone was unacceptable from the outset. Iran entered these negotiations convinced that Washington had repeatedly shown its willingness to combine diplomacy with coercion, and to use pauses to regroup. This is why the Iranians approached Islamabad with extreme caution. Under these conditions, the talks were not an instrument of reconciliation, but merely a way of testing whether the other side was capable of stopping, even temporarily. Tehran’s conclusion, judging by the outcome, was negative.

From this follows a second, deeper reason for the failure – the US entered these negotiations from a position of strategic urgency. US President Donald Trump needed a pause far more than the White House cared to admit. This was evident both in the substance of Pakistan’s mediation efforts and in how quickly Washington agreed to a two-week suspension of bombing. Formally, Trump insisted that no deal was necessary and that the US retained the upper hand regardless. But political logic suggested the opposite. The war, which began on February 28, 2026, did not bring a quick or unambiguous resolution. It hit energy markets, logistics, insurance, fertilizers, helium supplies, and inflation expectations. The economic shock is already forcing the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to prepare more pessimistic forecasts on growth and inflation. The longer the confrontation drags on, the less room for maneuver the White House retains, both at home and abroad.

The legal dimension only deepens this trap. Under the US War Powers framework, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours, and in general, the unauthorized use of armed forces in hostilities is limited to 60 days, after which specific congressional approval is required unless a separate authorization exists. This does not mean that every military operation stops automatically on the dot, but it does mean that the political corridor for a prolonged war without congressional backing narrows sharply. For Trump, this is especially sensitive because there is nothing close to a consensus on Iran within the American political class. More than this, the issue has already generated new tensions over presidential authority and the role of Congress. The Iranians, of course, see this vulnerability no worse than American lawyers do. When one side understands that the other is not merely fighting against military constraints, but against domestic political time as well, the incentive to make concessions falls sharply.

The US has also found itself in a political deadlock because it failed to turn its campaign against Iran into a broad international coalition. Even among NATO allies and close partners, support proved limited, and to a significant extent, non-military. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte himself acknowledged that some European allies had “failed the test” in the Iran war, while the British leadership separately emphasized that it had not taken part in the strikes, even while offering other forms of support. These signals mean that Washington failed to present its line as unquestionably legitimate and broadly Western. American power works best when it appears not merely as the power of the US, but as the institutional power of an entire bloc. In the case of Iran, this did not happen. And when allies hesitate, the adversary gains an additional sense of time and space.

Inside the US, the situation is no less difficult. The longer the war affects oil prices, gasoline prices, shipping costs, and inflation expectations, the weaker the argument becomes that coercion can deliver peace and stability quickly. Markets are already reacting to the collapse of the talks as a warning of a potentially prolonged energy shock. Reuters reports new nervousness on Gulf stock exchanges and notes that the conflict has already dealt a serious blow to the global economy and pushed oil prices higher. For Trump, this is particularly dangerous for political reasons. His electoral logic has always rested on the image of a leader who lowers costs for the ordinary American, not one who drags the country into an expensive foreign adventure with unpredictable prices at the pump and a new wave of inflation. That is why even the threats to resume strikes now sound more like those of a leader trying to preserve an image of toughness while the material consequences of that toughness are hitting his own political base.

Iran sets the price of de-escalation

Against this backdrop, it is especially important to understand why Iran entered Islamabad with a stronger negotiating position than many had expected at the start of the war. On paper, the US and Israel should have possessed a decisive military advantage. But the political reality of war is often determined by who succeeds in imposing an unfavorable form of conflict on the other side. By closing and effectively controlling the passage through the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran transformed itself from an object of pressure into an actor capable of influencing the global economy almost in real time. Hormuz and the conditions of navigation became one of the central knots in the negotiating deadlock. While the US speaks of freedom of navigation, Iran speaks of control, coordination of passage, and the right to levy charges. This is a dispute over who, after six weeks of war, has the right to define the price of de-escalation. And it is precisely here that Iran has shown that the price for the US is exceedingly high.

No less important is the internal dimension of Iran’s position. AP reports that in Tehran, the collapse of the talks produced a mixture of disappointment and demonstrative resolve, while some public reactions boiled down to the view that Iran should not squander at the negotiating table the gains it has secured on the battlefield. This is a crucial psychological shift. A campaign that, in the design of the US and Israel, was supposed to weaken Iran and perhaps fracture it internally has thus far produced the opposite effect – the consolidation of a significant share of Iranian society around the state and the idea of resisting external pressure. For the authorities in Tehran, this means greater room for a hard line. Iran emerged from this phase of escalation unbroken. And in Middle Eastern politics, that is already half the victory.

The Israeli factor also deserves particular attention. Even setting aside every conspiratorial exaggeration, the open evidence of recent days shows that the Israeli leadership has displayed no real interest in swiftly closing the conflict on terms that would allow Washington and Tehran to move toward a stable compromise. On the contrary, Israel’s line remains maximally hard. Parallel to the Islamabad talks, Israeli strikes in Lebanon continued, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly stressed that the campaign is not over. For Iran, this is a direct signal – even if the Americans are ready to discuss a pause, their closest regional ally and effective co-author of the pressure campaign remains interested in a continued military scenario and does not want Tehran and Washington to stabilize relations. Here the US problem is twofold. First, Tehran does not believe Washington is truly capable of restraining Israeli escalation. Second, even if part of the American establishment would like to stop, it cannot do so without costs in its relationship with Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition. Iran therefore logically proceeds from the worst-case scenario and feels no urgency to yield.

A dead end

In this sense, Islamabad became not a venue for peace, but a mirror reflecting the full contradiction of the American line. On the one hand, the White House threatens new strikes and a naval blockade, and gives ‘final offers’. On the other, the very fact of the two-week ceasefire, Pakistan’s intensive mediation, and the rush to diplomacy show that the US has neither free hands nor a clear exit strategy. After the failure of the talks, AP and Axios reported further hard-line statements from Trump and new American moves around Hormuz. Yet every statement now works in two directions. It may intimidate Iran, but it also reminds everyone that Washington has not achieved the essential goal – it has not broken the will of its adversary, has not reopened the strait on its own terms, has not assembled a full coalition, and has not secured a sustainable diplomatic outcome. In this situation, the threat of force ceases to be an instrument for solving the problem and becomes instead a symptom that fewer and fewer instruments remain.

This is why saying the US is now trapped in a political deadlock is a fairly precise description of the present reality. Continuing the war is dangerous because of law, economics, allies, and internal division. Ending the war on acceptable terms is difficult because Iran does not see itself as the defeated party and is demanding not mercy, but a price. A return to old formulas is impossible because the war has changed the very structure of bargaining. The Trump administration wants to speak at once in the language of coercion and in the language of dealmaking, but after February 28, 2026, these two languages no longer fit together. To Tehran, the American promise of peace appears too reversible, too dependent on domestic political calculation, and too vulnerable to Israeli pressure. This is why the Iranians are demanding more and speaking more harshly. They believe they have paid far too high a price for their current position to exchange it now for yet another set of guarantees that may evaporate at the first new crisis.

What comes next is perhaps the bleakest question of all. Formally, the diplomatic channel has not yet been completely destroyed. Pakistan will clearly try to preserve at least the remnants of a negotiating infrastructure, because it has invested enormous political capital in the present pause. But there is so far no structural basis for a rapid breakthrough. If Trump truly demands that Iran halt its nuclear program, hand over enriched uranium to the American side, and fully reopen Hormuz without substantial reciprocal political guarantees, then that will not be a roadmap to peace, but merely a repetition, in updated language, of the same ultimatum logic that already led to the collapse in Islamabad. Iran, by all appearances, will not accept these terms – which means the risk of the war returning to a hot phase is indeed very high.

Ultimately, this is the principal lesson of Islamabad. The negotiations did not fail because of a single disputed clause, a single harsh remark, or even one sleepless night at the Serena Hotel. They failed because an entire American way of conducting Middle Eastern policy has reached its limit – first apply pressure, then offer compromise from a position of strength, and then wonder why the other side does not believe in the sincerity of the offer. Whatever one thinks of Iranian policy, Iran no longer feels that it is the side obliged to hurry. The US, for all its military power, for the first time in a very long time, looks like the side that is in a hurry. The Islamabad talks were the collapse of the American illusion that it still holds a monopoly over the terms on which wars in the region can be brought to an end.

Ukraine attempted to strike a Russian cosmodrome the same day as a rocket carrying satellites into orbit was taking off, Russia's space agency Roscosmos has confirmed. Speaking to Russian President Vladimir Putin, agency head General Dmitry Bakanov said that an attempted drone strike on the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the northern part of the country was foiled.

Bakanov, who has led Roscosmos since February 2025, made the comments on Saturday prior to Cosmonautics Day, which marks the first human journey into outer space, undertaken by Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin in 1961.

Putin praised the March 23 launch as a key milestone for Russia’s space program, while Bakanov said that Ukraine had attempted to disrupt it. Plesetsk Cosmodrome lies about 800km north of Moscow and roughly 1,300km from the Ukrainian border.

Bakanov did not provide details on the attack. The Russian Defense Ministry did not explicitly comment on the space base assault, but reported the downing of dozens of drones across the country around that date.

The Roscosmos chief was referring to the launch of a Soyuz-2.1b rocket, a medium-lift launch vehicle used as the workhorse in the Russian space industry. The rocket was carrying 16 satellites belonging to the Rassvet constellation, developed by Russian private aerospace firm Bureau 1440 – widely described as Moscow’s answer to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite system.

Russian officials have been suspicious of Starlink, which is not operating in the country, but is actively used by Ukrainian forces.

The Russian satellites operate as 5G base stations, interconnected via laser communication links and capable of transmitting data at speeds of up to 1 Gbit/s. Their target orbital altitude is 800 km. Bureau 1440 is planning to deploy more than 900 low-orbit relays by 2035.

The conquest of frontiers and expansion into the unknown are often considered distinctly American pursuits. And indeed, it’s hard for modern people to grasp the monumental efforts undertaken by early settlers. 

However, Russians share a similar passion for filling in blank spaces on maps. And when there were no uncharted territories left on Earth, they turned their gaze toward the stars.

April 12 is Cosmonautics Day in Russia – a day when every Russian can reconnect with their childhood dream of becoming a cosmonaut, and on streets and TV screens across the country, we once again see images of the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin.

In medieval times, Russian expansion often contradicted the wishes of the country’s rulers. Many of the pioneers settling in the country’s northern and southern frontiers were runaway serfs or simply sought a freer life. The colonization of Siberia even began against the wishes of Tsar Ivan IV, who was preoccupied with the Livonian War and was reluctant to divert attention eastward. However, the Stroganov merchant family financed an expedition beyond the Ural Mountains. 

Soon, Moscow recognized the vast wealth that lay hidden in Siberia, and waves of settlers migrated there. Some sought riches, while others ventured farther to escape the growing imperial bureaucracy. These pioneers were often generously rewarded with money, trade monopolies, promotions, titles, and land.

When no unclaimed territories remained on earth, restless individuals turned their attention to the skies. 

Most Russian philosophers showed little interest in politics or laws but passionately debated the nature of humanity and civilization. By the late 19th century, spurred by a surge of interest in physics and astronomy, many became interested in space. Thus, Russian cosmism emerged. 

Its followers sought to understand humanity’s place in space and arrived at some optimistic conclusions:

- Humans should not submit to nature but should explore and transform it to improve the world 

- Humanity will inevitably venture into space and inhabit the universe 

- Space exploration has the potential to make people better – they can unite for a common purpose, setting aside wars to pursue new worlds 

- Humans are part of the cosmos and should not fear the unknown

Some cosmists were captivated by the ultimate goal of conquering space: Defeating death and even ‘resurrecting ancestors’. Others, including self-taught scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, focused more on practical matters like the construction of rockets and space stations, believing that these ideas were not mere flights of fancy.

“First, inevitably, the idea, the fantasy, the fairy tale. Then, scientific calculation. Ultimately, fulfillment crowns the dream,” Tsiolkovsky famously said. 

During a time when politics and materialism dominated intellectual discourse, cosmism remained less popular. However, cosmists had their followers. It is said that one of them visited Tsiolkovsky after the Civil War to discuss his engineering career and was encouraged by the scientist in his plans to build rockets. 

This engineer was Sergey Korolev. Little did he know then that he would send the first man into space – a realm where no one had ventured before.

Engines of the space race

Stalinist industrialization had many issues and brought a lot of unwarranted suffering. Yet it established the infrastructure necessary for rapidly mobilizing vast resources and tilted production capacities toward the military industry. As a result, when the space race began, the Soviet government was able to swiftly recover from post-war devastation and embark on ambitious new projects.

The space program benefited from close collaboration with military projects. For example, when there was a need to build a new launch site to test the new R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to deliver a hydrogen bomb, engineers and generals quickly realized that they could develop space launch vehicles at the same location. 

Thus, the world’s largest spaceport, Baikonur, was established. Located in a desolate area far from major population centers yet conveniently close to a railway, it provided ideal conditions for large-scale secret and potentially hazardous projects. Construction progressed rapidly: Within two years of breaking ground, Baikonur launched Sputnik-1, the first artificial Earth satellite, into orbit.

Sergey Korolev headed the program. He began his scientific career in aircraft engineering but soon transitioned to rocket science. Like many top engineers of his time, he learned from internationally-renowned former imperial professors who remained in the Soviet Union. Specialists in his field were scarce, so after the war, he collaborated on many classified projects. 

Korolev was inspired by the ideas of Tsiolkovsky and urged party officials to pursue space exploration. The obvious next step after the launch of Sputnik was to send a human into space. The USSR already possessed the resources, technology, and talented scientists for it, but lacked the cosmonaut.

Ultimately, Korolev was presented with three candidates, the leading one being Yuri Gagarin – a 25-year-old senior lieutenant in the Soviet Air Force. He had a charming smile, loved sports, demonstrated initiative, and had good leadership qualities. Friends noted his enthusiasm for heroism and said his favorite word was ‘work’.

Time for preparation was limited; Korolev was informed that the Americans were also gearing up to send a man into space, and the Soviets needed to beat them. Scientists, engineers, and cosmonauts worked tirelessly but met the deadlines. By April 1961, it became clear that history would soon be made at Baikonur.

Despite the initial success of space programs, many skeptics, both in the USSR and around the world, thought that a manned flight would end in catastrophe. The Soviet authorities were cautious. They prepared three statements for the media: One in case of a successful flight, one in case of an emergency landing, and one in case of tragedy.

On April 8, the mission for the space flight was officially approved, with Gagarin confirmed as the pilot. Two days later, an unofficial meeting took place between cosmonauts, engineers, and Soviet military leaders.

At 3:00 AM on April 12, final checks began on the launch pad. Korolev himself was present. At 5:30 AM, Gagarin was woken up with the words, “Yura, time to get up.” After a medical check-up, he had breakfast consisting of meat puree, currant jam, and coffee. By 6:50 AM, Gagarin exited the bus at the launch site and climbed into the rocket.

For the next two hours, he ran system checks in coordination with mission control. During this process, a malfunction was discovered – the hatch wouldn’t close – but it was fixed within seven minutes.

At 9:00 AM, one-minute readiness was announced. Gagarin hummed the song ‘Fly, Doves, Fly’. At 9:07 AM, ignition was activated, and Gagarin uttered the legendary phrase, “Let’s go!”

Throughout the flight, Gagarin maintained communication with Earth, professionally reporting on his condition and what he could see. However, even this seasoned pilot couldn’t help but marvel at the breathtaking views around him.

The spacecraft completed one orbit around Earth and landed at 10:53 AM near the village of Smelovka in Saratov Region. The flight lasted 106 minutes.

Close to the landing site, the cosmonaut met the bewildered wife of a local forester and her daughter. Gagarin joked, “Don’t be afraid, comrades, I am a Soviet citizen like you!” Soon after, military personnel arrived and transported the cosmonaut to their base.

Messages of congratulations flooded in from heads of state around the world, from France, Japan, India, and Cuba. John F. Kennedy also sent a note expressing hope that “the Soviet Union and the United States may work together on the matter of mastering the Universe.”

In the USSR, a wave of patriotism surged. Yet public affection wasn’t directed towards the party, the military, or the scientists, but toward Gagarin himself. He didn’t deliver speeches about the triumph of communism or talk of the ‘enemies of the people’. Gagarin remained humble, met with ordinary people, and signed autographs. He continued to smile broadly, even during a meeting with Queen Elizabeth II, who broke royal protocol to take a photo with him.

On March 27, 1968, Gagarin died in a plane crash in Vladimir Region while conducting a training flight. He was just 34 years old. The USSR declared a national day of mourning – an unprecedented move for someone who was not a head of state.

Some believe that his early death further solidified Gagarin’s legend. The world never saw him grow older or become involved in politics – though he could have easily become a political figure. Gagarin will forever be remembered as the young, smiling pilot.

The new leadership in the USSR under Brezhnev showed less interest in the space program. Korolev’s proposals for missions to the Moon and Mars were rejected as the country faced an increasing shortage of consumer goods, and budgets shifted to other sectors.

With the end of the Cold War, space lost its strategic importance for a long time.

Recently, however, interest in space has been rekindled in Russia. A new space program aims to create a Russian orbital station to replace the ISS, along with a three-phase lunar mission culminating in the establishment of a permanent lunar base.

On Cosmonautics Day, however, Russians tend to focus not on ambitious plans, but rather on the smiling pilot who calmly accepted the offer to journey into the unknown. And they remember the words he spoke shortly after his return: 

“Orbiting Earth in the spaceship, I saw how beautiful our planet is. People, let us preserve and increase this beauty, not destroy it!”

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called opposition leader Peter Magyar and congratulated his Tisza party on its election victory. At the time of the call, Tisza was leading Orban’s Fidesz party by 52% to 39% of the vote.

Magyar dominated pre-election polling, after campaigning on corruption, public services, and restoring ties with the EU. His victory determines not only who governs Hungary, but also how far Budapest resists policy proposals coming from Brussels.

Orban has spent years frustrating the EU with his stance on Russia, sanctions, and military support for Ukraine, making this election a closely watched test for Brussels as well as for Orban’s allies on the international right. Ukraine is also watching – and allegedly interfered in – the vote, as Orban is currently vetoing the EU’s planned €90 billion loan package for Kiev.

Independent polling summarized by AP suggests Tisza entered election day with momentum, though the race was still expected to be tight because of Fidesz’s entrenched rural support and the advantages Orban enjoys from incumbency and Hungary’s electoral system.

Earlier, Magyar wrote off reports that he was planning to instigate post-election riots as “scare stories and lies," after a former Tisza party adviser released a document alleging that Magyar’s EU backers were urging him to declare victory prematurely, and start street-level violence modeled on the 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine if the result doesn’t go his way.

Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates.

The Holy Fire was delivered from Jerusalem to Moscow on Saturday and received at Vnukovo Airport before being used in Orthodox Easter services.

The flame is lit each year on the eve of the holiday inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, at the site associated with the burial of Jesus Christ. The ritual takes place in the Kuvuklia, a chapel built over the tomb, where the Patriarch of Jerusalem enters after prayers and distributes the fire to clergy and pilgrims waiting in the darkened church.

A delegation from the St. Andrew the First-Called Foundation transported it to the Russian capital aboard a Roscosmos aircraft after receiving the flame earlier in the day at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The group, led by foundation board chairman Vladimir Yakunin and Metropolitan Feognost, a vicar of Patriarch Kirill, arrived in Israel on April 10 and departed from Ben Gurion Airport following the ceremony, during which Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem prayed alongside clergy and pilgrims.

At Vnukovo Airport, the fire was received by representatives of multiple dioceses before being taken to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

It was used during the Patriarchal night service and later distributed to several dioceses and churches across the capital, including Epiphany Cathedral in Yelokhovo and Znamensky Cathedral on Varvarka Street. The flame will be delivered to regions across the country, allowing worshipers to light candles from it throughout Easter week.

Roscosmos chief Dmitry Bakanov said the delivery went ahead despite tensions in the Middle East.

“The situation in the Middle East is not simple, but it was important for us to fulfill the mission of delivering the fire, which millions of Orthodox Christians in our country await for the Bright Easter holiday,” he said.

In 2026, concerns were raised that the fire might not appear due to restrictions on access to Jerusalem’s Old City and a more limited format for the ceremony. The failure of the ritual is traditionally viewed by some as a sign of future misfortune.

This year, Easter coincided with Cosmonautics Day on April 12 to commemorate Yuri Gagarin’s first human spaceflight. Patriarch Kirill exchanged greetings with the Russian crew aboard the International Space Station. Roscosmos cosmonauts sent holiday messages from space.

“Our goal is to ignite in the hearts of millions of Russian boys and girls a love for space,” cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev said.

A man has been arrested after breaching security at Ireland’s Shannon Airport and damaging a US military aircraft, in an incident that briefly shut down operations and reignited scrutiny of America’s long-running use of the facility.

Footage circulating online appears to show the intruder climbing onto a US Air Force C-130 Hercules parked on a remote taxiway at the County Clare airport. Some reports said he was wielding an axe, hatchet, or hammer as he struck the aircraft, though police have so far only confirmed an arrest for alleged criminal damage.

According to the Gardai, the suspect, a man in his 40s, entered an unauthorized area of the airport on Saturday morning and was arrested shortly before 11:00 AM under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act. The response involved airport police, Shannon Airport’s fire and rescue service, and Irish defense forces stationed on site.

𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢 | A protester breached the airside perimeter at Shannon Airport in Ireland, climbed onto the wing of a parked US Air Force C-130 Hercules and damaged the aircraft with what is believed to be a hammer, temporarily taking it out of service and forcing a brief airport… pic.twitter.com/PD9M9ftkry

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) April 11, 2026

The breach forced Shannon to suspend operations, with two departing flights delayed and an incoming aircraft from Lourdes, France placed in a holding pattern before the airport resumed normal operations at 10:15 AM.

It remains unclear whether the attack was motivated by the US campaign against Iran, but Shannon Airport has seen repeated incursions linked to opposition to the airport’s role as a refueling and transit point for US military traffic.

In a more recent incident in November 2025, three activists reportedly drove a van into a restricted area, approached a parked US military plane, and spray-painted a US Navy Reserve Boeing 737-700, forcing another shutdown. Months earlier, three women were arrested after breaching the perimeter and throwing red paint over a US-linked aircraft.

A Ukrainian man was violently seized and beaten by conscription officers in the southern city of Odessa, according to footage circulating online, in the latest incident highlighting the brutality of Kiev’s conscription drive.

As Ukrainian forces suffer mounting losses in the conflict with Russia and the pool of willing recruits continues to shrink, draft enforcement squads have increasingly turned to coercion to fill the ranks. The practice, commonly known as ‘busification’, involves military-age men being snatched from the streets, workplaces, and residential areas, then taken to recruitment centers against their will, often triggering clashes with relatives, neighbors, and passersby.

In a video published by a local Telegram channel on Friday, five officers from Ukraine’s Territorial Recruitment Center are seen hauling a man out of the entrance to a residential building in Odessa. Grabbing him by the arms and legs, they drag him toward a waiting vehicle as he resists and cries out for help.

“What are you doing? Let him go, you bastards!” a woman filming from a nearby balcony is heard shouting. Another voice calls on bystanders to call the police, while one of the officers repeatedly punches the man.

The backlash has been building alongside the violence. Ukraine’s military ombudsman, Olga Reshetilova, said that even schoolchildren are now increasingly “harassing” draft officers after watching viral videos of their violent behavior.

Some Ukrainian officials have acknowledged the depth of the recruitment crisis. According to Vadim Ivchenko, a member of parliament’s national security committee, only around 8-10% of new personnel entering the armed forces are willing recruits.

Moscow has accused Kiev’s Western backers of fighting “to the last Ukrainian.” Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov has estimated that Ukraine lost nearly 500,000 servicemen in 2025 alone. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has suggested that the country’s total military casualties have surpassed 1 million.

Millions of Russians are celebrating Orthodox Easter, the most important holiday in Christianity and one that carries deep cultural significance across the country.

Russian President Vladimir Putin attended the Easter night service at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, where Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia traditionally leads the Easter Matins and Divine Liturgy.

The Holy Fire was delivered to Moscow from Jerusalem on Holy Saturday, arriving at Vnukovo airport before being taken to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior for the Patriarchal Easter service. The flame, lit annually inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at the site associated with the burial of Jesus Christ, was transported by a delegation of the St. Andrew the First-Called Foundation aboard a Roscosmos aircraft and later distributed to churches across the capital.

After the service, the Russian president and Patriarch Kirill exchanged traditional gifts. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church also thanked the head of state for facilitating the transfer of the Vladimir and Don icons of the Mother of God, calling the move a historic event. The Russian leader crossed himself after the remarks.

In Russia, Easter goes beyond its strictly religious meaning. In a country shaped by diverse cultures and faiths, including Islam and Buddhism, the holiday is observed not only by Christians, but also by many non-believers and followers of other religions.

Some 73% of Russians plan to celebrate Easter this year, according to a survey published on Friday by the state-run pollster VCIOM. Only 15% of respondents said they do not intend to mark the holiday.

Only about 20% observe Lent – a nearly seven-week period of fasting preceding Easter in the Orthodox tradition, the poll suggests. Around 15% of respondents named egg painting as one of the most significant Easter traditions in Russia, while 10% highlighted family gatherings.

Millions of Russians are expected to attend church services on Saturday night as part of traditional Easter celebrations.

Orthodoxy is experiencing a resurgence in Russia, according to VCIOM, with the number of followers growing, particularly among young people. The share of people aged 18-24 who identify as Orthodox Christians has grown from 25% to 45% in recent years, the agency said in July 2025.

What will be the consequences for the United States of refraining from taking extreme measures against Iran?

It is too early to say what kind of lasting order, if any, will emerge in the Middle East after the failure of the US and Israel’s campaign against Tehran. Yet the decision to avoid escalation, and ultimately the destruction of an entire civilization, already allows for several conclusions, not only about the region but about the wider trajectory of global politics.

First, the episode once again demonstrates the limits of superpower capabilities when vital interests are not directly at stake. Second, international politics continues to drift in a dangerous direction, where the possibility of a general military catastrophe remains ever present. That drift, moreover, shows no immediate sign of slowing.

Once it became clear that Washington couldn’t break Iran’s resistance or force it to reopen the Strait of Hormuz using conventional means, the US faced a stark choice: retreat or escalate to the nuclear level. The latter was never seriously contemplated, despite the rhetorical threats. The US leadership understood that the stakes simply did not justify such a move.

As a result, the conflict has effectively been brought to a halt on terms favorable to Tehran. For many observers, this amounts to a fiasco for the United States: a failure to defeat a significantly weaker opponent and an inability to shield its Gulf allies, who have suffered from Iranian counterstrikes.

For Washington, in other words, the game was not worth the candle.

This restraint, however, carries consequences. It has become increasingly clear that American “security guarantees” are conditional and limited. The US will not go to any lengths to defend its partners, even those who rely on it most heavily.

This reality extends beyond the Middle East. In Europe, particularly among states along Russia’s western periphery, confidence in unconditional American protection has long been taken for granted. That confidence can no longer be absolute. Countries such as Finland and the Baltic nations have operated under the assumption that the US would always intervene decisively. Recent events suggest otherwise.

There is also a broader political dimension. The current US leadership, under Donald Trump, reflects a mindset in which material interests outweigh abstract considerations of prestige or power. Trump and his circle approach international affairs less as statesmen and more as businessmen.

The potential destruction of Iran would have had far-reaching consequences for the Middle East and the global energy system. Washington is neither prepared for nor interested in such an outcome. Other major powers are drawing their own conclusions from this. China, in particular, has already adapted its approach, and Russia is doing the same, placing emphasis on pragmatic cooperation and mutual benefit in its dealings with the United States.

Looking ahead, this pattern is unlikely to change quickly. Should Trump be succeeded by figures such as J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio, the underlying logic will probably remain intact. These are politicians who are similarly disinclined to sacrifice tangible gains for abstract political objectives.

This trajectory will persist until the US either accepts a diminished global role or finds itself in a far weaker, potentially unstable position. It is precisely at that point, when the costs of inaction begin to outweigh the risks of escalation, that the calculation may change. Only then might the game truly become worth the candle.

And when that moment arrives, the consequences are unlikely to be contained.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

Seven Russian civilians, the last held by Ukraine since the 2024 Kursk incursion, have been freed after nearly 500 days in captivity, Moscow has said.

Their release came as part of a prisoner swap on Saturday, with 175 Russian servicemen returned in exchange for 175 Ukrainian soldiers, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said.

“We fought for nearly two long years to bring home all Kursk residents who became hostages in Ukraine during the occupation of our border region,” Russian Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova wrote on social media. “Today, the last seven of our compatriots have been freed and can finally embrace their loved ones. In total, 165 residents of Kursk Region had been illegally held by the Ukrainian side since 2024.”

Earlier, she said that Kiev had sought to exchange the civilians for Ukrainians detained in Russia for various crimes. Moskalkova called such demands unacceptable, arguing that the Russians had been held by Ukraine without legal grounds and in violation of international norms, had not committed any actions that would harm Ukraine.

In January, Russian Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik, who leads a Foreign Ministry mission that tracks alleged Ukrainian war crimes, also said that Kiev was trying to secure “the return of Ukrainian war criminals held in our custody” in exchange for civilians.

The Ukrainian advance into Kursk Region in August 2024 was quickly halted and fully repelled in April 2025. In January, Moskalkova said that the Russian authorities found 524 bodies in “mass burial sites” in the border region following its liberation.

Russian officials have reported numerous testimonies alleging war crimes, including rape and abductions, as well as abuses of POWs, during the Ukrainian presence.

A UK jury has found former BBC producer Dylan Dawes guilty of downloading more than 6,000 child porn images.

The verdict was delivered at Cardiff Crown Court on Friday, following a four-day trial. Dawes, who started working for the British public broadcaster in 2001, had pleaded not guilty to the three counts of possessing indecent images and three counts of making indecent images.

Dawes was arrested in 2022 after police officers raided his home and seized computers and storage devices, where they discovered the incriminating material, according to the Daily Express.

“During a period of time of about 16 years between December 31, 2006, and March 1, 2022, the defendant has been downloading child pornography” on four different devices, prosecutor Harry Baker reportedly told the court, adding that 192 of the images were category A – the most egregious kind.

Judge Eugene Egan said the jury found Dawes “guilty on what they found to be absolutely overwhelming evidence,” according to Wales Online.

The former BBC producer will be sentenced on May 14, and must now register as a sex offender.

The British state broadcaster has a growing record of employing and harboring pedophiles in its ranks.

Infamously, the BBC allegedly suppressed complaints about sexual abuse perpetrated by Jimmy Savile, who is believed to have had as many as 450 victims. His crimes came to light after his 2011 death, and while he was never officially prosecuted, the revelations prompted an unprecedented investigation into how the BBC handles internal abuse reports.

“You can pursue a sensible policy… as an EU member only if you are sovereign [as a nation],” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said during his first meeting with journalists from international media outlets this year.

That meeting was quite significant, since Orban laid out his team’s approach to both foreign and domestic policies – an approach that has drawn sharp criticism from the European Commission.

When asked about Hungary’s potential exit from the EU, he said that “EU membership is an important option,” dispelling any notions that he wants the bloc to be dismantled. However, regarding migration, he declared, “Hungary will not accept Brussels deciding who we should live with.”

His reaction to the January 2026 kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by American forces was also noteworthy. Orban called it “a new language... that the world will speak in the future.” Essentially, he acknowledged the erosion of the ‘rules-based order’ – a concept the EU defends to maintain itself as a prominent center for moral and political judgment on global events.

Orban also said, “It makes sense to have optimal relations with other blocs [besides the EU], including America, Russia, China, the Arab and Turkish worlds.”

Naturally, such dictates from Brussels were supposed to be followed by all EU members. Rebellious European politicians were instantly branded ‘pro-Russian’. Orban too fell under this category because of his calls to establish dialogue with Russia.

However, before labeling Orban ‘pro-Russian’, we should delve deeper into Hungary’s political psychology.

Hungary’s three grievances 

The struggle for self-determination is deeply rooted in the mindset of the Hungarian political class. Following the collapse of the socialist bloc, for the first time in centuries Budapest had a real opportunity to pursue an independent policy. 

Hungary’s historical worldview stems from the fact that in the 20th century, its fate was determined by external powers in three instances. This has significantly shaped the psychology of today’s politicians: They understand that, in decisive moments, Hungary might not have any allies. 

The first example occurred in 1920, when the Treaty of Trianon was signed at the end of the First World War. The victorious countries – Britain, Italy, France, and the United States – effectively dismembered Hungary, stripping away about two-thirds of its territory in favor of neighbors like Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Austria. A portion of Hungary’s historical lands later became part of Ukraine.

The second time, the fate of Hungary was shaped by the USSR, the US, and the UK at the Yalta Conference following the Second World War. Budapest then became part of the socialist bloc. 

In 1956, Hungary attempted to assert its own path through an uprising, which was crushed by Soviet forces. The memory of this event remains significant in the context of modern relations between Russia and Hungary.

Orban is well aware of these historical events and understands that during times of great upheaval, more powerful neighbors can easily disregard the will of Hungarians – a reality Hungary has faced repeatedly. He knows all too well what can happen to smaller countries when military tensions arise in Europe.

This is why Orban pushes for a resolution of the conflict in Ukraine. His primary aim is to douse the flames of conflict, even if extinguishing them at their source is no longer possible. If engaging in dialogue with Russia is necessary for this, then that’s what he intends to do. This pragmatic approach, rather than any ‘pro-Russian’ sentiment, likely underpins his foreign policy. 

In 2023, Orban noted that Hungary had not forgotten the lessons of 1956. “[Hungary] looks beyond its borders with only one thought: the most important thing is that Hungary should not share a border with Russia… Hungary’s interest is that there should always be a territory controlled by another state between it and Russia,” Orban said, commenting on how he envisions Ukraine’s future borders after the conflict.

Hungary’s reluctance to form allied relations with Russia is evident. Since opting for a European path after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Hungary has never questioned this choice. Orban openly declares that being part of the EU provides certain benefits, despite the fact that Brussels freezes some funds intended for Budapest due to the latter’s stance on various national security issues, such as migrants and the activities of foreign media and NGOs.

The Hungarian government approaches its relationship with Moscow largely through the lens of benefits and practicality. Budapest has consistently maintained that sanctions are detrimental to the European economy (though it also voted for them), opposed stringent EU measures against Russia (while condemning its military operation), and criticized European foreign policy (without actively countering it, at least until oil supplies via the Druzhba pipeline were halted).

Hungary also finds value in its energy ties with Russia (e.g. Russian energy resources and the Paks II nuclear power plant project involving Russian specialists). This prompts Budapest to advocate for exemptions from sanctions, so it can continue accessing affordable Russian resources.

This somewhat resembles Russia’s approach. Russia also sold gas to Europe not out of altruism, but because this benefited Moscow. However, this does not make Russia’s policy pro-European or Hungary’s position pro-Russian.

Profit, however, turns countries into partners rather than allies, and it’s essential to understand this distinction clearly. This also aligns with Russia’s strategy. While Moscow had once aspired to forge allied relations with Europe, these attempts have not succeeded. Nevertheless, for a long time, Russia was willing to maintain partnerships that could facilitate strong foreign policy ties on various issues, including security concerns.

Hungary, like Slovakia, has opted for a path of partnership with Moscow, but its ability to fully implement this policy is hampered by Brussels’ anti-Russia rhetoric. The European Commission labels this pragmatic and measured approach as ‘pro-Russian’; however, it would be more accurately described as friendly and rational.

On April 12, Hungary will hold parliamentary elections that will put this rationality to the test. Orban faces a challenging campaign, as the entire European bureaucratic machine appears to be working against him. In fact, Hungarian voters will decide not only the direction of Hungary’s domestic policy but will also determine whether Budapest remains a dialogue partner for Moscow. This election will be significant for both Budapest and Brussels. Meanwhile, observers in Moscow can only watch the developments in Hungary, hoping that regardless of the government that comes to power, Budapest will remain focused on swiftly resolving the Ukraine conflict.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lashed out at Spain over what he described as repeated opposition to Israel and the “defaming” of the military after Madrid slammed the IDF over the recent strikes in Lebanon.

In a video address on Friday, Netanyahu said he ordered Spain’s expulsion from the US-backed coordination center in Kiryat Gat that oversees the Gaza ceasefire, calling it punishment for opposing Israel.

“Israel will not remain silent in the face of those who attack us. Spain has defamed our heroes, IDF soldiers – the soldiers of the most moral army in the world,” Netanyahu said. “Spain has chosen repeatedly to stand against Israel… I do not intend to allow any country to wage a diplomatic war against us without paying an immediate price.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

“Israel will not remain silent in the face of those who attack us.

Spain has defamed our heroes, the soldiers of the IDF, the soldiers of the most moral army in the world.

1/4 pic.twitter.com/c95fTDNXkW

— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) April 10, 2026

Spanish officials, including Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, have been among the most vocal critics of the US-Israeli war against Iran, warning that further escalation would bring severe humanitarian and economic consequences. Last month, Spain closed its airspace to US aircraft linked to the war and permanently withdrew its ambassador from Israel, downgrading ties.

The strikes – called ‘Operation Eternal Darkness’ – lasted ten minutes, but are considered the most intense aerial assault since the broader US-Israel war against Iran began on February 28. The IDF said it hit around 100 Hezbollah targets and killed over 180 militants. The Lebanese authorities said at least 357 people, mostly civilians, were killed and more than 1,223 were wounded.

Following the strikes, Sanchez slammed Netanyahu’s “contempt for life and international law,” calling it “intolerable” and urging Brussels to suspend the EU association agreement with Israel. Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares echoed the criticism, calling the strikes a “shame for the conscience of humanity” and accusing the IDF of “indiscriminate bombings” targeting civilians under the guise of fighting Hezbollah.

Senior Iranian and US negotiators are in Islamabad for what Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called a “make-or-break moment” to turn the fragile ceasefire into a broader deal.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, leading Tehran’s delegation, said he arrived with goodwill tempered by deep mistrust, noting that the US attacked Iran “twice within less than a year” during negotiations. US Vice President J.D. Vance, leading the American team, said he expects productive talks but warned Iran not to “play” the US.

Washington has agreed to release frozen Iranian assets held in Qatar and other foreign jurisdictions, a move seen as a sign of “seriousness” in reaching a deal between the US and the Islamic Republic, Reuters reported on Saturday, citing a senior Iranian source. Negotiators from both countries have arrived in Pakistan for talks.

High-level Iranian and US delegations arrived in Islamabad on Saturday to continue negotiations on a proposed peace framework. Some elements of the plan have been circulated in media reports, although no official details have been released by either side.

Unfreezing the assets is “directly linked to ensuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz”, a key issue in the talks, an unnamed official told the news agency. The source did not disclose the amount, while a second Iranian official said the US was ready to release $6 billion held in Qatar.

However, CBS News reported, citing a senior US official, that the White House hasn’t agreed to authorize release of the funds.

The exact value of Iran’s frozen assets remains unclear, though by some estimates the figure exceeds $100 billion. It includes funds immobilized directly in the US, assets restricted abroad, oil revenues in escrow, and central bank reserves blocked due to US secondary sanctions.

However, following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel by Iranian ally Hamas, the administration of then-President Joe Biden re-froze the funds, stating that Iran wouldn’t be able to access the money for the foreseeable future and that Washington retained the right to fully block the account.

The funds, originally frozen in 2018, stem from Iranian oil sales to South Korea and had been held in South Korean banks after President Donald Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran and withdrew from the nuclear deal during his first term in office.

Russia and Ukraine have conducted a POW swap involving 350 captives, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said on Saturday, a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a temporary ceasefire for the Orthodox Easter weekend.

In a press release, the Russian MOD said that “175 Russian service members were returned from territory controlled by the Kiev regime, while in exchange, 175 Ukrainian Armed Forces prisoners of war were handed over.” The ministry added that separately, seven civilians from Kursk Region – said to have been the last hostages still held from the Ukrainian incursion last year – were released and will soon return home.

According to the ministry, the Russian servicemen are currently in neighboring Belarus, where they are receiving psychological and medical assistance before being transported to Russia for treatment and rehabilitation.

Since the resumption of direct Russia-Ukraine talks in May 2025, the sides have regularly carried out exchanges of POWs as well as of the bodies of fallen troops. The previous exchange occurred on April 3, when the sides swapped 600 captives.

Moscow has previously declared unilateral pauses during Orthodox holidays, but last year’s Easter truce was only partially successful: Kiev violated the truce more than 3,900 times, according to the Russian MOD. This time, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky pledged to “observe a ceasefire regime” and “act exclusively in a mirror manner.”

The Easter weekend ceasefire announced by Russia has come into force. President Vladimir Putin ordered the nation’s military to halt all operations against Ukrainian forces from 16:00 Moscow time (13:00 GMT) on Saturday until the end of Sunday.

According to the Kremlin, the move is a humanitarian gesture, not a substitute for a lasting peace with Ukraine.

The Russian military will be ready to respond to any Ukrainian offensive operations or provocations, Moscow stated.

“We expect the Ukrainian side to follow Russia’s lead,” the Kremlin said when it announced the ceasefire earlier this week.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky responded by claiming that Kiev was “ready for mirror steps.” He also called for a prolonged truce extending beyond the Easter weekend.

“We want not a ceasefire, but a lasting, sustainable peace,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Friday, commenting on the development. He added that peace could be reached if Zelensky “takes responsibility” and makes the necessary decisions.

Moscow has said it remains open to negotiations, but insists that any lasting settlement must address the root causes of the conflict. These include Kiev’s neutrality and the reversal of discriminatory policies targeting ethnic Russians and Russian culture.

Ukrainian forces violated the Easter ceasefire 1,971 times from 4:00 PM on April 11 to 8:00 AM on April 12, the Russian Defense Ministry said earlier on Sunday.

All Russian troops strictly observed the ceasefire and remained at their previously held lines and positions, the Defense Ministry added.

Russia has previously declared unilateral ceasefires for Orthodox religious holidays. In 2023, it observed truces during the Orthodox Christmas holiday in January and over the Easter weekend in April. In 2025, Moscow declared an Easter truce, but it was violated by Kiev more than 3,900 times, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

“My daughter is sleeping in the ICU of a hospital in Mohakhali, Dhaka and I have been in the queue at the Trust filling station since 1:30 AM. It is now a quarter to three... If I cannot get fuel, I will leave the bike on the road and just walk away. I do not have the strength left in my body to push this bike all the way to the hospital.”

A Bangladeshi journalist posted this on social media – one more voice in the flood of similar posts over the past few weeks as the energy crisis triggered by the Iran war has swept across the nation of 177 million people. The post was later updated to say that the man finally received 5 liters of fuel at 6:50 AM.

Social media is now full of images of long lines at gas pumps across Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, and the situation is reportedly even more acute in other parts of the South Asian nation hit by severe energy crisis triggered by the conflict in the Middle East.

Thousands of fishermen across Barishal, the country’s southernmost division, have been passing idle days and suffering financial losses as most fishing trawlers remain tied up at the docks amid the ongoing fuel shortage. More than 1,000 seagoing trawlers are stranded in Alipur and Mohipur in Barishal, leaving over 100,000 fishermen and workers out of work.

Pritam Das, the owner of two trawlers that have been docked at Mohipur river port since Eid-ul-Fitr, a major religious festival in the Muslim-majority nation, said each vessel needs around 14 barrels of fuel per trip, but they have not been able to collect any fuel from dealers. The crisis has also significantly disrupted the supply of fish in local markets.

Although a fuel crisis is visible at gas pumps across the country, including in the capital, Dhaka, amid the Iran war, the government maintains that there is no fuel shortage.

While early March shortages were aggravated by the Eid holiday banking shutdown, which disrupted supply chains and delayed payments and deliveries, fuel distribution remains irregular even after the holiday: Stocks are limited, sales are capped, lines are long, and pressure on filling stations continues as demand still exceeds supply in Bangladesh.

New government, mounting challenge

Since the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) assumed power in Bangladesh last February, it has been grappling with a mounting fuel crisis that continues to pose a serious challenge for the new government. 

Despite assurances and policy efforts, supply disruptions, panic buying, and market irregularities have made the situation difficult to control, highlighting the government’s struggle to stabilize the energy sector and restore public confidence. 

In response to the ongoing fuel challenges, the new government has introduced a series of measures aimed at stabilizing supply while minimizing economic disruption.

The authorities have decided that shopping malls are to remain open until 7:00 PM – as a number of power plants in Bangladesh run on fuel. At the same time, officials have assured the public that the country is working to build sufficient fuel reserves, with plans to maintain a buffer stock for up to three months to ensure supply stability and meet rising demand, particularly during the peak agricultural season. 

“If we can reduce traffic on the roads and introduce a rationing system for fuel, it will help conserve fuel. That is why we are thinking of bringing schools in metropolitan cities – where traffic pressure is high – under an online-offline system,” Education Minister ANM Ehsanul Hoque Milon said.

Power, Energy and Mineral Resources Minister Iqbal Hassan Mahmood Tuku said this week that the country has adequate supplies of fuel, while stating that he would continue the nationwide drive against illegal fuel hoarders.

“The country so far has no fuel shortage and has enough stock of all sorts of fuel including petrol, octane and diesel while a geopolitical instability is prevailing in the Middle East,” he stated.

Zahed Ur Rahman, an adviser to the prime minister, admitted that there is a slight shortage in fuel supplies, though he reiterated that the situation remains under control as the government works to ease pressure. “Operations have been intensified to prevent illegal hoarding and smuggling of fuel,” he said.

Local experts maintain that the ongoing fuel strain is unlikely to ease anytime soon, as global supply uncertainty and mounting domestic demand continue to put pressure on the country’s energy supply chain.

With no clear end to the Middle East conflict – despite the announced ceasefire and ongoing talks in Islamabad – concerns are growing over shipment delays, particularly for April, when only a limited number of planned consignments have been confirmed so far. In the coming weeks, supply is likely to remain manageable if imports arrive on schedule and demand does not spike further.

Supply vs stock: The real constraint

As of April 7, the total stock of octane and gasoline stood at 10,500 tons and 16,000 tones respectively, enough to meet demand for 9-11 days, according to the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation (BPC). For April, around 110,000 tons of diesel imports have been confirmed and another 60,000 tons is in the pipeline, according to BPC data. In addition, existing depot stock stands at around 130,000 tons.

This suggests a total available supply of around 300,000 tons, or 86% of typical monthly demand.

In Bangladesh, the government has begun rationing fuel to avoid a shortage, as the country meets 95% of its oil and 30% of its gas requirements through imports.

Energy-sector analysts predict that electricity supply in the country could be affected in the coming summer season, as many power plants are likely to remain underutilized due to shortages of gas, coal, and furnace oil. Around 40% of overall capacity is expected to remain idle during peak demand from 7:00 to 9:00 PM. 

Out of the total 12,204 megawatts (MW) of gas‑fired capacity, the Bangladesh Power Development Board – the state‑owned agency responsible for planning and developing the nation’s power infrastructure – will be able to use at best about 5,200 MW, leaving nearly 7,000 MW offline.

Gas shortages have already forced five of the country’s six fertilizer factories to remain shut since March.

The country will have to rely heavily on coal‑fired power plants and furnace oil for electricity generation, as it has installed only 1,059 MW of renewable capacity – just 3.7% of total demand – with 757 MW from solar, 230 MW from hydro, and 62 MW from wind.

Hunting for fuel worldwide

As geopolitical tensions escalate, the government of Bangladesh is moving to diversify fuel imports as traditional shipping routes face disruption. Dhaka has requested a sanctions waiver from the US so that the country can purchase refined fuel from Russia without repercussions. At the same time, officials are negotiating with a range of countries across Asia, Africa, and beyond to diversify fuel sources.

According to the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources, Dhaka wrote to Washington in March, requesting permission to import up to 6,00,000 tonnes of refined fuel from Russia, or alternatively, to obtain a waiver for at least two months. Officials did not provide details on the procurement mechanism, including whether shipments would come directly from Russia or a third country.

Dhaka has also been trying to secure additional supplies from regional partners. Officials said India earlier committed to supplying around 60,000 tons of diesel from January to June under an existing arrangement. So far, Bangladesh has received three consignments of 5,000 tons each through the India-Bangladesh pipeline and another shipment of 7,000 tons via the sea route, bringing the total diesel imports from India to roughly 22,000 tons.

The authorities have also reached out to Iran to explore possible shipment arrangements, though logistical and security complications remain.

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has yet to recover in any meaningful way despite the US-Iran ceasefire. Iran previously listed Bangladesh as a ‘friendly nation’, and indicated that Bangladeshi vessels may be allowed safe passage through the strait. In reality, however, vessel movements still hinge on how the talks in Islamabad proceed.

Officials said they have examined several alternatives, but many have proven economically unviable, noting that “all procurement decisions must ultimately be economically viable.” The search for new suppliers has also become harder, as some traditional exporters are adding surcharges on top of already surging oil prices. For now, the government can secure supplies for the immediate future, the ministry spokesperson said, urging people not to panic, but officials cautioned that it is too early to predict supply conditions for May and June, even though plans are in place to build a three-month fuel reserve.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has instructed the government to develop a national plan for the deployment of AI technologies, emphasizing that the accelerated adoption of AI is crucial for the country’s future.

Speaking on Friday at a meeting on AI development, the president called for faster integration of the technology in the economy and public administration, adaptation of education, risk assessment, and advances in defense and security, while also stressing the need to promote Russian solutions abroad.

“Artificial intelligence, along with digital platforms and autonomous systems, is shaping a fundamentally new image of the economy, social relations, the social sphere, education, healthcare, logistics and industry, defense and security — and indeed the entire life of the country,” Putin said.

Russia must develop its own artificial intelligence solutions for national defense and security, the president said, warning that the country’s sovereignty and very existence depend on its ability to keep pace with global change. 

“We must possess the most advanced technologies and rely on fully sovereign domestic products,” he stressed.

“These artificial intelligence agents are already approaching a new level of independence. They are learning to plan their actions, evaluate the results they achieve, and interact with people and the real world,” he said.

Mozambique may soon see a spike in air travel costs as global jet fuel prices surge, the country’s national director of hydrocarbons and fuels, Felisbela Nhate, said on Thursday. 

Speaking to reporters, Nhate said that aviation fuel has experienced a steep price increases in global markets recently. She noted that prices have climbed from around $769 per ton to $1,595.   

Nhate’s comments come amid global supply disruptions following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz due to the US-Israeli war on Iran. The disruption to one of the world’s key energy routes has sent oil prices higher and triggered knock-on effects across global supply chains.  

According to Nhate, these developments are already driving up operational costs for airlines, which could ultimately be passed on to passengers through higher ticket prices. 

Against the backdrop of a deepening fuel crisis, Kenya Airways increased fares across its network last month. Air Mauritius has announced it would continue increasing its fuel surcharge.

Ethiopian Airlines also raised its fuel surcharge, stating it would continue to monitor developments in the region. RwandAir has introduced a temporary fuel surcharge adjustment on select fares.

The home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was struck with a Molotov cocktail on Friday, San Francisco police said in a statement later confirmed by Altman. The individual was later arrested after appearing at the company’s headquarters and allegedly threatening to burn it down.

The incidents unfolded within around an hour. According to police, a 20-year-old male first approached Altman’s home and threw an “incendiary destructive device,” setting fire to an exterior gate, before fleeing on foot.

About an hour later, officers responded to a report of someone matching the suspect’s description threatening arson at another building, later identified as OpenAI’s San Francisco headquarters. The suspect was arrested, with charges pending. Police did not immediately comment on a potential motive. OpenAI confirmed both incidents, with a spokesperson saying no one was hurt.

View our latest statement regarding an incident that occurred early this morning at a North Beach residence. Officers have made an arrest, and no injuries were reported as a result of this incident. pic.twitter.com/t4DsF31uxh

— San Francisco Police (@SFPD) April 10, 2026

Altman addressed the situation in a blog post, sharing a photo of his family and expressing hope that “images have power” and might help deter similar attacks.

I wrote this early this morning and I wasn't sure if I would actually publish it, but here it is:https://t.co/7Dw9UFpeep

— Sam Altman (@sama) April 10, 2026

He added that he “underestimated the power of words and narratives,” noting that the incident came days after “an incendiary article” about him and his company, likely referring to a New Yorker investigation detailing allegations of deception and safety failings at OpenAI, as well as scrutiny over its recent $50 billion Pentagon deal.

The incident comes at a difficult time for both Altman and OpenAI. The company has faced backlash over its Pentagon deal allowing its technology to be used in classified military operations. Critics warn that the tools could enable warrantless surveillance, with users and developers accusing the company of prioritizing government contracts over public trust.

In a case set to go to trial later this month, Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk is suing OpenAI and Altman, alleging that the CEO “manipulated” him into donating $38 million on promises that the company would remain a nonprofit. Musk, a co-founder who left in 2018, is seeking Altman’s removal.

US President Donald Trump has declared that the US Navy will immediately begin a “blockade” of the Strait of Hormuz after talks with Iran in Islamabad ended without agreement. He accused Tehran of extortion, referring to the fees charged to vessels seeking to traverse the strategically vital waterway.

“I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas,” the US president stated on Truth Social. He went on to claim that “other Countries will be involved with this Blockade.”

Trump also said the US Navy will begin destroying Iranian mines in the strait, threatening that Tehran’s forces attempting to obstruct the effort “will be BLOWN TO HELL!”

Earlier, the US and Iranian delegations left the marathon 21-hour talks in Islamabad without a peace deal, though a tentative ceasefire in the Gulf continues to hold.

US Vice President J.D. Vance, who led the US delegation, said Washington was “negotiating in good faith” and made its red lines “as clear as we possibly could,” but Iran has “chosen not to accept our terms.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the talks produced some progress on several issues, but noted that differences remain on “two or three key points.”

Commenting on the failed talks in Islamabad, Trump claimed that the Iranian negotiators “were very unyielding” on uranium enrichment – the “single most important issue” to the US. 

Key developments:

• US Vice President J.D. Vance, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and the rest of the US negotiating team have left Pakistan, according to media reports. 

• The IDF has been instructed to assume a “heightened state of readiness” in anticipation of a resumption of the hostilities, Israeli media reports. 

• Trump has said he ordered the US Navy to remove Iranian mines from the Strait of Hormuz. CENTCOM earlier announced that the US Navy destroyers USS Frank E. Petersen and USS Michael Murphy crossed the waterway and operated in the Arabian Gulf as part of the mission.
  
  

• Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaghari has denied US claims of a minesweeping operation in Hormuz, insisting that any vessel seeking to pass through the key waterway requires permission from the Iranian armed forces.

Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates. You can also read our previous updates here.

NASA’s Artemis II astronauts have safely returned to Earth, splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of southern California and closing out the first crewed journey around the Moon in more than half a century.

The mission marks NASA’s first crewed Artemis flight and the first time people have traveled beyond low Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972.

Aboard the Orion spacecraft were Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, Mission Specialist Christina Koch, and Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen.

Launched from Kennedy Space Center in Florida on April 1, the four-person crew spent around ten days testing the spacecraft and its systems on a lunar flyby designed to help pave the way for future missions.

During the mission, Artemis II set a new distance record for human spaceflight, with NASA saying the crew surpassed the mark set by Apollo 13.

Orion's main parachute has deployed. The spacecraft has a system of 11 chutes that will slow it down from around 300 mph to 20 mph for splashdown.

Get more updates on the Artemis II blog: https://t.co/7gicm7DWBt pic.twitter.com/ReXHTfkFld

— NASA (@NASA) April 11, 2026

The astronauts also conducted a high-profile flyby of the Moon’s far side and captured dramatic images of the Moon and Earth during the return leg.

Artemis II may have splashed down, but our photos and videos from the mission are still rolling in! Keep an eye on the latest: https://t.co/rzM1P0QbOl pic.twitter.com/HahXb0gCYC

— NASA (@NASA) April 11, 2026

The final descent was among the most critical phases of the flight. Orion hit Earth’s atmosphere at hypersonic speed, endured extreme heating during reentry, then slowed under parachutes before splashing down.

The crew module on Orion has separated from its service module. After traveling around the Moon, seeing its far side, and experiencing a solar eclipse, the Artemis II astronauts are on the last leg of their trip home. pic.twitter.com/j9u5j1Noi9

— NASA (@NASA) April 10, 2026

NASA and US Navy recovery teams were positioned to retrieve the spacecraft and crew after landing.

After a journey of more than 690,000 miles, the crew is nearly home.

The Artemis II crew will splash down off the coast of San Diego later today and, though it won’t be visible from land, you can still wave in their general direction to welcome them back to Earth! 👋 pic.twitter.com/ZZX23QCTpb

— NASA (@NASA) April 10, 2026

Artemis II did not land on the Moon, but NASA described it as a crucial test of the systems needed to send astronauts farther into deep space and eventually back to the Moon.

The mission’s results are expected to shape the next steps in the Artemis campaign, including future crewed lunar operations.

Chinese President Xi Jinping met with the head of Taiwan’s main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), on Friday and stressed that no global changes would stop “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” including its people across the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan became a de facto self-governed territory after Chinese nationalist forces lost in the civil war against the communists and fled to the island in 1949. Beijing considers Taiwan an inalienable part of its territory under the One China principle, which the overwhelming majority of UN member states adhere to.

The opposition leader arrived on the mainland on Tuesday at Xi’s invitation. Taiwan’s ruling DPP condemned the visit, but Cheng Li-wun described it as a peace-building mission – the first event of the kind in a decade.

“We welcome any proposals conducive to the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and will spare no effort to advance any endeavors that promote such development,” Xi said in a speech at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, adding that forces promoting “Taiwan independence” are the primary instigators of tensions in the region.

“No matter how the international landscape and the situation across the Taiwan Strait may evolve, the overarching trend toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation will not change,” Xi said.

Cheng’s rapprochement visit comes ahead of an expected summit between Xi and US President Donald Trump, which was earlier postponed due to the Iran war.

They may appear to be innocuous – even elegant – on the landscape as they collect power from the currents, but wind turbines have their own set of problems that environmentalists wish to ignore due to their eco-virtue-signaling.

As environmentalists look at a sprawling field of wind turbines as ‘good for the environment’ – unlike giant smokestacks on the horizon emitting noxious greenhouse gases into the air – the dangers inherent to wind energy are mostly invisible from a distance. Take a closer look, however, and it becomes quickly apparent that wind farms come with their own high cost to the environment and our health.

In a new report, it has been estimated that close to a million balsa hardwood trees are being illegally logged in the Amazon rainforest every year to support the hefty demand for wind turbines around the world. Balsa is a lightweight but durable wood that is regularly used in the production of the massive turbine blades. Each set of three blades requires up to 40 trees to produce.

Balsa is a relatively rapid-growing tropical wood and until the mounting demand from turbines began, it was safely harvested in sustainable plantations. But since a few short decades ago, the harvest could no longer keep up with demand as the clear-cutting of this precious commodity surges. In a critical survey, the Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) found that exports were increased by up to 50% following illegal logging in virgin rainforests.

In 2020, it was reported that over 20,000 balsa trees were illegally cut down from March to September in the Achuar indigenous territory along Ecuador’s Copataza River. Ecuador produces over 90% of the balsa in the world, with annual exports averaging 56,000 tons from 2013 to 2022. Other studies point to excessive illegal logging, with some estimates noting the removal of 75% of the trees in some areas.

“These inefficient, unreliable, unsightly monsters require a large footprint on land and sea, kill millions of bats, decimate raptor populations, sweep the air of quadrillions of insects and alter local ecology on both land and sea,” Chris Morrison of The Daily Sceptic writes. “Nobody would install one in a free market, so they require vast financial subsidies to produce expensive electricity.”

Another problem arises from the waste derived from these monstrosities. Wind turbines have a life expectancy of just 20 to 30 years, at which point they must be disassembled and hauled away (compare that to the lengthy life span of a coal-burning plant). When they are put out of commission, the towers and nacelles contain recyclable metals like steel, zinc, and copper. For the massive blades, which are about the size of a Boeing 747 wing, it’s a different story. Most are constructed from fiberglass-reinforced composites that are difficult and expensive to recycle, and many end up in garbage dumps.

Others point to the disruption of scenic landscapes – “industrialization of the countryside” as it has been called – that comes with sprawling wind farms. Some wind farms are opposed for potentially spoiling protected scenic areas, archaeological landscapes, and heritage sites. A 2017 report by the Mountaineering Council of Scotland concluded that wind farms harmed tourism in areas known for natural landscapes and panoramic views.

As the author pointed out, “our hills and wild places are small and finite. They deserve better than yet another short-term wave of degradation and exploitation... to produce profit for often-distant companies and shareholders.”

That sounds like an appropriate epitaph for this questionable energy source that falls far short of its myriad promises.

American journalist Tucker Carlson has said an Israeli strike targeting RT correspondent Steve Sweeney in Lebanon was an “attempted assassination,” as he spoke with the reporter about the attack and his work in conflict zones.

Sweeney and cameraman Ali Rida Sbeity were injured last month when an Israeli aircraft fired a missile at their filming position near the Al-Qasmiya Bridge in southern Lebanon, close to a local army base. The crew, who were wearing clearly marked press gear, said the jet “deliberately attacked” them, with Rida’s camera capturing the moment the blast struck less than 10 meters behind Sweeney as he ducked for cover.

In the interview, released by Carlson on Friday, he told viewers that the strike was “an attempted assassination.” Sweeney said they “were incredibly lucky to come out of that situation alive.”

Sweeney said the munition, which he identified as a GBU-38 bomb fired from an F-16 fighter jet, passed through a hole in the bridge which was already destroyed, arguing that there was “no military objective” in striking it again. He described the attack as “an assassination attempt by Israel to silence the voices on the ground, to silence the truth.”

“I have complete freedom to report exactly what I want, and nobody tells me what to say,” Sweeney said regarding his work at RT. He noted that RT is banned in the US and EU, while Western broadcasters are still allowed to operate and question officials inside Russia.

Sweeney told Carlson that despite the near-fatal strike in Lebanon, he has “no intention of leaving” the country or stopping his work.

There is a time for goodbye – and a time for reunion.

When foreign companies beat a hasty retreat from Russia in 2022 amid the Ukraine conflict, they framed their departures as a moral necessity.

In truth, for many, it was a costly act of panic: Abrupt, politically driven, and strategically short-sighted.

Now, as the global business climate is tempered by a more sober reality, the moment has come for foreign multinationals to reconsider – true to the old wisdom that illness is best treated early, before it turns chronic.

Returning to Russia is not merely an opportunity for commercial redemption; it is a strategic imperative for those seeking long-term relevance in one of the world’s most critical markets – and an exceptional opportunity for first-time entrants far-sighted and bold enough to seize it.

The Great Exodus: Wandering into the commercial desert

In the aftermath of Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine, hundreds of multinational corporations suspended or terminated their operations in Russia, while the smarter ones chose to stay.

Household names in consumer goods, automotive, retail, and food service exited with dramatic announcements, citing reputational concerns, stakeholder pressure, or political uncertainty.

Yet the consequences were severe.

For a host of companies, departure meant surrendering years – sometimes decades – of investment in market development, infrastructure, local partnerships, and customer loyalty.

Businesses sold assets at steep discounts, abandoned supply chains and sales networks painstakingly built over extended periods, and ceded market share to domestic competitors or foreign rivals eager to fill the vacuum. In doing so, they consigned themselves to navigating a diminished global business landscape of their own making. McDonald’s offers a vivid example.

In 1990, the iconic burger chain became the first US fast-food chain to establish a presence in the Soviet Union. It soon grew into one of Russia’s most prestigious employers, while its restaurants became landmark venues for family celebrations and even wedding feasts.

When McDonald’s precipitously concluded that operating in Russia no longer aligned with its values, it left behind 850 restaurants and 62,000 jobs across the country. The withdrawal meant abandoning a market that, together with Ukraine, had generated around 9% of its global revenues and cost McDonald’s an estimated $1.2-$1.4 billion in earnings charges. Yet the greater loss was strategic.

Business systems cannot simply be reassembled by flipping a switch. Once forfeited, rebuilding market position is path-dependent: With capabilities dismantled, local replacements rooted, and habits transformed, the business must be reconstituted from scratch.

Russia also had to absorb costs. Consumers were deprived of familiar brands, workers lost jobs, and sectors dependent on foreign expertise faced disruption. But the market void proved short-lived.

Russian companies swiftly adapted and claimed the ground multinationals abandoned, giving rise to a new generation of domestic businesses – stronger, more confident, and politically ascendant.

McDonald’s former Russian business now operates successfully under the domestic brand Vkusno i Tochka, created by Aleksandr Govor, a Siberian entrepreneur who took over its assets in 2022. He stands as a powerful new incumbent with whom McDonald’s must first come to terms before returning to Russia.

The Great Return: Reentering the land of commercial promise

For multinational corporations, the strategic rationale for return is compelling.

Companies owe their duties not to political fashion, but to their stakeholders at home and abroad: Shareholders seeking profit, employees seeking security, customers seeking choice, and host countries that enabled their growth.

Russia remains a major, geoeconomically pivotal economy with vast natural resources, abundant human capital, solid industrial capacity, and substantial consumer demand.

Those who return now can still gain an early mover advantage.

The first wave of returners will enjoy the best chance to reclaim valuable lost ground before markets become permanently reorganized and definitively occupied by domestic and foreign rivals alike. Delay carries a heavy price: Every quarter spent waiting strengthens competitors and weakens the returning company’s negotiating leverage.

Business history offers countless examples of late returners paying more for re-entry than they saved by leaving. In commerce, as in life, reconciliation is easiest before distance hardens into permanence.

The rallying cry, then, is unmistakenly clear: Better late than never, but earlier is always better – for in medicine no less than in business, the sooner the diagnosis and intervention, the surer the cure.

After apartheid ended, South Africa chose reconciliation over retribution through its Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established in 1995 under the leadership of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and backed by prisoner-turned-President Nelson Mandela.

Rather than pursuing blanket punishment, the TRC created a structured process through which perpetrators of politically motivated abuses could receive amnesty if they fully disclosed their actions and accepted responsibility.

Its success rested on several factors: Differentiation between degrees of responsibility, public acknowledgment of harm, conditional forgiveness, and a forward-looking commitment to national rebuilding.

The benefits proved significant: The strife-torn country created a moral basis for coexistence, enabled peaceful reintegration, and avoided cycles of revenge. Inevitably, however, the undertaking also had drawbacks, including perceptions that some offenders escaped full justice and that material reparations were uneven.

Russia, which can prosper without foreign companies yet stands to gain from their presence, can draw on South Africa’s example by pioneering a Commercial Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CTRC).

Rules for Russia: Reconciliation, not retribution

Russia should manage the return of foreign companies with pragmatism, not resentment, applying in business what South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation model achieved in politics: Distinguish degrees of responsibility, document harm honestly, and favor constructive reintegration over vengeance.

First, Russia should craft and institute an innovative, differentiated integration approach.

Not all departing companies acted alike. Some, administered by technocrats, withdrew reluctantly under pressure from governments, media, financiers, or activist shareholders. Others, driven by ideologues, embraced overt, dogmatic hostility toward Russia. They harmed Russian stakeholders by failing to honor financial obligations, such as employee payments, and product commitments, such as spare-parts supply. These cases should not be treated identically.

Companies that exited without inflammatory rhetoric and preserved respectful relations with Russian partners – the ‘benign penitents’ – should qualify for fast-track reintegration: Broad amnesty, formal ‘homecomer’ status (a symbolic recognition for constructive re-engagement) and expedited approvals. A dedicated one-stop ‘Corporate Welcome Center’ (CWC) could seamlessly oversee and streamline the entire reintegration process.

For more hostile, Russia-phobic actors, forgiveness should still prevail – but clemency must be conditional upon acceptance of responsibility. Companies that inflicted deliberate political and economic damage should remain eligible for rehabilitation and return under the auspices of the CWC.

Reentry, however, should only be permitted after documented review of the harm occasioned and appropriate compensation or restitution whenever warranted. As in South Africa, the goal should be not punishment for its own sake, but the careful balancing of accountability with pragmatic reintegration under a stable framework.

Second, Russia must also involve domestic buyers who acquired foreign assets. These companies helped stabilize the economy during disruption and deserve a decisive role in shaping future win-win arrangements, whether through licensing deals, reciprocal market-access agreements, or joint ventures.

Third, Russia should consolidate and deepen the economic and technological gains achieved since 2022. In particular, efforts aimed at building critical domestic capacity to bolster strategic resilience must continue. Reentry should strengthen the system, not recreate past dependencies, especially in vital sectors such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and aviation.

The leaders of returning companies, for their part, must recognize that reentry requires a fundamentally different bearing. They must embrace a novel business philosophy and radically rethink how they engage with Russia. Early intervention yields the best outcomes.

First: Discard ideology. Markets are built on commercial logic, not political hysteria. Russia is too important to be treated as a temporary moral theater.

Second: Return with humility. Companies that departed – especially abruptly, and in a time of crisis – have damaged trust. Rebuilding credibility requires genuine contrition, candid acknowledgment of fault, patient long-term commitment, and sincere respect toward Russian workers, consumers, and institutions.

Third: Create mutual benefit. The homecoming should neither be motivated by self-centered, profit-driven opportunism nor be cloaked in self-congratulatory gestures of corporate charity, but embody an authentic partnership centered on reciprocal gain.

Foreign companies that invest in technology transfer, local production, workforce training, and export collaboration will garner a warmer reception than those seeking only quick profits.

Truth and Reconciliation 2.0: Reunion, not reversal

The Romans put it plainly: A certain friend is discerned in uncertain times.

After the initial rupture of friendship, the story of foreign business in Russia is no longer one of departure. It is now a test of whether companies from abroad possess the strategic maturity to recognize their mistakes and appreciate the new realities – at a moment when truth and reconciliation are wiser than self-deluding, ruinously stubborn absence and estrangement.

The way back to Russia’s commercial promised land is invitingly open, and those who enter first will reap the richest harvest. By contrast, as every physician knows, delay is rarely the ally of recovery and only narrows the path to cure.

There is a time for goodbye. And there is a time for reunion.

For foreign multinationals seeking moral redemption and corporate rebirth, that time is now.

Dobro pozhalovat to the pascal land of milk, honey – and market share.

A recently analyzed 250 million-year-old fossil has shown that early mammals laid eggs, according to a paper published in the PLOS One journal on Thursday.

While some examples of egg-laying mammals exist today, such as the platypus and the echidnas, scientists have spent decades looking for proof of this in earlier ancestors.

According to South African Professor Jennifer Botha, one of the scientists behind the breakthrough research, the fossil was discovered in 2008, but could not be analyzed for years without cutting-edge and delicate scanning methods.

“It became clear that it was a perfectly curled-up Lystrosaurus hatchling. I suspected even then that it had died within the egg, but at the time, we simply didn’t have the technology to confirm it,” she said in a statement cited by phys.org.

With the use of advanced synchrotron X-ray CT scanning, which uses a particle accelerator to create extremely high-resolution non-destructive 3D images, the delicate fossil could be studied in depth.

Lystrosaurus was a herbivorous mammal ancestor which survived and then thrived in the tumultuous period after the End-Permian Mass Extinction around 252 million years ago, which is believed to have wiped out up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of land vertebrates on Earth. The catastrophe is theorized to have been caused by massive volcanic eruptions and resulting coal burning, which caused rapid global warming, and left a world of extreme heat and environmental instability.

Judging by the development and properties of the hatchling, the Lystrosaurus likely did not produce milk but laid large eggs, which are more resistant to drying out in a hot, arid environment, according to Botha’s Witwatersrand University.

Its young likely hatched at an advanced stage of development, ready to feed themselves and thrive in the hostile world following the worst extinction event in history.

The EU is sliding into a fuel crisis driven by a global supply shock caused by the US-Israeli attack on Iran. It has already triggered protests, early signs of shortages, and warnings of the wider economic impact.

This has resulted from the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global energy shipments. Oil prices surged above $120 per barrel during the escalation, and while crude fell below the $100 mark after a two-week US-Iran ceasefire was announced on April 7, it remains well above the $70 level before the war. Prices have remained volatile amid uncertainty over the truce and continued disruption to shipping through the strait.

Why has diesel become more expensive than gasoline?

The European market has shifted toward higher diesel consumption following decades of tax policies that lowered diesel taxes compared to gasoline.

The EU’s refining system produces a different mix of fuels than the market consumes. A barrel of crude oil typically yields about 40-50% gasoline, but only around 30–40% diesel and jet fuel combined, with the rest made up of heavier products.

This mismatch has left the bloc structurally short of diesel. The region is a major net exporter of gasoline but relies on imports for a significant share of its diesel and jet fuel.

Diesel has traded above gasoline prices at the pump in several EU countries.

Why are farmers and truckers protesting?

Rising diesel prices are hitting sectors most dependent on the fuel, particularly agriculture and road freight. The EU’s transport sector is facing a “fast-moving diesel shock,” according to logistics platform Logifie.

Ireland has become the most visible flashpoint of the crisis. Fuel protests have spread nationwide since this past Tuesday, led by farmers, truckers and transport workers, disrupting supply chains and transport networks, according to local media.

Blockades have strained fuel distribution, with queues forming at petrol stations with some running dry amid panic buying. On Thursday, the government called in the army to clear the blockades.

During a protest march in Dublin on Friday, demonstrators carried a coffin with “RIP Ireland” written on it.

Fuel protesters now leaving O’Connell Street for Kildare Street, carrying a coffin pic.twitter.com/5tbT6wkMNL

— Nicky Ryan (@NickyRyan_) April 10, 2026

What do jet fuel shortages mean for summer travel?

Airports across Europe could face “systemic” jet fuel shortages within three weeks if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, according to a letter sent by an airport industry group to the European Commission, as cited by the Independent.

According to Corriere della Sera, “some airports on the continent have been experiencing shortages in jet fuel quantities for days without officially reporting it.” The outlet cited its sources on Friday as saying that “it’s such a sensitive issue that official talk remains tight-lipped,” adding that Brussels is hoping the truce between the US and Iran will hold.

The war in the Middle East has delivered a major global energy supply “shock” that will push up prices further and leave the world economy facing weaker growth, the IMF has warned. 

The US-Israeli attack on Iran and subsequent Iranian retaliatory strikes across the region, including on energy infrastructure, have stressed global markets, driving oil prices higher and raising fuel costs. The conflict has effectively choked flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a key route that accounts for a significant part of global oil and gas supply. 

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said on Thursday that the turmoil amounts to a negative supply shock that is “large, global and asymmetric,” hitting countries differently depending on their reliance on imported fuel.  

Global daily oil flows have fallen by about 13% and LNG shipments by some 20%, she said, warning that even the IMF’s “most hopeful scenario” now involves a “downgrade” to world growth. 

“Had it not been for this shock, we would have been upgrading,” Georgieva said, adding that infrastructure damage, supply disruptions and loss of confidence will leave lasting “scars” on the global economy. 

A further 45 million people have been pushed into food insecurity as a result of the escalation, taking the total number facing hunger to more than 360 million worldwide, according to the IMF. 

The grim outlook comes as Washington and Tehran are expected to hold high-stake peace talks in Pakistan this weekend, after they agreed a two-week ceasefire late on Tuesday. Iran says any ceasefire must include Lebanon, which has been heavily bombarded by Israel this week. The scaled-up attacks, which killed hundreds and wounded more than 1,100, have raised concerns that the Iran ceasefire could be derailed.

Viktor Orban will most likely win the upcoming parliamentary elections in Hungary on April 12; however, for the ruling party, this will be an extremely difficult and hard-fought victory.

The issue is not the loss of charisma by the bright and skillful long-standing leader of Fidesz, nor even the 25% inflation the country experienced in 2023, but rather a shift in the focus of Hungarians’ historical memory. A new generation has grown up within a different historical paradigm and wants a change in political reality, even if this entails foreign-policy and reputational risks for the country.

Walking through the streets of Budapest these days, one gets the sense of two political realities coexisting. In one, there are blue billboards of the ruling Fidesz party with slogans like “Stop war!”, featuring the faces of opponents and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky labeled as a “danger.” In the other, there are rallies of the Tisza party, without party bureaucratic elites but featuring young people in Hungarian national dress carrying EU flags, with photos of the party’s young leader displayed on the hills of Buda. Budapest, like other Hungarian cities, is preparing for the parliamentary elections this Sunday, drawing the attention of political elites from around the world.

Peter Magyar: Not just a boy

The main intrigue and driving force of the current political campaign is the young energy of the Tisza party, particularly its leader with the resonant name Peter Magyar (literally “Peter Hungarian”). Notably, Magyar, who presents himself as a conservative liberal, comes from the very heart of the Fidesz system and Hungary’s highly closed elite. He is the former husband of Judit Varga, who served as the country’s minister of justice in 2019-2023, a great-nephew of Ferenc Madl, Hungary’s president from 2000 to 2005, and the grandson of a former Supreme Court member; his parents also held high-ranking positions in national legal institutions. He speaks the language of Fidesz about national interests, family, a “new homeland,” and a “modern European country” where one can live well and raise children. At the same time, his main criticism of the current ruling system focuses on corruption within the governing party and the need to overcome the entrenched division between right and left that has existed since the early 2000s.

Elections 2026

It can be stated that the real gap between the parties is around 2–3%. Orban draws support from villages and rural areas, while Magyar holds the more progressive Budapest (both halves: the elite Buda and the more relaxed Pest) and other large Hungarian cities where younger populations live and work. Polling data varies depending on the research institute. According to the Hungarian pollster Median, which predicted Orban’s victory in 2022, Tisza leads with 58% against Fidesz’s 35%. The opposition Research Center 21 shows 56% for Tisza and 37% for Fidesz, while the pro-government Nezopont Institute suggests 46% for Fidesz versus 40% for Tisza.

The intensity of the race is also influenced by Hungary’s complex electoral system, where districts are drawn to include both a liberal urban area and several conservative villages. The voting system is mixed, but under its rules, a candidate can win a mandate even with a one-vote advantage, and there is also a ‘winner compensation’ mechanism, where surplus votes for the winner are added to the party list. While this system has previously helped Orbán and Fidesz secure victories, in the current tight race it could work against them. Thus, the question of who will win remains open until the final vote count.

Economy

At first glance, Hungary’s main problems lie in the economic sphere. In 2023, the country experienced the highest inflation in the EU, peaking at 25%, with food prices rising by about 50% in what is de facto a wealthy agricultural country. The situation is worsened by Orban’s conflict with the European Commission, which has frozen more than €19 billion in EU funds owed to Hungary – which amounts to nearly 10% of the country’s GDP.

Magyar claims he could unlock the frozen funds within a month, which would help stabilize the economy and ease social tensions.

Trianon and ‘Deep Hungary’

It is important to understand that Hungarian society is entering a new phase of development. Throughout the 20th century, it was shaped by a sense of deep historical injustice stemming from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the humiliating Treaty of Trianon (1920), which stripped Hungary of two-thirds of its territory.

Even being in the Soviet orbit was not as painful for this formerly imperial society as the loss of territories inhabited by ethnic Hungarians to neighboring states. This does not mean Hungarians have forgotten the suppressed 1956 uprising, but the trauma of Trianon still evokes sentiment and, among some – primarily older rural populations – a desire to ‘take back’ regions like Transcarpathia or parts of Transylvania, which they believe belonged to Hungary for a thousand years.

The euphoria of “returning to Europe” and joining the EU in 2004 has been tempered by difficult and unfavorable economic and agricultural conditions within the EU, as well as challenges integrating into negotiation structures that often disadvantage newer member states. This has fueled feelings of injustice and disappointment, tied to the perception that major political decisions are now made not in Budapest, but in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels. Big politics is inaccessible to small states.

However, historical memory has its limits. A new generation of Hungarians, raised during the country’s integration into the EU and accustomed to free movement across Europe and the world, seeks a more pragmatic and comfortable approach to life and development. They are more cynical about life and family and do not relate to the ‘phantom pains’ of Trianon. Young Hungary increasingly operates with the mindset of a small country navigating within the orbit of major global powers.

This is the core drama of the current elections: two competing visions of how to live in the modern world and within an emerging global order. Which path conservative Hungary will choose will soon become clear. In conclusion, the current difficulties faced by Fidesz signal to Hungary’s ruling elites the impossibility of rewriting history or reversing the course of events already set in motion.

Hunter Biden, son of former US President Joe Biden, has challenged President Donald Trump’s two eldest sons to a “cage match,” in an Instagram video published by content creator Andrew Callahan.

Biden, 56, called out Donald Trump Jr., 48, and Eric Trump, 42, with the president’s sons yet to publicly respond.

“I just got a call from Andrew Callahan… He’s trying to organize a cage match, me versus Eric and Don Jr. I told him I’d do it, 100% in,” Biden said in the video.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Channel Five (@channel5)

The popular YouTuber told USA Today that the ex-president’s son had likely made the suggestion “in jest.” However, he is willing to facilitate the fight if Trump’s two eldest sons are “willing to engage Hunter in mutual combat.”

Last year, Melania Trump threatened to sue Hunter over his claim that the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to her husband.

The cover-up of a major scandal involving Hunter Biden’s laptop, which he forgot in a Delaware repair shop in 2019, contributed to his father winning in the 2020 election, according to President Trump. The leaked contents of the laptop potentially implicated the Biden family in several foreign corruption schemes.

As one of his last and more controversial decisions as president, Joe Biden granted a sweeping pardon to Hunter, who was convicted in 2024 of breaching federal gun and tax laws.

The pardon covered any offenses Hunter “has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” It covers the time period of Hunter’s crimes and his tenure on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, when his father was in charge of US policy in Kiev during the Obama administration.

Germany has rejected 95% of all new asylum applications from Syrian migrants following a policy reassessment of the Middle Eastern country, according to media reports, citing an official document.

The change represents a stark reversal from the peak of the influx in 2014-2015, when recognition rates for Syrians frequently exceeded 90%. Germany emerged as a primary destination for Syrians fleeing war, driven by the open-door policy of then-Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The country has since become home to one of the largest Syrian diasporas in Europe, with estimates putting the population at close to 1 million.

The figures come from a German government reply to a parliamentary inquiry by Left party lawmaker Clara Bunger, reported by multiple media outlets on Thursday.

According to the document, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) is now applying stricter case-by-case assessments. In October 2025, the BAMF ruled on 3,134 Syrian asylum applications, granting protection to just 26 applicants across all categories. Recognition rates reportedly remain higher for some minorities, including Yazidis, Christians, and Alawites.

After meeting al-Sharaa in Berlin in late March, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said up to 80% of Syrians living in Germany could return home over the next three years, describing it as part of a joint effort to support reconstruction.

Merz later backtracked, saying the figure was proposed by the Syrian side – a claim that al-Sharaa said was exaggerated and did not reflect his position.

The government’s shift in migration policy comes amid pressure from right-wing parties, including the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which portrays migrants, particularly from outside Europe, as a burden on public services and a driver of crime and social strife.

It also follows a series of violent crimes involving asylum seekers, including a 2024 knife attack in Solingen in which a Syrian national fatally stabbed three people and injured eight others.

Israel has carried out multiple strikes across Lebanon over the past 24 hours, fueling fears that the escalating violence could unravel a fragile two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran.

The expanded offensive in Lebanon since March 2 has killed 1,888 people and wounded 6,092 others, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. It says the April 8 bombardment alone involved “over 100 strikes within minutes,” leaving more than 300 dead and in excess of 1,100 injured.

RT’s Steve Sweeney, who, along with his cameraman Ali Rida, was caught up in this week’s Israeli strikes on central Beirut, reports from the Lebanese capital on the aftermath, where shattered residential buildings, children’s school bags and household belongings lie scattered in the rubble, and the seafront is filled with displaced families sheltering in makeshift tents. 

Residents live with an “overwhelming sense of anxiety,” fearing that “every sound” could signal another strike, he says.

The EU has sharply increased its purchases of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the first quarter of 2026 even as it insists it will phase out Russian energy by the end of next year, the Financial Times reported on Friday.

According to Kpler data cited by the outlet, the EU’s imports from Russia’s Yamal LNG project in Siberia rose 17% year-on-year to 5 million tons in Q1, with the bloc spending an estimated €2.9 billion ($3.1 billion). The EU took 69 of 71 shipments – or 97% – including 25 in March alone, compared to 59 of 68 shipments (87%) in the same period of 2025.

The surge shows there is “no appetite from European buyers to stop buying Russian LNG,” Sebastian Roetters of environmental NGO Urgewald told FT.

The conflict has severely disrupted flows through the Strait of Hormuz – a key chokepoint handling about 20% of global seaborne oil and LNG – and hit Gulf energy infrastructure, driving a surge in LNG prices. Asian spot rates and European TTF nearly doubled before easing after the April 8 ceasefire, but both remain well above pre-conflict levels.

Moscow has echoed the warnings. According to Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev, “Europe and Britain will beg for Russian energy” as the crisis deepens, arguing that the bloc is unprepared for a “long-lasting energy shock” due to its failure to diversify supplies – a shortfall he blamed on “Russophobic, Green, and woke ideology.” Reacting to an FT report on X, he added: “As predicted, Europe needs Russia to survive.”

As predicted, Europe needs Russia to survive. https://t.co/v0z7HuPIh0

— Kirill Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) April 10, 2026

In late March and early April, Ukraine launched a series of drone strikes against the Baltic ports in Ust-Luga and Primorsk, as well as oil terminals on the south of the country in the city of Novorossiysk. This was clearly an attempt to disrupt Russia’s ability to export petroleum products. Additionally, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) have targeted other Russian regions to inflict further damage to the oil and gas industry and strain Russia’s air defense network tasked with protecting critical infrastructure. 

Given the current global situation, increasing exports of petroleum products would provide Russia with much-needed revenue. This income could help offset losses from Western sanctions and stabilize economic growth. Of course, these additional revenues would also benefit Russia’s military-industrial complex, a fact that Kiev is undoubtedly aware of.

Ukraine’s intensified strikes on Russian oil and gas infrastructure, particularly export terminals, aim to reduce Russia’s export capacity. A secondary goal may be to influence the media narrative by demonstrating the AFU’s enhanced strike capabilities. The third objective involves depleting the missile stockpiles of Russia’s missile defense systems through massive drone attacks.

Routes, tactics, and technological edge

In March 2026, the AFU set a record for long-range drone usage. According to Western sources, Ukraine deployed over 7,000 drones. This has been possible due to the mass production of relatively inexpensive drones of various types, with a range of up to 1,500km. Notably, the cost of these drones is quite low, and Ukraine faces no shortage of components, as sanctions and other restrictions do not hinder this supply chain. Drone manufacturing can be decentralized, with some production potentially taking place outside Ukraine. Final assembly likely occurs in several facilities in various locations, disguised as ordinary manufacturing or logistics centers. Clearly, the mass production of drones is a major state industrial effort that also involves commercial companies.

While the flight paths of drones from Ukraine to Novorossiysk raise no questions, the routes by which the drones reached locations as remote from Ukraine as Ust-Luga in Russia's northern Leningrad Region remain less clear.

Several hypotheses exist regarding the flight paths of Ukrainian drones. One hypothetical route extends from northern Ukraine, over Russian territory along the eastern border of Belarus to Leningrad Region, and then onward to the Baltic ports. This route is supported by data on air-raid alerts in western Russia and various accounts. The use of Belarusian airspace is theoretically possible, yet Belarus possesses a robust air defense and detection system. If drones were to infringe upon its airspace, it seems likely that such incidents would be reported.

There is also another interesting hypothesis: the drones may be taking a roundabout route through Poland and the Baltic states, then flying over the neutral waters of the Baltic Sea to approach the ports from the sea. The absence of surface-to-air missile defense systems over the sea lends some credence to this theory, especially considering the reports of drones crashing in the Baltic states and in Finland. It’s also quite possible that NATO countries may allow drones to be routed through their territory. However, this theory lacks ample supporting evidence, and the Russian Foreign Ministry’s response came only several days later and included no substantial details.

Considering the current advancements in autonomous navigation systems, it seems more likely that the drones were routed through Russian territory, using the natural characteristics of the terrain to approach targets from unexpected angles. Drones routed over the sea may be easier to detect – though that’s not always the case. For example, it wasn’t easy for air defense systems to detect drones traveling over the Black Sea.

As a conspiracy theory, one could speculate about the installation of radio beacons in Russia or neighboring countries to enhance the navigation of attacking drones under conditions of electronic countermeasures against existing navigation systems. This is technically possible and does not necessarily violate airspace, although it would require an intelligence network. I believe the military has already figured out how the drones reached their targets. 

So, what steps should be taken to defend against such attacks? What scenarios and methods need to be implemented for effective protection?

The main priority is timely detection. Lightweight drones with piston engines are notoriously difficult to track with traditional airspace radar. However, they can be spotted visually and detected by the sound of their engines. Given that these drones have been in widespread use for some time, appropriate detection measures should be deployed. I hope this issue is being addressed at a level beyond volunteer initiatives, as part of the country’s air defense. 

The second task involves informing all relevant parties about threats. All the structural elements of the army’s missile defense forces must have real-time access to information on detected drones, their flight paths, and potential targets. This will enable swift countermeasures – deploying mobile units, preparing weapons, providing targeting data, and organizing layered defense. This should be the responsibility of a unified governmental structure within the armed forces; departmental or regional units aren’t efficient enough for this mission. Ultimately, the devices used to communicate this information to end users should be simple and user-friendly tablets, not multi-ton trucks. I believe this work is already underway and in the testing phase.

Finally, the third task is the destruction of the drones. On the one hand, any means necessary can be employed; on the other hand, using traditional surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs) isn’t always justified. Firstly, conventional SAMs may not be effective against small, lightweight drones. Secondly, the cost of a missile is many times higher than that of the drone itself.

This is one of the most pressing modern challenges: cheap drone attacks can financially devastate advanced missile defense systems. This is a global issue that affects all technologically advanced nations.

There are several options, each with its pros and cons. The most cost-effective solution in terms of firing costs is laser weaponry. The expense per shot can be measured in mere dollars. However, the systems themselves can cost millions of dollars. Moreover, lasers have limitations regarding range; as the distance to the target increases, the beam’s power significantly diminishes. These large, energy-intensive systems are stationary and primarily serve as a last line of defense. Nonetheless, they can effectively neutralize drones, cruise missiles, guided bombs, and other types of munitions.

Specialized interceptor drones are another promising and already deployed solution. Almost every nation focusing on drone defense is currently developing and implementing such interceptors. They are relatively low-cost, but they do come with a significant drawback: due to their design, they carry very small payloads or rely on kinetic interception – i.e., engage the target through high-speed physical impact. When deployed en masse, however, interceptor drones can prove effective in certain areas and situations. 

Lightweight, short-range surface-to-air missiles are another option. These missiles can utilize both radar and laser guidance; target illumination can originate from the launch platform or a separate carrier. They can be fired from specialized systems like the Pantsir missile system, as well as from aircraft, similar to American APKWS missiles. Their costs are comparable to those of long-range drones.

Additionally, we must consider the tactical construction of air defense. Ideally, we wouldn’t know exactly how this is organized – when it comes to missile defense, all armies protect their tactical secrets. However, it’s reasonable to assume that an effective air defense strategy combines layered stationary defense with mobile air defense units that establish operational lines in directions that are deemed a threat. In this regard, having a comprehensive and accurate picture of the air situation in the region would be invaluable – without such information, mobile units might prove entirely ineffective.

***

The massive waves of Ukrainian drone attacks have become a real test for Russia’s air defense system. Steps have already been taken to enhance both detection and response capabilities against such attacks. Efforts are continuously underway to modernize existing systems and develop new weapons designed to target lightweight drones. Tactics for countering large-scale drone swarms are being refined, and the production of ammunition for these systems is ramping up. Intelligence operations aimed at locating and destroying the production, storage, and launch sites of drones are also likely a priority for the military. Such a comprehensive approach is essential for effectively addressing the threat posed by drone attacks.

Iran should not repeat the mistakes of Libya, which paid a heavy price for trusting the West, the North African country’s former information minister, Moussa Ibrahim, has warned ahead of the talks between delegations from Washington and Tehran.

The first direct meeting between the sides since the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28 is expected to take place in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, on Saturday, according to the White House.

The American team will be headed by Vice President J.D. Vance, and will also include special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Tehran hasn’t announced the lineup of its delegation yet, but reports claim that it could be led by parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

In an interview with RT on Friday, Ibrahim – a former cabinet member under longtime Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was deposed and murdered in a NATO-backed uprising in 2011 – said that “both parties come to these negotiations with different ideas about peace and conflict.”

For Washington, it is “actually very beneficial to continue to wreak havoc in the region to make sure that any rising regional powers are under control... that the region is never united,” the ex-minister, who now serves as executive secretary of the African Legacy Foundation, insisted.

”The Americans come to these negotiations hoping to find a way to keep the conflict going, but not as escalated as it was in the last few weeks, so they would keep their face and find other ways – economic, political, diplomatic – to punish the Iranians and their friends in the region,” he added.

Ibrahim advised the authorities in Tehran “to be very careful, not to believe the American plans for peace and never to give up sovereignty and deterrence” during the talks.

The Kremlin has clarified that Russia’s Easter ceasefire is a humanitarian gesture, not a substitute for a lasting peace with Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin has ordered a halt to hostilities from Saturday afternoon through Sunday.

“We want not a ceasefire, but a lasting, sustainable peace,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Friday. “And this peace could come today, if [Ukrainian leader Vladimir] Zelensky takes responsibility and makes the appropriate decision,” Peskov added, referring to Moscow’s repeated demands that Kiev withdraw its forces from Russia’s Donbass region.

Putin announced the unilateral Easter truce on Thursday, ordering Russian troops to pause offensive operations from 16:00 Moscow time on April 11 until the end of April 12. The Defense Ministry has been instructed to maintain readiness to repel any Ukrainian provocations.

“We expect the Ukrainian side to follow Russia’s lead,” the Kremlin said.

Moscow has previously declared unilateral ceasefires for Orthodox religious holidays. In 2023, Russia observed truces both during the Orthodox Christmas holiday in January and on Easter weekend in April at the initiative of the Russian Orthodox Church. In 2025, an Easter truce was declared again, but was only partially successful as Kiev violated the pause more than 3,900 times, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

Trilateral peace talks involving Russia, Ukraine, and the US have been on hold for weeks due to the Iran war, with no new date set. Moscow has consistently said it remains open to negotiations but insists that any lasting settlement must address the root causes of the conflict, including Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the Donbass republics as part of Russia.

India has described the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon after the announcement of the ceasefire in the Middle East as “disturbing.” 

On Wednesday, Israel’s attacks on Beirut claimed more than 300 lives, as the Jewish state refused to halt its offensive in Lebanon despite a truce being called in the Middle East. 

“We are deeply concerned by reports of a large number of civilian casualties in Lebanon,” Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said on Friday. “As a troop contributing country to the UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) that is invested in Lebanon’s peace and security, the direction of events is very disturbing.” 

❗️India Voices Deep Concern Over Civilian Casualties in Lebanon

‘As a troop-contributing country to UNIFIL that is invested in Lebanon’s peace and security, the direction of events is very disturbing,’ MEA spox Randhir Jaiswal said pic.twitter.com/XBkvBrGa7v

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) April 10, 2026

New Delhi has always emphasized the protection of civilians as the foremost priority, he said.   

Observing international law and respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states is essential, Jaiswal added. 

Israel stepped up air strikes across Lebanon, pounding central Beirut, just hours after the US and Iran announced a two-week ceasefire.

The escalation comes in an apparent violation of the truce, which mediators said was meant to include Lebanon, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistance that it does not apply.

India has not condemned the US and Israel for their strikes on civilian targets or the assassination of top Iranian leaders. New Delhi has instead chosen to express concern and offer condolences.    
The South Asian nation, which has strong ties with the US, Israel, and Iran has also ruled out the possibility of mediating in the conflict, but has encouraged dialogue between the warring parties.

The European Commission could suspend up to €1.5 billion ($1.78 billion) in funding earmarked for EU candidate Serbia, Politico reported on Friday.

Serbia received €586 million ($685 million) in grants from 2021 to 2024 as part of financial assistance tied to its EU accession process, while a further €1.5 billion made available conditional on reforms could be pulled, Politico said, citing four Brussels-based sources.

The Eurobureaucrats have cited concerns over perceived democratic backsliding in Serbia as the main reason for the potential move. The EU has also long pressured Belgrade to align its foreign policy with the bloc, including adopting sanctions on Russia, a longstanding Serbian partner.

The EU’s enlargement policy has increasingly taken on geopolitical significance, with critics arguing that progress toward membership can depend as much on alignment with Brussels’ strategic priorities as on institutional reforms.

Expansion shaped by opposing Russia

Serbia is among several Western Balkan countries granted EU candidate status in the early 2010s, around the time Croatia joined the bloc.

In 2023, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia were also granted candidate status. The move was widely seen as a signal of the EU’s intent to counter Russian influence, rather than purely a reflection of the readiness of these countries to meet accession standards.

Ukraine has argued that fighting a war with Russia on the West’s behalf strengthens its bid for membership, a position broadly supported by EU leadership, although no clear accession timeline has been set.

Even Poland, a staunch supporter of Kiev, opposes swift accession for Ukraine, citing various concerns, such as the disruption of common EU agricultural markets if Ukrainian farmers gain full access.

‘Nice’ and ‘naughty’ candidates

The EU’s reactions to political developments in candidate countries appear to depend on their governments’ foreign policies. In Georgia and Moldova – which held parliamentary elections in October 2024 and September 2024 respectively – opposition groups alleged irregularities, including the silencing of critical media and misuse of state powers for electoral gain.

Brussels treated the claims in Georgia as credible and indicative of democratic decline. Before the election, Georgia was accused of becoming ‘more like Russia’ by passing laws promoting social conservatism and forcing transparency of foreign political funding. Like Belgrade, Tbilisi declared neutrality in the Ukraine conflict. Georgia’s EU accession process is now effectively frozen.

In contrast, similar accusations in Moldova were largely dismissed by EU officials, who suggested they were part of Russian efforts to undermine the country’s pro-EU leadership. Some Moldovan officials support absorption of their nation by EU member Romania as a path to joining the bloc.

EU ‘worse threat’ than NATO

Russia has traditionally viewed the EU as a mostly economic project posing no military threat, unlike NATO. Russian officials have stated that Moscow does not oppose Ukraine’s EU candidacy, as long as the country remains militarily neutral.

“The EU is no longer just an economic union. It can transform, and rather quickly, into a full-blown military alliance, one overtly hostile to Russia, and in some ways worse than NATO,” Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, warned last week.

Uncertain outlook for enlargement

EU leaders are also considering changes to the enlargement rules, potentially simplifying accession in various ways. There were even discussions of a “reverse” expansion, allowing Ukraine and others to become partial members with limited rights before meeting all requirements.

In February, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama advocated in an op-ed a two-tier integration model, which would give Balkan non-members access to the EU’s market and free trade arrangement. Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos rebuffed the idea.

Given the EU’s challenging economic situation, near-certainty of long-term tensions with Russia, and increasingly heavy-handed suppression of internal descent, the benefits of accession may not be as attractive as Brussels imagines.

At least 30 civilians, including women and children, were killed when a drone strike hit a wedding ceremony in a town in Sudan’s North Darfur state, the UN has said.

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric condemned the attack on Kutum as “unacceptable” at a briefing on Thursday, saying civilians continue to “bear the brunt” of the escalating violence in the African nation.

“Civilians and civilian infrastructure must be protected in line with international humanitarian law. In South Kordofan, clashes around the town of Dilling since last Monday have reportedly killed 47 civilians and injured dozens more,” Dujarric said.

Emergency Lawyers, a local rights group monitoring the war, said the drone bombed the gathering on Wednesday and denounced the attack as a “heinous crime.”

No party immediately claimed responsibility for the attack. Drone attacks have become increasingly common in war, with both the army and the paramilitary accused of targeting civilian areas.

Last month, the World Health Organization said a drone strike on Al Deain Teaching Hospital in East Darfur killed 70 people, including women, children, and medical staff, rendering a facility serving more than 2 million people out of operation.

The Middle East ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz are based on extremely shaky ground, Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi has said, adding that Israel will do everything it can to reignite war in the region.

Speaking to RT India on Thursday, Marandi, a political analyst and professor at the University of Tehran, said US President Donald Trump has been forced to accept Iran’s framework for negotiations. 

“But right now there is a spoiler, and that is [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” he added. Pointing to the pounding of Lebanon by Israeli forces, Marandi said that “this means the commitments given by the United States are not being fulfilled. And that means that we could have a continuation of the crisis.”

Marandi accused Netanyahu and his allies of wanting the global economic crisis to continue.

On the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, he said Iran would like energy flows to be back to normal.

“That is what we want. We did not start this. We were doing business as usual until this imposed war by the Trump and Netanyahu regimes took place,” Marandi added. “But we’ll have to see, because Netanyahu is violating the ceasefire agreement.”

Marandi said Iran will also watch the American stance at the negotiating table, and see if “Netanyahu and the Zionist regime are able to wreck” the ceasefire. “I have no doubt that the Zionist lobby and the Israeli regime will do whatever they can to make sure this war reignites,” he said.

Marandi said the only thing Trump and Netanyahu have achieved from their war on Iran is to create global hardship.

“We are sanctioned by the United States,” he said. “They don’t want us to use their dollar. So we would prefer ourselves to use other currencies.”

The use of the Indian, Russian, or Chinese currencies is “open for discussion,” Marandi added.

The countries in the Persian Gulf that hosted US bases and facilitated attacks on Iran “have Iranian blood on their hands… They are complicit in this war. And they betrayed their own people,” Marandi stated.

The UK’s proposed digital ID scheme has drawn criticism for not recording whether a person is male or female – traditionally a core identifier alongside name and age – after the government deemed it “not necessary” for identification.

The scheme, unveiled by Prime Minister Keir Starmer last year, has been pitched as a secure, free digital credential stored on smartphones to replace physical documents for identity checks. Initially planned as mandatory, it was made optional amid backlash and a petition with nearly 3 million signatures. A full rollout is planned by 2029, with draft documents stating the IDs will include name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a biometric photo – but not sex or gender.

“Information about sex and gender is not necessary for the intended purpose of the digital ID,” the documents state, arguing such data does not improve verification, which will rely on “programmatic” checks and “biometric authentication.”

“Having struggled for so long to define what a woman is, Labour have now decided it’s easier just to abolish the concept entirely,” Shadow Equalities Minister Claire Coutinho told GB News on Thursday. “There can be no excuse for failing to accurately record a person’s biological sex.”

“I don’t know whether to laugh or cry… This is ludicrous,” former Labour MP Rosie Duffield added. “The idea that one of the most fundamental identifiers… would not even be recorded… makes a farce of the whole idea.”

Social media users echoed the criticism, accusing the government of acting out of “fear of the woke mob” and branding the initiative “a joke.”

🚨🇬🇧 Meanwhile in bat shit crazy UK - New Government Digital ID won’t state gender.

“When you told me about this, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry”

The British government tyrannical digital ID scheme, which is the steppingstone to total Government control - won’t even… pic.twitter.com/AyJJkTGCvC

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) April 9, 2026

LOL the useless government is so woke its digital ID card won’t say if you are male or female.

Because they can’t ask the question without pissing off their supporters, they’ve decided not to bother 🤣

It’s actually funny. In fact the whole thing is a joke. pic.twitter.com/brHMro3lKH

— Bernie (@Artemisfornow) April 9, 2026

The proposed scheme had already proven controversial. While supporters say it could streamline services and boost security, critics warn it risks turning the UK into a “police state.” Concerns include mass surveillance, centralized data vulnerabilities, and a potential “honeypot” for hackers. A February Ipsos poll found 40% of Britons oppose the scheme, with just 32% in favor – a sharp reversal from July 2025, when 57% supported it and 19% opposed.

The White House has issued a warning to staff against using insider information on the Iran war to trade on financial markets, several media outlets reported on Thursday, citing unnamed administration officials. 

Federal employees are barred from gambling while on government property, while federal ethics regulations prohibiting the use of non-public information for personal gain. Some major policy decisions made by US President Donald Trump have, however, been preceded by well-timed bets, prompting some experts and politicians to question whether information may have leaked in advance.

The White House Management Office reportedly sent a warning email on March 24, a day after Trump ordered a five‑day pause in planned strikes on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure.

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

There was no evidence of leaks or misuse of insider information within the administration, with one official describing the email, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, as a timely “reminder” amid discussion of large market trades.

In recent months, media reports have pointed to heightened trading around conflict-related events. Reuters reported in January that an unknown trader made about $410,000 after betting on the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. 

There were also reports of users in Israel placing bets on Iranian missile strikes on Israeli territory, with some cases involving attempts to influence related reporting in order to affect betting outcomes.

Earlier this month, Polymarket apologized after public backlash over allowing bets on whether American airmen from a downed US fighter jet would be rescued from Iran.

The Hungarian government has accused Facebook of interfering in the upcoming parliamentary election scheduled for Sunday by restricting the reach of Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s posts while boosting the visibility of his main rival, opposition leader Peter Magyar.

Speaking to Politico, government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs claimed that Facebook’s algorithm is “basically working against the government parties.” 

He argued that Orban’s official government page is subject to stricter advertising limits and reduced organic reach, while Magyar is allowed to operate a personal ‘public figure’ profile that enjoys greater algorithmic freedom. 

A report by the think tank MCC Brussels found that despite similar video views, Magyar’s posts have generated nearly three times the engagement of Orban’s. It also noted a trend of “disappearing comments” on content in support of the prime minister’s Fidesz party, while no similar behavior has been observed on opposition pages.

A Magyar aide has attributed the success to the opposition leader’s ability to “speak the language of the algorithm” and keep up with the speed of the news cycle.

Budapest’s latest allegations follow an incident in late February in which Facebook temporarily blocked three pro-government news outlets. The Hungarian National Media Association condemned the move as an attack on freedom of press, suggesting that the tech giant could be “punishing right-wing news portals.”

Last month, after several Fidesz members claimed that Meta started restricting the reach of their Facebook posts, commentators Joey Mannarino and Philip Pilkington identified Oskar Braszczynski as the employee likely responsible. Braszczynski, who works as Meta’s ‘Government and Social Impact Partner for Central and Eastern Europe’, has shared pro-Ukraine, anti-Orban, and pro-LGBT content on his personal social media accounts.

Orban has also accused Ukraine of cutting off oil supplies through the Druzhba pipeline for political reasons, and blocked a €90 billion EU loan for Kiev in retaliation.

On Tuesday, US Vice President J.D. Vance visited Budapest in a show of support for Orban, accusing EU bureaucrats of “one of the worst examples of foreign election interference” he has ever seen. Vance claimed that Brussels has “tried to destroy the economy of Hungary” because they dislike Orban.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is facing the most serious threat to his power in decades, in an election that’s drawn in the EU, US, and Ukraine. RT explores the players, the stakes, and the dirty tricks shaping the Hungarian election.

We’ve delved into the election in our ‘Battle for Hungary’ series, but if you’ve just joined us, here’s what you need to know:

Hungarians go to the polls on Sunday, April 12, to elect all 199 members of the National Assembly. Elections are held every four years in Hungary, and take place over a single round on a single day. Results are typically known within hours of polls closing.

How many people will vote?

There are roughly 8.2 million registered voters in Hungary, and between 2006 and 2022, voter turnout typically ranged between 61% and 69.59%, according to data from the country’s National Election Office. The last election, in 2022, saw a record turnout of 69.59%.

Around 91,000 Hungarian citizens have registered to vote from abroad, with a significant number living in Ukraine’s Transcarpathia region.

Who’s running for election in Hungary?

More than a dozen parties have put candidates forward, but the election is essentially a showdown between two: Orban’s Fidesz, and Peter Magyar’s Tisza.

Orban has been in power since 2010, and is seeking a fifth consecutive term in office. His Fidesz party and its Christian Democrat partners currently hold 135 out of 199 seats in the National Assembly.

Orban is known for his conservatism, drawing the ire of the EU for refusing to accept non-European asylum seekers and banning LGBTQ propaganda. He’s also known for his program of economic nationalism – known as ‘Orbanomics’ – and for his criticism of the EU’s financial and military support for Ukraine. Orban has blocked multiple rounds of sanctions on Russia, relenting only after securing exemptions that have allowed Hungary to continue purchasing Russian energy, and is currently vetoing a €90 billion ($105 billion) debt-financed EU loan package for Kiev.

A former member of Fidesz, Magyar resigned from the party in 2024 and joined the ranks of Tisza, a party that had languished in obscurity since its founding four years beforehand. While embroiled in two legal cases – one in which he testified about alleged corruption in Orban’s government, and another in which he was accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife, former Justice Minister Judit Varga – Magyar was elected to the European Parliament that year, along with six other Tisza MEPs.

Magyar describes himself as center-right, and hopes to mend Budapest’s ties with Brussels should he win. Repairing relations with the EU is critical to Magyar’s economic platform – an ambitious program of public spending that entirely depends on Brussels unlocking nearly €20 billion in frozen funds. Magyar has not publicly supported or opposed the EU’s Ukraine loan, and his positions on immigration and social issues remain ambiguous.

What do the polls say?

Magyar’s Tisza is currently leading Fidesz by 49 points to 39, according to an aggregate compiled by Politico. However, individual opinion polls vary wildly, depending on the political alignment and funding of the pollsters.

For example, a poll by the 21 Research Center, which is financed by the European Commission, shows Tisza leading Fidesz by 19 points. Another by the opposition-linked Median shows Magyar’s party 23 points ahead of Orban’s. Conversely, a poll by the Center for Fundamental Rights – a conservative think tank – places Fidesz eight points ahead of Tisza.

Politico has reported that “many” EU leaders secretly believe an Orban victory is “likely.” Hungarian EU Affairs Minister Janos Boka thinks that the disparity between public surveys and private sentiment is no accident, and that by skewing polls, Magyar and his supporters in Brussels are “building the narrative that if they lose the election, then this is an illegitimate result.”

Who is interfering in the Hungarian election?

Panyi became embroiled in an election meddling scandal of his own when it emerged that he had collaborated with EU intelligence agents – possibly the same sources who fed him the ‘Russian interference’ story – to wiretap Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. The wiretap revealed conversations between Szijjarto and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Szijjarto insisted that having these conversations is part of his job as the EU’s longest-serving foreign minister, and that the positions expressed in these calls – opposition to sanctions on Russia and disdain for Brussels bureaucrats – are already well known.

Ukraine has stuck its thumb on the scales too. Kiev has refused to restart the flow of Russian oil through the Druzhba pipeline, which carries Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia via Ukraine, claiming that the pipeline was damaged in a Russian air raid in January. Orban maintains that Druzhba is operational, and that Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is keeping it closed in order to drive up energy costs in Hungary and hamper his reelection campaign. Kiev has also trained spies working within Magyar’s party, according to Hungarian security authorities.

Why is the Hungarian election so important to the EU and Ukraine?

Why was J.D. Vance in Budapest?

US President Donald Trump is an ideological ally of Orban, and dispatched Vice President J.D. Vance to Hungary on April 7 in a show of support for the Hungarian prime minister. Over multiple public appearances with Orban, Vance railed against EU and Ukrainian interference in the election, calling their combined efforts “one of the worst examples of foreign election interference that I have ever seen.”

Vance also saved his most scathing criticism for Zelensky, hammering the Ukrainian leader’s “preposterous” threat to send soldiers to Orban’s house over Hungary’s vetoing of the EU loan package.

However, Vance was accused of election interference by Tisza and EU officials. After the US VP described Orban as “the single profound leader in Europe on the question of energy security and independence” and said that he would “help as much as I can possibly help” to get him reelected, the European Commission announced that it would “convey our concerns” about the visit to Washington.

“I would like to point out, since Vance is complaining about the EU’s alleged interference in the election, that the US vice president was in Hungary just a few days before the election. This fact alone speaks for itself as to who is interfering,” German government spokesman Sebastian Hille told reporters on April 8.

Speaking to RT, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl described the election as a “proxy war” between Washington and Brussels, with the EU willing to “paralyze” Hungary (by refusing to pressure Zelensky to reopen the Druzhba pipeline) in order to oust Orban, and the US “cultivating resistance” against the bloc by supporting him.

Gabon has imposed a sweeping ban on social media use for people under 16, introducing one of the strictest digital laws on the continent, Gabon Review reported on Thursday, citing the newly enacted law.

The authorities declared it illegal for children to create accounts on social media networks or online platforms, except in narrowly defined education contexts. The measure was adopted on February 26 and officially published earlier this week.

Officials say the move is aimed at shielding children from online risks such as cyberbullying, harmful content, and disinformation. Oversight will be handled by Gabon’s High Communication Authority (HAC), which is tasked with monitoring compliance and auditing digital operators. 

The law introduces shared responsibility between families and tech companies. Parents or legal guardians are now held accountable for the online behavior of children under 16.

The law also requires platforms to respond swiftly to reports involving minors. They must acknowledge complaints within 24 hours and take action within 72 hours.

In February, the HAC announced a temporary social media block for an indefinite period. The decision was cited as a response to the spread of undesirable, defamatory, and offensive content, which they say is a threat to national security. No specific platforms were named.

The decision reflects a broader global push to tighten control over access to digital platforms for minors. Most of them, however, are still waiting for full implementation.

US President Donald Trump unleashed a “tirade of insults” at NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte during their meeting at the White House on Wednesday, Politico has reported, citing European officials.

Rutte’s trip to Washington followed weeks of Trump’s criticism of NATO over its reluctance to join the US-Israeli war against Iran and warnings about possible American withdrawal from the bloc.

The US president used the talks, which happened behind closed doors, to vent his frustration with European NATO members, Politico said in an article on Thursday.

“It went sh*t,” one European official told the outlet, adding that Trump had badmouthed Rutte and “apparently threatened to do just about anything.”

The official and another informed person claimed that the US president signaled that he was considering options for reprisals against the European nations, but didn’t provide any details.

Bloomberg earlier reported that the US president had issued an ultimatum to the Europeans during his meeting with Rutte, demanding a commitment to help secure the waterway, which accounts for around a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, “within days.”

A White House official approached by Politico for comment denied those claims, saying that Trump “has zero expectations for NATO at this point and did not ask them for anything, even though it’s a fact they benefit from the Strait of Hormuz far more than the US.”

In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Rutte described his talks with Trump as a “very frank, very open” discussion between “two good friends,” but acknowledged that the US president was “clearly disappointed” with Europe. The NATO chief avoided a direct answer when asked if Trump had spoken about Washington leaving the bloc.

Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday that “none of these people, including our own, very disappointing, NATO, understood anything unless they have pressure placed upon them.”

US President Donald Trump has thrown his weight behind Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, urging voters to “get out and vote” for his reelection ahead of Sunday’s parliamentary election.

In a post on Truth Social on Thursday, Trump described Orban – his “true friend, fighter, and winner” – as a “strong and powerful leader” with a “proven track record of delivering phenomenal results.”

“[Orban] fights tirelessly for, and loves, his great country and people, just like I do for the United States of America,” Trump wrote. “Viktor works hard to protect Hungary, grow the economy, create jobs, promote trade, stop illegal immigration, and ensure law and order!”

Trump also credited Orban with driving “new heights of cooperation” between the US and Hungary and said he looks “forward to continuing working” with him.

Trump on Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán:

I was proud to ENDORSE Viktor for Re-Election in 2022, and am honored to do so again. Viktor Orbán is a true friend, fighter, and WINNER, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election as Prime Minister of Hungary — HE WILL NEVER… pic.twitter.com/uOWFCP7nRt

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) February 5, 2026

“Hungary: GET OUT AND VOTE FOR VIKTOR ORBAN,” he urged, stressing Orban has his “complete and total endorsement” for re-election.

Trump has repeatedly backed his longtime ally ahead of the vote. Earlier this week, he even called into a rally in Budapest via Vice President J.D. Vance’s phone, telling supporters, “I am with [Orban] until the very end.”

President Trump calls in during @VP's speech in Hungary to show support for Viktor Orban:

"I love Hungary, and I love Viktor. He's a fantastic man ... Remember this: He didn't allow people to storm your country and invade your country like other people have." pic.twitter.com/zPUhBAJDwp

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) April 7, 2026

Vance, who visited Budapest to boost Orban’s campaign, described Hungary as a “laboratory” for sovereign, conservative politics and accused the EU of “interfering” in the vote.

Hungary has opposed Ukraine’s EU ambitions, refused to supply arms to Kiev, and is currently blocking a €90 billion EU loan package – after accusing Vladimir Zelensky of cutting Russian oil flows via the Druzhba pipeline. Orban has also claimed Kiev is waging a “quiet war” against his government, alleging Ukrainian intelligence is operating inside Hungary to sway the vote toward the Tisza Party.

Orban has repeatedly accused the EU of trying to engineer a change in government and install a “puppet regime” in Budapest, alleging Brussels has already “picked” Magyar as a compliant successor. He has also argued that freezing billions in funding is a deliberate attempt to sway voters against him.

On March 25, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution proposed by Ghana declaring the transatlantic slave trade the “gravest crime against humanity,” despite opposition from Western states. The measure secured support from 123 countries, including Russia and China, while the US, Israel, and Argentina voted against it, and 52 nations – among them the UK and EU members – abstained.

Why do the US, Israel, and Argentina stand against the recognition of the absolute horror of the enslavement of Africans? In fact, acknowledging this crime would expose them to the collapse of their own historical narratives. The US, in voting against, is rejecting its own indictment, built on the paradox of a proclaimed freedom resting atop an enslaving system it never truly reconciled with. To recognize this injustice is to open the door to reparations, and a reconfiguration of the social contract – something that today’s America, still shaped by persistent inequalities, refuses to confront.

As for Argentina, today it protects a national narrative built on a racial fiction of a white nation oriented toward Europe and severed from its indigenous roots. Acknowledging the full extent of the crime of slavery would mean reopening the wounds of a long-concealed historical erasure and genocide. Thus, this tripartite vote reveals a refusal to decolonize history and to face consequences, such as reparations, educational revisions, and transformation in global power relations.

Abstention in this issue, however, cannot be seen as a neutrality. When France, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, and some forty other states choose to abstain, they are fleeing history itself.

What does it mean to abstain from a resolution that recognizes the transatlantic slave trade and racialized slavery as an injustice against humanity? It means: “We know, but we will not speak. We acknowledge, but we refuse to assume responsibility. We see, but we look away.”

Belgium carries the shadow of the Congo Free State, an industrial-scale reign of terror where millions of lives were crushed for rubber and profit. Abstention allows it to continue sanitizing the past.

Germany, often praised for its work of remembrance regarding the Holocaust, exposes here the limits of its moral universalism. When it comes to the genocide of the Herero and Nama in Namibia, or its role in European colonial ventures, its discourse becomes calculated.

For Ukraine and other abstaining states, the link to historical responsibility in the transatlantic trade may seem less direct. Yet their abstention reflects geopolitical alignment, the desire not to offend certain allies. Historical justice is sacrificed on the altar of strategic interest.

This collective abstention reveals a troubling truth: the international system is incapable of delivering full recognition of the crimes that shaped it. The states that comprise it are simultaneously judges and parties, accusers and accused. Under these conditions, how can genuine justice be expected?

Abstention becomes a mechanism of preservation. It maintains the illusion of international consensus while avoiding necessary ruptures. In short, it is a form of denial.

But denial comes at a cost. It fuels distrust among African peoples and their diasporas toward international institutions perceived as partial or complicit. It undermines the credibility of Western human rights rhetoric and perpetuates legitimate resentment, born of centuries of unrepaired injustice.

Abstaining in this context is choosing inertia over justice. The abstained refuse to break with colonial logics, trying to perpetuate their consequences instead. But this strategy is doomed. France, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the other cannot hide indefinitely in this gray zone. There are moments when not choosing is betrayal, and this betrayal, though dressed in the respectable garments of diplomatic prudence, deceives no one.

And it is precisely this loss of control that frightens them.

To fully recognize the horror of racialized African slavery means to accept that the very foundations of Western modernity must be questioned. It is to acknowledge that the Enlightenment, often heralded as the dawn of universal reason, coexisted and sometimes co-constructed with the most radical darkness: systematic dehumanization.

The reality today is an Africa that thinks and demands. A diaspora that articulates claims, rejects half-truths. In the face of this, what is abstention worth? Nothing except the testimony of a refusal to take responsibility.

Yet there is still time. Time to understand that recognition is strength, not weakness. That truth, even painful, is the only foundation for a shared future. But this requires courage. And clearly, that courage remains in short supply. History will move on without them, or despite them. The abstainers and the calculating will only endure it.

An army general and several soldiers have been killed in an overnight assault by Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) militants on military targets in Nigeria’s restive Borno State, the authorities said on Thursday.

The militants attacked the headquarters of the 29 Task Force Brigade in Benisheikh at about 12:30 AM local time, army spokesman Michael Onoja said in a statement. He said troops responded to the coordinated “terrorist” assault with “exceptional courage, professionalism, and superior firepower,” forcing the insurgents to retreat.

“Regrettably, the encounter resulted in the loss of a few brave and gallant soldiers who paid the supreme price in the line of duty,” the military stated, without specifying how many troops were killed or disclosing their names.

Local media, however, reported that Brigadier General Oseni Omoh Braimah, commander of the 29 Task Force Brigade, was among 18 soldiers killed.

A separate statement from Nigerian President Bola Tinubu appeared to confirm that the general died in the raid. Tinubu described the “insurgents’ counterattack [as] a sign of desperation” and said the government “will never forget” the sacrifices of the fallen soldiers.

“I extend my condolences to the families of our gallant soldiers, led by Brigadier-General Oseni Omoh Braimah, who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our country in Borno State,” he wrote on X on Friday.

Police in Borno said earlier this week that officers had repelled attacks in Nganzai and Damasak, days after four officers were killed in an assault on a divisional headquarters in the state.

Nigeria declared a national security emergency in November amid the deteriorating situation. The US, which has stepped in to support Abuja’s campaign against Islamic State-linked militants, has warned its citizens against traveling to the West African country, citing terrorism and armed violence.

The Gulf states have emerged much weaker than Iran from the Middle East conflict, leading US academic Jeffrey Sachs has said.

Countries in the region made a huge mistake by seeking protection from the US and Israel, Sachs told RT India in an exclusive interview on Thursday.

“This has been a disaster for them,” he said, adding that the “clever idea” of the United Arab Emirates as a financial haven and tourism hub “all… fell under bombing right now.”

“[The US] did nothing to help it. I think the Emirates made a terrible mistake in signing on with Israel and the United States saying, ‘This is our side. This is our protection,’” he said.

Sachs said he was baffled when Gulf countries pledged billions of dollars to the US when Donald Trump began his second term as president.

The US is not where the high-return investments in the world are right now, Sachs noted.

“But these countries believed that the US is their protector and that the US is their source of NVIDIA chips and data centers and cutting-edge technology. They’re not looking clearly at how the multipolar world is taking shape,” he said.

“They’ve come out way, way behind in all of this. It’s been clear that Iran can devastate them,” he added. “The desalination plants, the bombing of the oil and gas infrastructure, the vulnerability of these countries more generally. It’s been awful.”

Sachs said the Gulf countries “don’t have their own geopolitics… They have been under the US line. But basically, this is a debacle for them.” These nations need to rethink their politics, he added.

“The truth is Iran and the Gulf should be partners. They should be co-investors. They should be at peace.”

India knows from its time under British rule that divide-and-conquer is the essence of imperial strategy, Sachs said.

“The US has loved to pit Iran against the Gulf, and the Gulf fell for it. Big mistake that needs to be reconsidered,” he said.

The US is perceived as a threat by a significant portion of people in six leading European nations, a new opinion poll suggests. In Spain, a majority holds this view, it says.

Politico, which commissioned the survey, said on Wednesday that these perceptions are linked to the policies of US President Donald Trump.

Since taking office just over a year ago, Trump has imposed tariffs on European allies, pushed for the annexation of Greenland from Denmark, and started a war with Iran, jeopardizing global energy stability.

The European Pulse poll was conducted from March 13 to 21 in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, with at least 1,000 adults surveyed in each country. In Spain, 51% of respondents described the US as a threat, while only 17% considered it a close ally.

Six major EU countries now view the U.S. under Trump as a bigger threat than China, per a new POLITICO Pulse survey—a significant shift in European threat perception.pic.twitter.com/Bz7YtheU1b

— The Dive Feed (@TheDeepDiveFeed) April 9, 2026

Poland presented a contrasting picture, where the US is largely seen as a partner or ally. Only 13% of Polish respondents viewed America as a threat, with an equal share labeling it a competitor. However, a significant 16% said they are unsure how to assess the US.

The survey took place amid escalating hostilities in the Middle East, as the US and Israel attempt to topple Iran’s government through a bombing campaign. No European NATO members directly joined the campaign, but Spain was notably vocal in opposing it, calling the operation illegal under international law and refusing the US access to its airspace for strikes.

Earlier this week, Trump signaled openness to negotiations based on a ten-point proposal from Iran, which led to the announcement of a two-week ceasefire. However, the fragile truce has been strained by increased Israeli attacks against Lebanon. Washington claims these actions fall outside the scope of the ceasefire, but skeptics argue that Israel is deliberately acting against US goals to derail peace efforts.

The Trump administration has been accused of using bad faith negotiations as a diversion before surprise military actions against Iran.

North Korea has conducted a series of high-tech weapons tests as it seeks to expand its arsenal with electromagnetic weapons, carbon fiber bombs, and new mobile air defense systems, KCNA state news agency reports.

The tests were conducted over the course of three days. Kim Jong-sik, a general who oversaw the tests, described the electromagnetic system and carbon fiber bombs as “special assets” in the country’s arsenal, but provided few details about the nature of the new weapons.

The South Korean military said it detected several missile launches from North Korean territory. The projectiles flew 240 to 700 km, according to Reuters.

The tests came amid rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula. First Deputy Foreign Minister Jang Kum-chol described South Korea as the “most hostile enemy state” in a statement on Tuesday.

Earlier this week, Seoul apologized to Pyongyang over drone incursions, denying any official involvement and claiming that the launches were a private initiative. Three people – including an employee of the National Intelligence Service, a South Korean military officer, and a graduate student – are facing charges.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un stated last month that a nuclear arsenal capable of posing a credible threat to the US is the only leverage against American “terrorism and aggression.” He also said North Korea would not give up its nuclear weapons and would oppose any efforts to challenge its status.

US First Lady Melania Trump has made a surprise public statement about Jeffrey Epstein, denying that she had any meaningful relationship with the late financier and convicted sex offender, and insisting that he did not introduce her to Donald Trump.

In remarks released by the White House on April 9, Melania said she had “never been friends with Epstein,” described her contact with his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, as nothing more than “casual correspondence,” and urged Congress to hold public hearings centered on Epstein’s victims.

“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” the first lady said, accusing unnamed critics of trying to “defame” her reputation. She stated that she and Donald Trump had only occasionally attended the same social events as Epstein due to overlapping social circles in New York City and Palm Beach, and said she first crossed paths with him in 2000 at an event she attended with Trump.

First Lady Melania Trump’s Statement pic.twitter.com/fSEz24NEyg

— First Lady Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) April 9, 2026

Melania also denied ever being on Epstein’s plane or visiting his private island, and specifically pushed back against claims that Epstein played a role in her relationship with the future president. She further insisted that her name has never appeared in court documents, depositions, victim statements, or FBI interviews tied to the Epstein case.

The Trump administration has faced growing backlash over its handling of the Epstein files. One day earlier, several media outlets reported that Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee, which has already heard testimony from former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The controversy has simmered for over a year. In February 2025, Bondi said Epstein’s supposed client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review,” fueling expectations of major disclosures. But by July, the DOJ said no such list exists, and that it did not plan to release additional records – a reversal that triggered ridicule from both Democrats and Republicans and intensified accusations of a cover-up.

US President Donald Trump has posted a horrific video of a woman being beaten to death at a Florida gas station earlier this month, using the killing to launch a blistering attack on former President Joe Biden and his immigration record.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the suspect is Rolbert Joachin, a Haitian national accused of fatally attacking a woman in Fort Myers on April 3. DHS said Joachin first entered the US illegally in August 2022 and was released into the country under Temporary Protected Status.

The suspect was tracked down and arrested with ICE assistance, and appeared in court on Wednesday, where he revealed that he went to the gas station specifically to kill the victim.

In a furious Truth Social post on Thursday, Trump said he felt “obligated” to publish uncensored footage of the murder, previously shown in court, so Americans could “see what Democrats are protecting,” while warning viewers that the tape is “not for children.”

Trump branded the suspect an “animal” and blamed Biden and congressional Democrats for allowing him to remain in the country, arguing that the case was a brutal example of what he sees as the human cost of lax immigration enforcement.

Trump ended his post by offering prayers for the victim’s family and vowing that “quick and severe JUSTICE” would be served. DHS said ICE had lodged a detainer against Joachin and that he would face deportation regardless of how the criminal case unfolds.

The cooperation of private capital and state funding in space exploration and infrastructure became a key topic at the inaugural Russian Space Forum taking place in Moscow ahead of the upcoming Cosmonautics Day. The event will also delve into the use of AI, robotics and prospective medical technologies needed for flights beyond Earth orbit, such as to the Moon or Mars.

Kicking off ahead of the 65th anniversary of Yury Gagarin’s April 12, 1961 flight as the first human in space, the event brought together government officials, scientists, and investors from over 40 countries, including Russia, China and India.

“The advancement of the rocket and space sector, alongside the strengthening of its scientific, human resources, and technological potential, remains among our unconditional priorities. It is of utmost importance to expand satellite constellations and to widely integrate new materials, digital and nuclear technologies,” President Vladimir Putin said in a greeting message to the participants.

Just last month, Russia launched 16 communication satellites for the Russian Rassvet (Sunrise) high-speed internet project, which is being helmed by domestic company Bureau 1440, Bakanov said. The program will give Russia its own alternative to SpaceX’s Starlink.

“We work closely together, sometimes formalized through the regulatory framework, sometimes manually, to help companies thrive, to ensure fertile soil, and to create an investment climate conducive to people investing in the sector,” Bakanov said.

Real-time coordination between Roscosmos and private space firms was also discussed, to prevent potential collisions in orbit, which many fear could lead to the so-called Kessler Syndrome, a runaway chain reaction of crashes that could render entire orbital regions around Earth unusable.

China’s National Space Administration (CNSA) deputy director Bian Zhigang, speaking at a panel on future challenges and national strategies, spoke out against the weaponization of space.

“We need to support technologies in different countries in order to aid urban planning, resource exploration and disaster prevention. This requires all countries to cooperate,” he said, calling space “an important bridge” that facilitates this international collaboration.

The forum will also serve as the launchpad for a number of cooperation agreements between Roscosmos and Russian nuclear energy corporation Rosatom, as well as with private players in the space sector.

Russia’s Space Week, established by Putin to promote national achievements and popularize the industry, will conclude on Cosmonautics Day on Sunday with a number of other themed events all across the country.

Donald Trump has declared the start of a new “golden age” in the Middle East after announcing a ceasefire with Iran. The war, at least for now, has been paused. And while predictions are always risky with this White House, there is at least a chance that the fighting will not immediately resume.

That alone matters. A prolonged war would raise risks for everyone, but above all for Washington. For all the bombast coming from the US administration, America has always been deeply uncomfortable with prolonged uncertainty and strategic risk. It is one thing to threaten. It is another to endure the consequences when threats fail.

The precise terms of the ceasefire remain unclear and may not yet be fully agreed. But the central political fact is already visible: Faced with determined resistance, the US stepped back.

None of the sweeping demands set out at the start of the operation were met. Trump’s all-caps demand for Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” now looks more like political theater than strategic doctrine. Yet behind the social media drama, something more rational prevailed in Washington: When pressure fails, it is better to retreat than to escalate into a situation you may no longer control.

The feverish rhetoric before the truce served a purpose. It allowed Washington to claim that Tehran had blinked, while creating such a sense of looming catastrophe that any pause in fighting could be sold as relief. The White House will now try to present restraint as victory.

This conflict is undoubtedly a milestone in the wider transformation of the international system. But it is not the end of that process. Nor is it the final chapter in the struggle for the Middle East.

Tehran’s response was not spectacular in the conventional military sense, but it was effective. Iran widened the theater of tension and signaled that the costs of escalation would not be confined to military targets. It forced its opponents to reckon not only with Iranian retaliation, but with the fragility of the wider regional system.

This matters because the endurance of the US and its regional partners is limited. Iran’s, by contrast, has historically been much greater.

The so-called Axis of Resistance also proved more durable than many had assumed. Despite the serious damage inflicted by Israel over the past two years, pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq remain a strategic factor. Even where they did not intervene directly, they raised the temperature and forced the attackers to remain on edge.

The broader effort to neutralize Iranian influence has therefore backfired. Iran has emerged bloodied but still standing. Even if Tehran’s claims that any settlement must happen on its terms are partly negotiating tactics, one thing is already clear: Iran’s regional weight has not diminished in the way Washington and West Jerusalem intended.

Negotiations with Tehran are now unavoidable. The real question is what Iran itself wants.

For the wider region, the implications are profound.

The Gulf monarchies have had a sobering experience. There will be no return to the comfortable old formula in which security could simply be outsourced to Washington in exchange for money and loyalty. That arrangement, which underpinned the region since the Cold War, has been badly shaken.

Publicly, the Gulf states are unlikely to make dramatic gestures. But privately, their search for new hedges and new partners will intensify. China, South Asia, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe will all become more important in their calculations.

That doesn’t mean the Gulf will accept Iranian dominance. The monarchies will not tolerate Tehran having unchecked influence over the Persian Gulf or the ability to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz. Their policy is likely to become more complex: containing Iran where possible while engaging with it where necessary.

The domestic consequences for the US are harder to judge. Trump’s self-congratulation already rings hollow, but much will depend on economics. If oil markets stabilize, the White House will try to move on quickly and insist disaster was averted thanks to Trump’s leadership. Whether that helps Republicans in the November midterms is unclear.

Still, Trump has always had one instinct his critics often underestimate: He knows how to survive setbacks and reframe them.

The larger conclusion, however, goes beyond Trump. The US remains immensely powerful. Its military reach, financial leverage and ability to shape events are still formidable. But they are not limitless. America can still influence outcomes but can no longer simply impose its will at any cost.

That lesson has now been absorbed far beyond Tehran. Allies and adversaries alike will draw their own conclusions. Iran may be a special case, but a precedent has been set.

This is another step toward a different world, one in which coercion is less decisive and the old assumptions about American omnipotence increasingly obsolete. Trump may wish to replace a liberal American-led order with an illiberal one under US dominance. But the events of recent weeks suggest something else: a world moving beyond any order Washington can fully control.

This article was first published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and was translated and edited by the RT team 

The homeless man accused of fatally stabbing 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska could see charges against him dropped after he was deemed unfit to stand trial, several US media outlets report, citing a motion filed by his attorney. He was previously indicted by a federal grand jury in the case, which could lead to the death penalty.

Zarutska was killed on a train last August in Charlotte, North Carolina. Surveillance footage shows Decarlos Brown Jr., 34, stabbing her three times in the neck in what appeared to be an unprovoked assault. The man was arrested shortly afterward and charged with first-degree murder.

According to a motion filed on Tuesday, Brown was evaluated at the Central Regional Hospital in late December and found to be not competent to stand trial. Under North Carolina law, a defendant must be deemed capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings, comprehend their situation, and assist in their defense in a rational manner.

If a judge agrees with the psychiatric evaluation, charges against Brown will be dismissed. A court ruling could still allow for the charges to be refiled if he ever regains the capacity to be tried.

Brown was also ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation as part of a separate federal court case, but it was not completed as of early March according to the court filings.

The man’s mother claims he is schizophrenic. Brown has a lengthy criminal record that includes robbery with a dangerous weapon.

Zarutska’s killing caused a public outcry and led to calls for capital punishment for the suspect. US President Donald Trump described Brown as an “animal” and urged that the death penalty be applied.

Mexico is looking to tap unconventional natural gas deposits to boost energy sovereignty, President Claudia Sheinbaum has said, as global energy markets reel from the shock triggered by the US-Israeli war on Iran.

The US’ southern neighbor is its biggest importer of natural gas, with the supplies covering roughly three-quarters of Mexican demand, while domestic output from conventional fields has declined and no longer meets the country’s needs.

“If we continue like this, we’re going to import more and more natural gas,” Sheinbaum said on Wednesday. “The other options are what’s called shale gas, unconventional gas.”

Unconventional deposits refers to gas trapped in dense rock formations such as shale, which do not allow the fuel to flow freely and require more complex extraction techniques, including hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Development has so far been limited due to environmental concerns, high water usage, regulatory uncertainty, and political opposition.

“What’s the problem with importing?” Sheinbaum asked rhetorically. “Just look at how lots of countries in the world are suffering because of what happened in Iran.”

Sheinbaum’s remarks come amid broader tensions between Mexico City and Washington.

In January, US President Donald Trump said he could order strikes against drug cartels on Mexican territory following the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US commandos over alleged narcotics trafficking.

Trump has also claimed that cartels effectively control Mexico and accused the country of “flooding” the US with drugs and illegal migrants.

Mexico has cooperated on anti-drug efforts but rejects any foreign military presence, with Sheinbaum warning any such action would violate national sovereignty.

There are moments in history when reality breaks through ideology with brutal clarity. Western Europe is living through one of those moments now.

The Iran war has sent shockwaves through global energy markets – but in Europe, the tremors feel like an earthquake. What was once dismissed as pessimism or “populist scaremongering” is now openly acknowledged at the highest levels of power.

With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, the EU faced a supply shock that promised to cripple manufacturing, ground airlines, hike up the price of food, spike borrowing costs, and send inflation spiraling back to crisis levels.

The crisis nobody can deny anymore

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has compared the looming burden to the darkest days of recent memory, warning it could be “as heavy as we recently experienced during the Covid pandemic or at the start of the Ukraine war.” Head of the European Central Bank Christine Lagarde has admitted that the long-term effects are “probably beyond what we can imagine at the moment.”

Beyond imagination. That is where Western Europe now stands. And yet for millions of ordinary Europeans, the consequences are already painfully real: higher bills, shrinking savings, and a growing sense that something has gone profoundly wrong.

This is not just another cyclical downturn. It is something deeper – more systemic, more dangerous.

The greatest energy shock in modern history

Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, did not mince words: “At this moment, we are losing 11 million barrels per day, which is more than the two major oil crises combined… the greatest threat to global energy security in history.” Unlike past crises, this one spared nothing. Oil, gas, diesel, jet fuel – everything was under pressure at once.

The illusion that Europe could insulate itself has collapsed.

For years, Brussels reassured Europeans that the continent’s limited reliance on Persian Gulf crude would protect it. But reality has a way of exposing half-truths. Europe depends on the Gulf for more than 40% of its refined products – diesel that fuels trucks, and jet fuel that keeps planes in the air.

Now those lifelines are tightening. Asian economies, far more dependent on the region, are bidding assertively, pulling supplies away from Europe. Tankers are changing course. Contracts are being rewritten. Prices are surging. And the EU – self-constrained, self-limited – has found itself last in line.

The consequences are immediate, tangible, and deeply personal. In some countries, diesel prices have nearly doubled since the start of the Iran war. Airlines are bracing for impact; Lufthansa is already discussing grounding up to 40 aircraft because of jet fuel shortages. The EU’s fossil fuel import bill jumped by €14 billion in mere weeks.

Behind these numbers are real lives. Farmers paying more to harvest their crops. Truck drivers watching margins evaporate. Families forced to choose between heating and other essentials. Businesses – already weakened – now pushed to the brink.

Higher costs in agriculture, transport, and manufacturing cascade through the economy. Prices rise everywhere. Growth stalls. Inflation returns with a vengeance.

Europe is staring into the abyss of stagflation – stagnant economies paired with relentless price increases, quietly eroding the savings and dignity of millions.

This is not just an economic crisis. It is a social wound. A psychological burden. Another chapter in a long decade of instability that has left many Europeans exhausted, anxious, and increasingly distrustful of those in power.

Leadership without answers

In times like these, people look to their leaders for clarity, for courage, for solutions equal to the scale of the problem. What they receive instead feels painfully inadequate.

Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen has advised people to work from home, drive slower, and share cars. These are not solutions; they are coping mechanisms. They shift responsibility onto individuals while the structural failures remain untouched.

Even as shortages loom, Brussels insists on staying the course: a complete ban on Russian energy imports, no change to the plan to end Russian LNG imports by 2026, and pipeline gas by 2027. At the very moment when flexibility is needed, rigidity prevails.

Warnings are coming from all sides. Shell CEO Wael Sawan has said shortages could hit as early as April. Germany’s Economy Minister Katherina Reiche has cautioned that supply scarcity may emerge within weeks. Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto confessed, “I’m forced to know things that don’t let me sleep.”

And still, the policy does not change. Even from across the Atlantic comes a blunt message. Donald Trump remarked: “You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!”

Harsh, perhaps – but not entirely wrong. The EU has boxed itself in.

Yet across the continent, a different kind of leadership is beginning to emerge – one that dares to say what many already know.

In Germany, Alice Weidel of the AfD has articulated a position rooted in economic reality rather than political fashion: “Germany must return to an affordable and reliable energy supply to be internationally competitive… we must purchase energy resources… where it is cheapest, which is Russia.”

More and more Germans understand this. It is no coincidence that the AfD has risen to become the second most popular party. People are not embracing extremism – they are searching for common sense.

Central Europe’s warning – and its resolve

Further east, the message is even clearer, shaped by geography and experience.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called for immediate action, urging Europe to lift sanctions on Russian energy to avoid “one of the most severe economic crises in its history.” Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has echoed this urgency, calling for restored pipeline flows and renewed dialogue with Moscow.

His words cut through the diplomatic fog. The EU must “ensure the supply of these strategic raw materials from all possible sources and directions, including Russia.” Otherwise, he warned, the current path resembles a “suicide ship.”

These leaders are often dismissed in Brussels. Yet they are the ones confronting reality head-on. They understand that geography cannot be negotiated away. That energy cannot be replaced overnight. That ideology does not heat homes or power factories.

The return of reality – and of Russia

The Iran war has accelerated a reckoning that was already underway. It has shown, with unforgiving clarity, that the EU cannot secure its energy future by excluding its most logical supplier. Russia is not a distant option; it is a structural pillar of the European energy system – one that has been deliberately removed without a viable replacement.

The result is what we see today: scarcity, volatility, vulnerability. Restoring relations with Moscow is no longer a theoretical debate. It is becoming an economic necessity.

And the momentum is shifting. Across Germany and Central Europe – Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia, Czechia – voices are growing louder, more confident, more aligned in their insistence on pragmatism over ideology.

A turning point for Europe

Europe now stands at a decisive turning point. One path leads further into crisis: continued shortages, declining industry, rising social tensions, and a widening gap between elites and ordinary people. The other path is more difficult politically – but far more sustainable economically. It requires acknowledging mistakes. Reopening dialogue. Rebuilding ties where they make sense.

Above all, it requires listening – to the citizens who are paying the price, and to the leaders who have the courage to speak uncomfortable truths. Change is coming. The Iran war may well accelerate it. Because in the end, reality is undefeated. And Europe, whether it admits it or not, is already on the road back to it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered the nation’s military to halt all operations against Ukrainian forces over Orthodox Easter weekend, the Kremlin has announced. The unilateral pause is scheduled to last from 16:00 (Moscow time) on Saturday until the end of Sunday.

According to the Kremlin, Russian troops should still be ready to respond to any Ukrainian offensive operations or provocations, with relevant orders given to Defense Minister Andrey Belousov and Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov.

“We expect the Ukrainian side to follow Russia’s lead,” the statement read.

Moscow has previously declared unilateral pauses during Orthodox religious holidays throughout the Ukraine conflict. In 2023, Russia observed truces both during the Orthodox Christmas holiday in January and on Easter weekend in April at the initiative of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In 2024, a pause was not announced, with Putin arguing that Kiev could use it to rearm and regroup its forces. In 2025, an Easter truce was declared again, but was only partially successful. Although a certain lull in the hostilities was observed, Kiev violated the truce more than 3,900 times, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky rejected Hungary’s calls for a Christmas truce last year.

Moscow and Kiev held several rounds of direct talks in Istanbul last year, as well as trilateral talks that also involved the US. The negotiations led to several major POW exchanges but ended without a decisive breakthrough. The trilateral discussions have been paused over the past months because of the US and Israeli war on Iran.

Russia has repeatedly stated that it is ready to resolve the Ukraine conflict through diplomatic means, as long as its root causes are addressed and the situation on the ground is taken into account.

A Republican-aligned political group has been accused of sending leaflets featuring Ku Klux Klan imagery to voters in Virginia ahead of a high-stakes referendum. The Washington Post has suggested that the campaign primarily targets black voters.

The mailers, reportedly distributed in recent weeks by the Democracy and Justice political action committee, use imagery associated with the KKK – a group historically linked to racist violence against Black Americans – alongside warnings urging voters to reject the ballot measure redrawing the state’s political map to favor Democrats.

The leaflet design combines emotionally charged historical visuals with simple, urgent messaging. One leaflet, shared by the Virginia Independent, features grainy black-and-white images from the era of racial segregation, including Klansmen in white hoods and scenes of Black Americans facing violence, alongside claims that “they want to silence your voice.” Another pairs civil rights-era imagery, such as marches and protests, with slogans like “politicians are trying to take our districts away.”

Idk man I’m just surprised they used images of the KKK on the vote no on redistricting mailer pic.twitter.com/WuKGgPZ6D4

— Kate Martin (@katekeepsit100) March 7, 2026

The April 21 referendum will ask voters whether to change how Virginia’s electoral districts are drawn, a decision that could affect which party wins more seats in Congress.

What is this crap (an inflammatory, false, absurd etc. anti-referendum mailer being sent out) and what's the deal with the group ("Democracy and Justice PAC") behind it? https://t.co/HdBJrU2Wr2 pic.twitter.com/8rJJiBefNQ

— Blue Virginia (@bluevirginia) March 7, 2026

Black voters make up roughly one-fifth of Virginia’s population and are a key voting bloc in statewide elections. Virginia, though Democrat-leaning overall, remains a closely contested battleground state where even small shifts in support can sway outcomes.

A group, Justice for Democracy, has been sending out mailers and texts with some clear dog whistles, using varying disclaimers in Virginia ("Democracy and Justice PAC" and "Justice for Democracy PAC").

Its treasurer is listed as Christopher Woodfin and its address is the same… pic.twitter.com/JvetyKGnbw

— Matt Royer (@royermattw) March 7, 2026

Virginia’s vote comes amid a broader national push by Republicans and Democrats to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 elections, with several states already adopting new boundaries to gain political advantage. District maps are typically redrawn once every ten years after a census, with the next scheduled for 2030.

Unlike most states, which make such changes through legislatures or courts, Virginia is putting the measure directly to voters through a public referendum. Former US President Barack Obama has urged Virginians to back the measure.

US energy giants ExxonMobil and Chevron have reported lower production and a financial fallout linked to the Iran war, citing operational disruptions and market volatility as a result of the conflict and restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz regarding shipping linked to the West.

In a filing to US regulators on Wednesday, ExxonMobil flagged a potential hit of up to $6.5 billion to earnings, noting that its global oil and gas production in the first quarter of 2026 will be about 6% lower than in the final quarter of 2025, partly due to attacks on facilities in Qatar and the UAE in which it holds stakes. Chevron on Thursday reported first‑quarter production of 3.8–3.9 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, down from 4.05 million in the previous quarter.

Exxon, which has significant exposure to the Middle East, said the region accounts for around 20% of its global output. It added that damage to assets, including gas liquefaction facilities in Qatar, “will take a prolonged period to repair,” and that it is unable to estimate when full operations will resume.

The company also said the largest hit to its first-quarter earnings, estimated at $3.5 billion to $4.9 billion, is linked to price swings caused by the conflict.

Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te on Friday proposed a nearly $40 billion military buildup amid tensions with Beijing. This came just days after the head of the self-governing island’s main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), traveled to the mainland seeking rapprochement in the first such visit in a decade.

Taiwan became a de facto autonomous territory in 1949, after Chiang Kai-shek’s forces fled there following their loss in the Chinese civil war. Beijing considers the island part of its sovereign territory under the One China policy, which most UN nations, including the US and Russia, recognize.

Lai presented the massive military spending bill at a meeting of his party’s top decision-making body on Friday, calling it a way to counter the “threat of authoritarianism.” The proposal came just days after lawmakers from the US, Taiwan’s primary arms supplier, visited the island.

Earlier this week, Lai gave a speech positioning military strength, economic resilience, cooperation with Western and regional allies and “equality and dignity” as the main requirements for peace in the Taiwan Strait.

KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun, who arrived on the mainland on Tuesday, has stressed that opposing Taiwanese independence is a way to guarantee regional peace.

“The two sides of the Taiwan Strait are not destined, as some in the international community worry, for war,” she said in a speech in Nanjing.

RT has been covering the arrival with our correspondent Konstantin Rozhkov in China.

WATCH FULL VIDEO:

The Irish government has announced that it will use the military to clear trucks and tractors blocking “critical infrastructure.” Protests launched over soaring fuel prices have brought Dublin to a standstill in recent days.

In a statement on Thursday, Irish Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan said that “the blocking of critical national infrastructure will not be permitted to continue and the assistance of the Defense Forces has been requested.” Protesters who fail to disperse will have their vehicles moved by force, and “should not complain later about any damage caused to those vehicles,” O’Callaghan added.

Protesters in trucks, tractors, and other large vehicles have blockaded Dublin city center since Tuesday and formed slow-moving convoys on key motorways throughout the country. The demonstrators have also blocked ports in Galway and Limerick, and the country’s only refinery at Whitegate, near Cork, which processes imported oil to meet 40% of Ireland’s fuel demand.

The blockades have already triggered fuel shortages across Ireland, with 100 petrol stations predicted to run dry by Thursday night, an industry spokesperson told the Irish Independent.

Fuel prices have spiked in Ireland as a result of the US-Israeli war on Iran, with petrol rising by 15% and diesel currently costing nearly 30% more than in mid-February. Home heating oil, meanwhile, has surged in price by almost 70%. Taxes make up almost 60% of fuel costs in Ireland, and the protesters argue that the government should slash these levies to ease pressure on farmers, haulers, and commuters. 

In case you are unaware, tens of thousands of farmers, truck drivers, bus drivers and delivery drivers are fuel protesting across Ireland this week.

The Irish have had enough and are fighting back 🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻
Follow us for video updates and share pic.twitter.com/KltGl3OO9x

— TheLiberal.ie (@TheLiberal_ie) April 8, 2026

A minor cut in fuel taxes last month – 15 cents per liter on gasoline and 20 cents on diesel – was criticized by Ireland’s opposition Sinn Fein party as “a pathetic token gesture that doesn’t even come close to what is needed.”

The Irish government has refused to negotiate with the protesters. “It is an act of national sabotage to blockade this refinery and it will directly impact the people of Ireland,” Prime Minister Micheal Martin said on Wednesday, referring to the Whitegate demonstration. “A gun can’t be put to the head of government.”

Martin was filmed on Thursday walking away from angry demonstrators in Cork, who accused him of “walking away from the Irish people.”

Micheal Martin look at the ground walks directly past a Irishman asking question.

He doesn’t even have the ability to look the man on the eye let alone answer questions.

He is a weak man pic.twitter.com/zoD0foTw8w

— Real News Éire (@real_eire) April 9, 2026

In keeping with EU policy, the government has also ruled out a return to Russian fuel imports. Despite a spiraling energy crisis, Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris said last month that “any move by the European Union to start buying Russian oil again… would be utterly despicable.”

Ukraine’s Defense Ministry is reportedly weighing a plan to rebrand the agencies behind Kiev’s conscription campaign, according to a local lawmaker. Social media has detailed press gangs hunting for recruits in the streets while a desperate population is increasingly fighting back.

Kiev introduced Territorial Centers of Recruitment and Social Support (TCKs) in 2022 to replace Soviet-era military commissariats. Amid the conflict with Russia, the TCKs have become widely associated with forced recruitment raids and allegations of corruption that allow influential individuals to avoid mobilization.

According to MP Roman Kostenko, a military veteran and secretary of the parliamentary committee on national security, defense, and intelligence, who leaked the plan, the proposal is window-dressing and an attempt to deflect public discontent.

Kiev has claimed that the widely shared videos are a form of attack on the country, taken out of context, or fabricated by Russia. Last week, Ukraine’s military ombudsman, Olga Reshetilova, complained that teenagers are “harassing” TCK staff after exposure to what she described as “Russian TikTok.” 

At the same time, human rights ombudsman Dmitry Lubinets published photos from a TCK facility in Uzhhorod, reporting that as many as 60 men held in custody there had only three cups and eight plates among them and no means to properly clean shared utensils.

Lubinets also noted that one detainee had syndactyly, a condition involving fused fingers, while another required urgent medical attention due to high blood pressure, which he received only after intervention by the ombudsman’s office.

Under the proposal, “conscription offices” or “recruitment offices” will handle conscription, Kostenko told Liga.net on Thursday, saying that the ministry expects the word “office” to have a positive connotation.

During parliamentary confirmation hearings in January, Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov identified fixing the conscription system as a priority. Kostenko said the ministry wants to force the national police to take a more direct role in mobilization in order to shift blame.

Not so long ago, US President Donald Trump openly endorsed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban ahead of the Hungarian parliamentary elections scheduled for April 12.

From a diplomatic standpoint, urging citizens of another country to vote for a specific candidate is contentious, to say the least. First and foremost, it is considered direct interference in the electoral process. But even more importantly, it highlights the widening ideological divide within what was once a largely unified Western world.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, however. Like Trump is in the US, Orban has long been a symbol of the European conservative movement, challenging the so-called ‘rules-based order’. Washington may view Hungary as a bastion of conservative politics within the EU, one that could serve as a model for other member states.

Evidently, the system Orban has built in Hungary over recent years exemplifies the “healthy nation” according to Trump. Moreover, in a show of support for Orban, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Hungary in February, and US Vice President J.D. Vance visited Budapest in the week of the vote.

The EU’s stance, however, is particularly noteworthy; while it refrains from endorsing any candidate, it hopes that the opposition Tisza party, led by Peter Magyar, will win. 

“I think everybody hopes Orban will lose,” a European diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Indeed, this year’s election campaign is quite intense for Orban. The Tisza party (officially the Respect and Freedom Party), established in December 2020, is the main rival of Orban’s Fidesz party. Interestingly, different polls show varying results, and each party claims that it is ahead of the other.

According to the polls published by Tisza, it leads Fidesz by over 20%. This creates a challenging environment for Orban and could be used to contest election results if his party wins. 

Moreover, the EU – whose leaders refused to recognize election results in Belarus (in 2020) and Georgia (in 2024), and have publicly criticized Orban – may openly back the opposition should it lose in this weekend’s elections. 

However, Tisza could also accuse Fidesz of having similar plans. Regardless of the results, the upcoming elections will be challenging for Hungary. 

European officials accuse Budapest of straying from the so-called ‘party line’, accusing the current government of the erosion of democratic norms and restrictions on press freedom and NGO activities; Orban is also accused of running a campaign that discredits the EU. 

Orban dismisses these allegations as unfounded and presents himself as a defender of traditional European Christian values against an out-of-touch liberal elite. Orban primarily operates from conservative principles, distinguishing the interests of Hungary from those of the EU as a larger supranational entity that often overlooks the needs of its member states (consider the EU’s decision to open markets for Ukrainian grain, which forced Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to go against Brussels’ directives and protect their own borders).

The EU’s list of complaints against Orban is quite banal. The EU criticizes Budapest for perceived threats to judicial independence, increased media control, strict immigration policies, and a more independent foreign policy regarding Russia and China. 

As the EU evolves into a sort of supranational ‘superstate’, it demands complete alignment from its member states, while the European Commission functions as a facilitator of globalization, pushing for uniformity in values and approaches expected to be shared by all members.

In contrast, Orban prioritizes sovereignty as the supreme value and believes that no supranational organization should interfere in a nation’s internal politics. He effectively denies Brussels the right to control political processes within Hungary, which naturally irritates the European Commission.

Hungary’s stance is clear: the EU was originally intended as a union of states, but has transformed into a rigid structure where recruitment for leadership positions is opaque, and mechanisms are far from democratic. 

At the same time, Orban has been reelected four times since 2010, casting doubt on any claims regarding the undemocratic nature of elections in Hungary. This shows that the policies of his party reflect the general sentiments of the Hungarian public, and the external pressure exerted on Budapest is a sign of disregard for the views of the Hungarian people.

The conflict over whether common regulations and the unification of EU nations should take precedence over national sovereignty and the interests of local populations has smoldered for years. This standoff has already cost Hungary billions of dollars in frozen EU funds. Such actions by the European Commission have exerted pressure on the Hungarian currency and fueled inflation. The opposition has particularly highlighted this destabilizing economic factor when pointing out the repercussions of the EU’s ‘punishments’.

The disputes between Brussels and Budapest have persisted for years, although they usually resulted in compromises. But all that changed in 2022 when Russia’s military operation in Ukraine revealed significant differences between the interests of Hungary as a sovereign state and those of the EU as a supranational political entity.

How Ukraine exacerbated the divide between Hungary and Europe

The divergence in Hungary’s and Brussels’ approaches to the Ukraine crisis became evident as early as February 2022. Budapest consistently advocated for a peaceful resolution through dialogue, while the EU, following the lead of the Biden administration in the US, focused on “strategically defeating” Russia on the battlefield.

Moreover, Orban prohibited the transit of lethal weapons to Ukraine from third countries through Hungarian territory. And of course, Hungary itself does not supply weapons to the Ukrainian military.

As a bordering state with Ukraine, Hungary prioritizes its own national security and has expressed concerns about being drawn into the conflict instigated by the Ukrainian government. 

Budapest also had grievances against Kiev, particularly regarding its failure to protect the ethnic Hungarian minority living in Transcarpathia. Furthermore, the ban on Hungarian-language education and the forced conscription of ethnic Hungarians exacerbated tensions between Hungary and Ukraine.

Still, compromises were generally reached – either through negotiations, mutual concessions, or direct threats to cut off Hungary’s access to EU funds. 

The dynamics shifted after Trump returned to the White House, effectively removing the US from the coalition supporting Ukraine. This compelled the EU to expedite decision-making processes regarding sanctions and aid to Ukraine. And now, amid the backdrop of the US and Israel’s war against Iran, the EU also faces serious energy issues. 

The EU is grappling with an incredibly complex challenge: it needs to arm Ukraine, find additional funds for skyrocketing fuel costs, and continue exerting pressure on Russia. Meanwhile, Hungary is blocking the implementation of the 20th package of sanctions on Russia and, even more significantly for the EU, a €90 billion ($105 billion) loan for Kiev. According to the Ukrainian press, this could mean that Kiev will run out of money for the war by the summer.

Budapest’s actions are driven by Ukraine’s blockade of the Druzhba oil pipeline, which transports crude oil from Russia to Hungary. Ukraine claims that the pipeline has been damaged by a Russian attack, but denies inspection teams from Hungary and the EU access to the site, which certainly undermines the credibility of Kiev’s statements in Budapest’s eyes.

Things escalated to the point where Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky directly threatened Orban, saying he would send guys from the Ukrainian armed forces to talk to the Hungarian prime minister “in their language.” Even the European Commission felt compelled to criticize Zelensky, albeit very delicately (which is hardly surprising). 

With the end of direct US financial support for Ukraine, the urgency of Western funding has intensified. Any delays instigated by Orban could prove disastrous for Europe’s plans to weaken Russia.

Meanwhile, Brussels is still trying to probe Russia’s ‘red lines’, attempting to push them further away.

This is no longer just an internal political debate about shaping Hungary’s political landscape; it has evolved into a broader discussion about differing views on European security. Should Moscow’s interests be considered in constructing the continent’s security architecture (as Budapest believes), or should they be disregarded entirely (as Brussels believes)?

So in order to strengthen sanctions and unlock funding for Ukraine, the European Commission hopes that the Hungarian people will vote against Orban on April 12.

Will anything change if Orban loses?

Predicting the outcome of this year’s parliamentary elections in Hungary is quite challenging. Political analysts agree that the chances for Fidesz and Tisza are roughly equal. However, even if Magyar wins, most likely he would not be a convenient choice for Brussels either. His agenda appears equally nationalistic, and he’s not likely to budge on issues such as immigration or Ukraine’s accession to the EU – in these aspects, at least, there seems to be a consensus among Hungarian politicians.

However, one thing is certain: Magyar will back Brussels’ anti-Russian foreign policy course, especially since he has expressed a desire to restore the significance of the Visegrad Group by strengthening ties with Poland. Essentially, Tisza aims to align the approach to Ukraine with the broader centrist European establishment. In practice, this means expediting the resolution of issues, thus helping Brussels fuel the Ukraine conflict.

It’s no coincidence that Orban’s party has integrated Zelensky’s image into its campaign; if Tisza comes to power, EU funds could flow more swiftly to Kiev. This would only prolong the conflict and worsen Hungary’s situation as it moves further away from Russian energy sources in favor of the supranational interests of the EU.

Moscow believes the US-Iran ceasefire has a regional dimension and extends to Lebanon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told his Iranian counterpart Abbas Aragchi in a phone call on Thursday, according to a readout. 

Lavrov stated that Russia fully supports the cessation of hostilities between the US and Iran and Israel’s accession to those agreements. He expressed hope for the success of the upcoming negotiations and reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to help “overcome the consequences of the unprovoked US‑Israeli aggression against Iran and ensure long-term peace and sustainable security in the region.” 

The Russian minister also emphasized that Moscow “firmly believes that these agreements, as announced by the Pakistani mediators, have a regional dimension and, in particular, extend to Lebanon.”  

Israel has insisted that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire deal and said it intends to continue operations in the country, where it has conducted extensive airstrikes and launched a ground invasion.  

Shortly after the US-Iranian ceasefire was announced, the Israeli military said it carried out its largest wave of strikes on Lebanon since the war began, hitting approximately 100 targets across the country in just ten minutes.  

Iran has made clear that Lebanon must be included in any cessation of hostilities. It has also warned that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed to shipping until Israel commits to a ceasefire on all fronts. 

Araghchi thanked Lavrov for Russia’s “principled position” during UN Security Council meetings on the situation in the Persian Gulf, according to the ministry. The two diplomats also discussed broader regional security issues. 

Moscow has consistently condemned the US‑Israeli campaign against Iran, which began on February 28. Russia has called for de‑escalation and a diplomatic solution, while accusing Washington of violating international law.  

The Kremlin has also criticized Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, including a March attack on a Russian cultural center in the southern city of Nabatieh.

Former US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was fired by President Donald Trump last week, will not be required to testify about her handling of the investigation into late financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the Justice Department (DOJ) has announced.

In a letter explaining the decision, the DOJ argued that Bondi was summoned to appear before Congress in her official capacity – a role she no longer holds – rendering the demand invalid. However, lawmakers from both parties have insisted that she remains legally obligated to appear.

“The removal of Pam Bondi as attorney general does not diminish the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests in seeking her sworn testimony,” Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace and her fellow legislator, Democrat Ro Khanna, have said.

Mace further stressed that Bondi “cannot escape accountability simply because she no longer holds the office,” and that her testimony is “even more important” now.

Democratic Representative Robert Garcia has threatened to initiate Congressional contempt proceedings if Bondi fails to appear, insisting she must “come in to testify immediately” about the Epstein files and the “White House cover-up.”

Bondi’s refusal comes as the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files has faced a mounting backlash ever since Congress passed a law last year requiring the DOJ to release all unclassified records related to the financier, who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

In February 2025, Bondi told Fox News that Epstein’s “client list” was “sitting on my desk right now to review,” fueling expectations of explosive revelations. By July, however, the DOJ announced that no such list ever existed and that it had no plans to release additional documents. 

Bondi’s refusal to publish the full Epstein files has been widely ridiculed, including by both Democrats and Republicans. The former official reportedly even had to move into military housing over mounting threats.

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is scheduled to testify in a closed‑door transcribed interview in June. Gates has not been accused of any misconduct, and his representatives say he “welcomes the opportunity to appear before the committee.” 

Other prominent figures who have already testified include former president Bill Clinton and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and billionaire Les Wexner.

Norway is assisting Ukraine with preparing “terrorist attacks” on Russian commercial vessels in the Barents and Norwegian seas, TASS has reported, citing a defense source.

Around 50 Ukrainian drone operators have already arrived in the NATO country and begun their training, the agency said in an article on Thursday.

According to the source, they are “practicing the use of submerged and surface unmanned systems in the Norwegian Sea in cold conditions together with experts of the Norwegian Navy’s special operations command.”

The plan by Kiev and Oslo is to target ships heading in and out of Murmansk, which is Russia’s largest Arctic port, located in the north-west of the country, a source told TASS.

“The Norwegian leadership’s assistance to the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities and the provision of its territory for preparation and execution of sabotage at sea directly draws Norway and the entire NATO bloc into a military conflict with Russia,” the source stressed.

In February, Norwegian intelligence agencies issued a report which described Russia as the “greatest threat” to the security of the Nordic nation and the whole of Europe. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described the paper as a collection of “fantasies” and “baseless accusations,” stressing that “the deliberate escalation of tensions” by Norway contradicts the interests of both Moscow and Oslo.

The authorities in Moscow have repeatedly said they harbor no aggressive plans against NATO and will only fight the bloc if it attacks Russia first.

Ukrainian drones have previously targeted vessels transporting Russian oil and other goods in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Kiev also attacked the port of Novorossiysk, which accounts for some 20% of Russia’s crude oil exports, and energy facilities in various parts of the country.

Washington has called on Americans to avoid traveling to Nigeria and has approved the departure of non‑emergency embassy staff and their relatives from the capital Abuja, pointing to a deteriorating security environment. 

In an updated advisory released Wednesday, the US Department of State specifically advised against travel to northern and central states – including Plateau, Jigawa, Kwara, Niger and Taraba – due to terrorism and armed violence, as well as regions in the northwest and southeast plagued by unrest and criminal gangs. 

According to the advisory, violent crime is “common throughout Nigeria,” ranging from armed robbery and carjacking to hostage-taking and roadside banditry.

“Americans are perceived as wealthy and are often targets of crime and kidnapping,” the statement read. 

The West African state has long struggled with criminal gangs and extremist groups, which frequently hold people for ransom. This gained global attention in 2014 when Boko Haram militants kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls from Chibok in Borno State. ISWAP is a Boko Haram splinter group, which has conducted attacks on military and civilian targets. 

At least 20 people were killed after armed militants attacked in Bagna and Erena in Shiroro Local Government Area of Niger State earlier this week. 

US Ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III formally presented his credentials to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on Wednesday, saying he has “fallen in love” with the country amid strained relations between Washington and Pretoria.

He made the statement in a message he delivered as he formally presented his diplomatic credentials to President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Bozell handed over his Letters of Credence and Recall during an official ceremony at the Sefako M. Makgatho Presidential Guesthouse on Wednesday, marking the formal start of his tenure as Washington’s envoy.

“Mr President, before I arrived here, I cannot tell you how many people told me that, in short, I’ll fall in love with the country. It’s only taken two months, and I can confirm that has happened.”

Bozell said the US and South Africa are two nations with “shared values and interests”.

ICYMI: Ambassador L. Brent Bozell III had a few words to share with President Ramaphosa at his credentialing ceremony 🇺🇸🇿🇦 pic.twitter.com/V6h1B3I4Ua

— US Embassy SA (@USEmbassySA) April 8, 2026

“Perhaps not enough people understand this, but you, your excellency, were the primary author of your constitution. You do understand that.

”It’s my goal and my time here to build on the shared interests, to build on self-respect, to build on our shared values, to take our two nations to places they’ve never been before. I believe in the art of the possible, and I believe it will happen.”

Despite tensions, Wednesday’s ceremony emphasised continued diplomatic engagement.

Bozell was among representatives from 20 countries, including Zimbabwe, Cuba and Denmark, whose credentials were accepted by Ramaphosa.

First published by IOL

A federal judge has barred the administration of US President Donald Trump from ending the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) that has allowed more than 5,000 Ethiopian nationals to live and work in the US since 2022.

The US Department of Homeland Security announced in December that it was terminating TPS for Ethiopians, saying conditions in the country no longer justified the designation. The protections were due to expire on February 13, but District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston temporarily halted the move on January 30 ahead of that deadline.

In the latest ruling on Wednesday, Murphy concluded that Washington acted “without regard for the process delineated by Congress” and that the decision was “preordained” and based on “pretextual” reasons.

The lawsuit was filed by three Ethiopian nationals and the advocacy group African Communities Together. In March, the court extended its temporary pause after hearing arguments, leaving the protections in place unless a later order says otherwise. Plaintiffs challenging the move argued that the administration acted unlawfully in ending the program despite continued violence and instability in parts of Ethiopia.

The ruling marks the latest setback for the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policy. TPS shields foreign nationals from deportation and allows them to work in the US when conditions in their home countries are deemed unsafe. Since Trump returned to office last year, his administration has moved to phase out the program for 13 countries, including Somalia and South Sudan.

Republican US Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri has criticized the court decision as “absurd” and an “assault on the rule of law,” adding that Judge Murphy “lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to issue this order.”

US President Donald Trump has lashed out at NATO over the inaction of European allies during the war with Iran.

Trump, according to sources close to bloc chief Mark Rutte who spoke to Bloomberg, has issued an ultimatum to its members demanding a commitment to help secure the Strait of Hormuz “within days. ”

“NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN,” Trump posted on Thursday on his social media platform Truth Social.

Trump’s anger follows weeks of criticism of European NATO members for what he sees as their refusal to support the US-Israeli war on Iran. Spain has refused outright to allow US planes use its bases, while Germany and the UK have refused to condemn Trump or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claiming only “this is not our war.”

Rutte described the exchange as a “very frank, very open” discussion between “two good friends.” He said in a Thursday interview with CNN, however, that Trump was “clearly disappointed” that US allies had refused to take part in the Iran war. Asked multiple times if Trump had said if he would leave the alliance, Rutte did not answer directly.

"Is the world safer today than it was before the war was started?"
Secretary-General of NATO, Mark Rutte: "Absolutely, and this is thanks to President Trump's leadership" pic.twitter.com/jjOWexNsOg

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) April 9, 2026

Rutte has faced a barrage of criticism in Europe for his perceived deference toward Trump. During a joint press appearance last year, he jokingly called the US president “Daddy,” drawing media attention and ridicule.

Ahead of the latest meeting, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told journalists that a possible US withdrawal from the bloc is “something the president has discussed.” She also said that Trump could raise the issue with Rutte.

A US Army veteran who worked with the elite Delta Force commando unit has been charged with providing top secret data to a reporter, the US Department of Justice has said.

Courtney Williams of Wagram, North Carolina was indicted by a federal grand jury on Wednesday over “her alleged transmission of classified national defense information to individuals not authorized to receive it, including a journalist,” the DOJ said in a statement. The preliminary charge against the 40-year-old carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison.

The court filings did not name the reporter in question, but Politico and other outlets identified him as Seth Harp, author of the 2025 non-fiction book ‘The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces’.

Williams, who held a position providing paperwork allowing special operations troops to covertly deploy abroad between 2010 and 2016, is mentioned as a source in the book on multiple occasions. It also contains several of her photos.

The DOJ said that the veteran held a ‘Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information security clearance’ and signed non-disclosure agreements when she joined and departed her unit.

Williams will remain in custody at least until Monday, when the judge is scheduled to decide on the request by the prosecutors to keep her detained pending trial.

FBI director Kash Patel said in a post on X on Thursday that Williams’ arrest was the result of “outstanding work” by his agency’s operatives.

“Let this serve as a message to any would-be leakers: we’re working these cases, and we’re making arrests. This FBI will not tolerate those who seek to betray our country and put Americans in harm’s way,” Patel wrote.

Harp called the veteran’s indictment “an outrage,” arguing that “[President Donald] Trump’s unhinged DOJ will not even say what ‘classified information’ she allegedly leaked.”

During nearly six weeks of the war on Iran, the US has suffered heavy military aircraft losses, now exceeding those recorded during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Iran’s recent downing of an American F-35 jet marks the first time in 23 years that a US fighter jet has been shot down in combat; the previous instance was in Iraq in 2003, when an A‑10 was lost. 

Over the seven years of the Iraq campaign from 2003 to 2009, total US aviation losses amounted to 129 helicopters and 24 fixed‑wing aircraft, with only 46 attributed to hostile fire. The remaining cases were due to malfunctions, fuel exhaustion, and pilot error.

Since the start of the Iran war, the US has lost at least 44 aircraft, including the first incident of the US fifth-generation stealth F-35 Lightning II being hit. The list includes four F-15E Strike Eagle (the Wall Street Journal cited a fact sheet stating that the original model costs at least $31 million, while the cost of newer models is close to $100 million), two A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, two Lockheed C-130 Hercules, two Boeing E-3 Sentries, eight Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers, one Boeing CH-47 Chinook, one Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk (damaged), two Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks (damaged), four MH-6 Little Bird helicopters, and 17 General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers (at about $30 million each, totalling close to $500 million).

High-value AWACS and multiple KC-135 tankers were damaged by Iranian strikes on regional airbases.  In the first four days of the war, Iran hit almost all US military bases (or locations hosting US aircraft) in the Gulf. It struck key US ground radars linked to the THAAD air‑defense system, other early‑warning radars, and multiple radar and communication nodes.

In the UAE, an area of Al Dhafra base with several satellite antennas was hit, while it is still unclear whether the AN/TPY‑2 radar of the THAAD system at Al Ruwais was damaged. In Kuwait, structures at Ali Al Salem base connected to SATCOM systems were damaged, and at least three radar domes at Camp Arifjan were destroyed.

At Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan base, at least one strike hit a satellite‑communications area where an AN/TPY‑2 radar had previously been deployed. The large AN/FPS‑132 fixed‑face AESA early‑warning and long‑range anti‑ballistic radar at Al Udeid in Qatar also appears to have been struck. Iranian sources further claim damage to another AN/TPY‑2 at Muwaffaq Salti base in Jordan, though this remains unconfirmed. In Kuwait, in addition to damage to some structures at the Ali al Salem base that appear to be connected to SATCOM systems, at least three radar domes at Camp Arifjan were destroyed.

Most of these high‑value radars – along with aerial refuellers and AEW&C assets – were targeted using ballistic missiles or relatively inexpensive Shahed drones (costing between $20,000 and $50,000 each).

While US lost many high-value ground assets in the region and nearly 44 aircraft, Israel had minimal losses on the ground and only slow-moving UAVs in the air. Israel is a regional player, and has had years of experience in targeting ground assets in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, among others. Israel has been perpetually at war. Being a small country, it has been conscious of securing its assets under hardened shelters. It has nearly ten Iron Dome-class AD systems, among others, such as David’s Sling and Arrow. The Israeli Air Force has fine-tuned tactics to keep its own assets secure.

The reasons behind US losses

The Iranian Air Force was grounded or destroyed in the early air action by the US and Israel, which have flown more than 10,000 combat flights since the conflict began. The Iranian Air Force was no match for the US Air Force in terms of numbers and technology. While a significant number of Iranian air defenses were also neutralized, enough survived to engage adversary assets.

The fact that F-35 stealth fighter jet could be tracked and engaged indicates the possibility of Iran having used Chinese YLC-8B and YLC-8E advanced, mobile Chinese UHF-band 3D surveillance radars specifically designed to detect low-observable, stealth aircraft. Iran might have also used up-to-date intelligence from Russian satellites, often including the position of airborne aircraft.

The US lost more aircraft in the air due to a lack of coordination with the Gulf countries, where most of its assets are located. Also, more action has shifted south near the Strait of Hormuz, and when Iran started hitting assets in the countries that allowed housing US assets. Many of their radars and large air platforms were lying in the open. These assets were thus a relatively easy target. Iranians used drones and drone swarms to hit US military assets.

While the US Air Force and Navy have been exercising regularly with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, including “large force engagements,” the GCC nations have had almost no combat experience. Early coordination challenges with Gulf host nations, contributed to incidents like the initial friendly-fire loss of three F-15Es over Kuwait.

While the US campaign initially succeeded in degrading Iranian air defenses and leadership, it encountered serious operational and strategic failures as the conflict continued. The US underestimated Iranian defenses and tactics. Reports indicate that Tehran could have 50% of its missile launchers and drones intact.

Iran successfully targeted US military installations across the region, including in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq, causing significant casualties. This demonstrated that US air dominance did not equate to security on the ground. Tehran relies heavily on inexpensive, locally produced drones like the Shahed, costing $20,000–$50,000, to overwhelm sophisticated, expensive air defenses as part of asymmetric warfare. Iran is fostering closer military ties with Russia, supplying drones in exchange for advanced technologies such as the S-400 system.

The US repeated mistakes from previous conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq) by relying solely on aerial destruction without a viable, clear “day-after” political strategy to replace the targeted regime. Despite neutralizing senior leadership, the “rally-around-the-flag” effect became visible.

The conflict has already exhausted US military resources significantly, including high-value assets like Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors, creating shortages in other critical theaters such as Europe and Asia. Most NATO members refused to join or help in replenishments. The global economic downturn caused by the war has been of great concern and is likely to have played a role in the ceasefire announced by US President Donald Trump.

Bangladesh is battling a major measles outbreak, with the government reporting more than 1,000 suspected cases across the country in 24 hours.

The Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) said that 1,248 suspected and 189 confirmed measles cases were reported from 8 AM on Tuesday to 8 AM Wednesday, the Dhaka Tribune reported.

Ten suspected deaths were also recorded during the period, including six in the capital, Dhaka, which registered the highest number of suspected cases at 505.

The DGHS has reported 11,133 suspected and 1,599 confirmed measles cases nationwide between March 15 and April 8.

Health officials said the data reflects only cases recorded in government hospitals, adding that the actual number of infections could be significantly higher.

A surge in infections, deaths, and hospital admissions has been reported from across the South Asian nation.

Dhaka is conducting emergency measles-rubella vaccinations while trying to contain the outbreak, which has killed more than 100 children in less than a month, the Associated Press reported.

The government said vaccination for children aged from six months to five years old in 18 high-risk districts began on Sunday in association with the World Health Organization (WHO).

Measles is a highly contagious airborne disease causing fever and respiratory issues, and can have severe or fatal complications, especially in young children, according to the WHO.

The WHO says 95% of the population has to be vaccinated in order to stop the disease from spreading.

France’s top military commander has told the country’s parliament that the prospect of a direct conflict with Russia is his “primary concern,” insisting on ramping up military spending as Paris reportedly prepares to shift to a “war economy.”

General Fabien Mandon, the chief of staff of the French Armed Forces, made the statement during a hearing before the National Assembly’s Defense Committee about a proposed update to the 2024-2030 military programming and budget.

“An open war with Russia remains my primary concern in terms of preparing the armed forces,” he told lawmakers, pointing to what he called “the continued presence of a Russian threat on our continent.”

Mandon, who had previously warned of a potential “clash in three or four years” with Moscow, insisted that France is in a “dangerous period” and desperately needs more investment in the military.

The general’s remarks come as the French government has announced a revised long-term military budget that would see it spend an additional €36 billion ($42 billion) on weapons, pushing annual spending to €76.3 billion by 2030, or 2.5% of GDP. 

The shift is being carried out “with a view to preparing for a ‘war economy’,” the document read. 

France’s rearmament push comes amid a wider European militarization trend as Germany is also undergoing a massive buildup, with Berlin planning to spend more than €500 billion on defense by 2029 and aiming to increase its active troops from 180,000 to over 260,000 by 2035. 

Moscow has consistently dismissed Western allegations of an imminent Russian attack as “nonsense,” arguing that such claims are used to justify record military spending, distract from domestic problems, and whip up anti-Russian hysteria. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in February that Moscow “has no intention of attacking any part of Europe” and has “absolutely no reason to do so.” He warned, however, that if European nations launch an attack on Russia, “there will be a full-scale military response with all available military means.”

Russia and Ukraine have conducted a repatriation of the bodies of fallen troops, continuing a string of roughly-monthly humanitarian actions launched last year.

In the latest round on Thursday, 1,000 sets of Ukrainian remains were handed over to Kiev, while Russia received 41 bodies, as witnessed by Ruptly video agency.

The previous such event, facilitated by the International Committee of the Red Cross, was reported in late February, while in early March Kiev and Moscow returned 300 POWs each.

The ratio of soldiers sent back for burial has remained mostly consistent over the months, suggesting a significant difference in attrition taken by the two sides of the Ukraine conflict. However, there is no strict correlation, considering that Russian forces have long been making territorial gains and consequently collect more bodies of Ukrainian troops killed in action.

Kiev relies on mandatory conscription to replenish its battlefield losses, enforced with harsh tactics increasingly rejected by the Ukrainian public. In recent months there was an uptick in serious injuries and even death reported during confrontations between draft officers and civilians. The manpower shortage is further exacerbated by mass desertion of conscripts.

The death toll from heavy rains and flooding in Angola has risen to 42, with casualties reported across several provinces following last weekend’s downpours, Televisao Publica de Angola (TPA) reported on Tuesday, citing official data.  

Most victims were recorded in Benguela, the authorities said, while fatalities were also confirmed in Luanda, Cuanza Sul, and Malanje. Officials are continuing to assess the full scale of the damage. 

The storms caused significant damage to housing and infrastructure, including fallen trees, flooding from overflowed retention basins and landslides. Nearly 685 infrastructure facilities were affected, while dozens of families were left in vulnerable conditions. 

“In total, 55 families were affected, corresponding to approximately 275 people in a vulnerable situation, due to the collapse of homes mostly built with local materials,” Angola’s Civil Protection and Fire Department stated. The authorities reported the rains lasted from April 2 to April 6. 

Clean-up and recovery operations have been launched, including water removal, debris clearance and assistance to affected residents. 

Heavy rains that began in late 2025 have resulted in widespread flooding across parts of southern Africa, overwhelming drainage systems and causing rivers and dams to surge beyond capacity. In South Africa, prolonged downpours have inundated Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces, killing at least 30 people, damaging thousands of homes, and prompting evacuations, including in Kruger National Park. 

Zimbabwe has also experienced extensive flooding, with at least 70 deaths, 51 injuries, and more than 1,000 homes destroyed since early January.

Plans for automated military conscription during a US national emergency are advancing and on schedule to be in place by the end of the year, according to the federal agency tasked with maintaining the list, the Selective Service System (SSS).

Provisions included in the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act passed last December in response to falling compliance shifted the responsibility from individuals to the SSS.

The changes drew renewed attention this week after media outlets highlighted a recent update on the agency’s website. The SSS is expected to finalize implementation by December 2026, aiming for a “streamlined registration process and corresponding workforce realignment.”

Currently, most adult males under the age of 26 living in the US – including undocumented immigrants – are required to register for potential conscription. The millions who fail to do so can face penalties of up to $250,000 in fines, five years in prison, and restrictions on obtaining citizenship. Under the new system, the SSS would instead build its registry using personal data from multiple government databases.

In recent years, the Pentagon has faced mounting challenges in both recruiting volunteers and maintaining the national draft list. Standards for enlistment have been lowered to address recruitment shortfalls, while the shift to automatic registration is intended to boost the pool for possible conscription.

Several anti-war organizations have urged Congress to reconsider the change. They argue the system “won’t produce an accurate or complete list of potential draftees,” but at the same time “will increase the likelihood of war and violate the privacy of US citizens and residents.” Critics believe that the aggregated database will be “vulnerable to misuse and weaponization” by both government entities and private actors.

The EU is relying on non-governmental organizations, bankrolled by billionaire financier George Soros, as well as controlled media to justify its push for more online surveillance and censorship, Telegram founder Pavel Durov has said.

On Wednesday, state-owned broadcaster France 24 reported on a study by NGO AI Forensics that said nearly 25,000 users in Spanish and Italian Telegram groups had shared thousands of images of naked women, often in exchange for money, while also engaging in doxxing and harassment of women.

The study said the images and videos were sourced from platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, with Telegram acting as “a hub” for organizing and circulating abusive content.

It added the platform’s privacy features such as end-to-end encryption and paid access to channels enabled abusive behavior to develop with a high degree of security and impunity.

AI Forensics blamed Telegram for failure to clampdown on such groups and advised the EU to classify it as a “very large online platform” (VLOP), which allows for stricter oversight under the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

However, the narrative by AI Forensics, which is “a Soros-funded contractor to the European Commission,” is being widely distributed by the press, including “globalist outlets” like El Pais, Der Spiegel and Wired along with French media, he said in a post on Telegram.

“I doubt anyone still takes these organizations seriously – most of them lost people’s trust during the COVID era. But it’s important to call out all such attempts at public manipulation, because they are used to take away what's left of our freedoms,” the Russian-born tech mogul stressed.

Durov is currently facing legal proceedings in France after being arrested and spending several days behind bars in Paris in 2024 on allegations that Telegram failed to deter criminal activity on the platform. The entrepreneur maintains that his prosecution is politically motivated.

Bangladesh has sought more fuel from India to offset a supply shortage triggered by the Middle East conflict.

Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman, who was in New Delhi on an official visit on Wednesday, met with India’s minister of petroleum and natural Gas, Hardeep Singh Puri, and conveyed Dhaka’s request.

Puri said the request would be considered “readily and favorably,” Bangladesh’s ⁠Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Dhaka has also sought higher volumes of fertilizer, Reuters reported.

Petroleum & Natural Gas Minister @HardeepSPuri met Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dr Khalilur Rahman.

The meeting focused on enhancing bilateral cooperation in the energy sector, with both sides discussing key areas of collaboration.

Follow the complete story on #PBSHABD. Register… https://t.co/amkMSQFKmf

— PB-SHABD (@PBSHABD) April 8, 2026

Bangladesh relies on imports for about 95% of its energy requirements for its 175 million people. India is expected to supply 180,000 tonnes of diesel to its neighbor each year.

Rahman also met with his Indian counterpart, S.Jaishankar, and Commerce Minister Piyush Goel.

The visit comes as Bangladesh’s new dispensation is seeking to build a fresh chapter in its bilateral relationship with India.

It is the first high-level visit from Bangladesh since Tarique Rahman was sworn in as prime minister in February.

The Bangladeshi side also reiterated its request to extradite former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, who have been handed the death penalty, to Bangladesh, the PTI news agency reported.

The two sides agreed that Hasina’s stay in India should not be allowed to impede ties between the two countries, according to the report.

Bilateral ties, which became strained after Hasina fled to India following an uprising in 2024, have been on the mend since Rahman assumed power in February.

The almost apocalyptic rhetoric from US President Donald Trump, who threatened that “a whole civilization will die tonight,” suddenly gave way to de-escalation. By the evening of April 7, it was announced that the US and Iran had agreed to a two-week ceasefire; shortly afterward, Israel confirmed it would join. Over these two weeks, negotiations toward a permanent peace deal are due to be held with Pakistan acting as mediator.

This is exactly the scenario we saw as the most likely from the very beginning of the conflict.

The war could still resume (we’ll get to that below), but for now it looks like things are moving toward a reality where the Persian Gulf is, in fact, becoming Persian. Iran now effectively controls shipping in the Gulf and holds the Arab oil monarchies at risk – and the US appears to be accepting that.

Let’s assume the pause in hostilities lasts months – or even years. That’s entirely plausible: even if a formal peace deal doesn’t materialize, the ceasefire could simply be extended over and over again.

In that case, the top priority for the Arab states will be building a new generation of air defense. The blueprint is fairly clear: rely on cheap, mass-produced interceptors, whether ground-based (such as Russia’s Pantsir) or air-launched (like APKWS). Both Arab states and Israel will likely focus on this, alongside replenishing their traditional air defense stockpiles.

The second priority will be diversifying logistics – building new pipelines to the Red Sea and finding alternatives to Gulf shipping routes. The goal is obvious: break free from Iran’s Strait of Hormuz chokehold and reduce its leverage. That said, for countries like Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Iraq, pipelines across the Arabian Peninsula would mean dependence on another regional power – Saudi Arabia. And, of course, transit fees would apply.

None of this solves the core problem. The geography of the Gulf makes full protection impossible. Across more than 500 nautical miles (about 1,000 km) – like something out of an old arcade shooter – every shipping lane is within Iran’s reach. Along the coastline, ports, factories, desalination plants, oil storage facilities, data centers, hotels, and skyscrapers sit exposed like targets at a shooting range. Defending all of that from the sea is extremely difficult, and for the time being, the Arab states will likely choose to pay for safe passage.

In the East, one of the highest marks of a wise ruler is the ability to impose tribute on neighbors and make them acknowledge your authority. That principle is well understood in both Iran and the Arab world. Ironically, the US and Israel may have helped bring about a new regional order that actually fits local political logic.

Now Washington and West Jerusalem will face a long, uphill battle to rebuild their influence – and any move they make will be viewed with skepticism by Arab states: what if it all falls apart again? The alpha wolf missed his mark.

Scenario 2: Renewed escalation

It’s entirely possible that in two weeks the war could flare up again – potentially with even greater intensity. Iranian negotiators could be targeted again, triggering an earlier collapse of the ceasefire. Still, we see this as relatively unlikely: despite the considerable military capabilities of the US and Israel, they currently lack a clear path to decisively defeat Iran through conventional means.

Realistically, short of a nuclear scenario, the coalition has two main options.

Meanwhile, Iran’s missile capabilities have not only survived but shown signs of recovery and increased operational tempo. And US forces have been unable to seriously disrupt Iran’s drone launch infrastructure (including Shahed-type UAVs). That means any large-scale bombing campaign risks triggering significant retaliatory damage – especially against the oil-producing Arab monarchies – prolonging and deepening the global oil shock and potentially pushing the world toward a financial crisis.

Israel would also be exposed. According to a JPMorgan report citing the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the success rate of Iranian strikes on Israeli territory has surged – from 3% at the start of the war to 27% by late March and early April – largely due to the strain and depletion of Israeli air defenses.

The second option – a large-scale ground operation, either along Iran’s coastline or against Iranian-controlled islands – comes with all the risks of air warfare plus inevitable heavy casualties. The upside? Essentially none. Limited amphibious raids would achieve little, while a full-scale invasion aimed at regime change is simply not feasible.

None of this means escalation is off the table. It means that before escalating, US and Israeli leadership would have to solve the same equation they faced at the start of the war – but now with far fewer unknowns. Iran’s resilience, its military capabilities, and the extent of US-Israeli international isolation are now much clearer.

Scenario 3: Low-level clashes under Iranian control of Hormuz

This is essentially a variation of the first scenario – and, in our view, the most likely one. In fact, it already appears to be unfolding: Iran is accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire with new strikes and is threatening (and likely preparing) to retaliate.

If traffic through the Strait of Hormuz continues more or less uninterrupted, a pattern of ongoing tension and sporadic exchanges could become the new normal. Israel carries out strikes (or Iran claims it was attacked); Iran responds by temporarily shutting down the strait for a day or two – maybe launching a retaliatory strike of its own.

After a few weeks or months, this kind of news simply fades into the background – a constant, low-level risk. The region becomes less stable, but the rest of the world largely shrugs – as long as oil and other resources keep flowing out of the Persian Gulf.

Zimbabwe’s government has said it will impose export quotas on lithium concentrates and set conditions for the resumption of suspended shipments, tightening state control over a mineral critical to global battery supply chains.

The southern African nation’s Mines Ministry announced the measure in an April 2 letter to the Chamber of Mines, Reuters reported on Wednesday. Under the new rules, producers must publish annual financial statements and meet labor, safety, and environmental standards.

“Approved lithium concentrate export quotas will be communicated to each producer,” the ministry said, according to Reuters.

Mining companies will also have to provide written commitments and timelines for building lithium sulphate plants before January 1, 2027, when Zimbabwe’s planned ban on lithium concentrate exports is due to take effect. A 10% export tax on concentrate shipments will remain in place until then.

The country is Africa’s largest and the world’s fourth largest producer of lithium, a key component in electric-vehicle batteries and renewable energy storage systems. It reportedly exported more than 1.1 million metric tons of lithium-bearing spodumene concentrate, most of it to China, in 2025, accounting for about 15% of Chinese imports of the material that year.

Chinese company Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt has built a $400 million lithium sulphate plant in Zimbabwe, while Sinomine and Yahua have also announced plans to build processing facilities at their mines.

Zimbabwe’s neighbor Malawi banned exports of unprocessed minerals last October in a bid to spur investment in local processing capacity, while Namibia prohibited bulk exports of unprocessed ores in 2023 to encourage domestic beneficiation.

India has restarted high-level talks with Türkiye after a gap of four years, the Foreign Ministry in New Delhi has said.

The 12th round of India-Türkiye Foreign Office Consultations (FOC) was held in New Delhi on Wednesday, according to an official statement. The event was co-chaired by Sibi George, Secretary (West), Ministry of External Affairs, and Berris Ekinci, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Türkiye.

The last FOC round was held in June 2022 in Ankara.

“The discussions focused on areas such as trade and investments, tourism, technology and innovation, energy, cooperation in educational and cultural fields, people-to-people ties, and fight against cross-border terrorism,” the Indian Foreign Ministry said.

12th round of Türkiye-India Political Consultations were held in New Delhi btw the delegations led by Deputy Min. Amb. Berris Ekinci and Amb. Sibi George, Secretary (West) of the MEA of India.

Bilateral relations, as well as current regional & global developments were discussed. pic.twitter.com/ANKdtjv6ft

— Türkiye in India (@TC_YeniDelhiBE) April 8, 2026

A comprehensive review of bilateral relations was also held, apart from an exchange of views on regional and global issues.

The next FOC round will be held in Türkiye.

Earlier this week, India held talks with Azerbaijan aimed at resetting bilateral ties.

New Delhi’s ties with Türkiye hit a low following Ankara’s backing of Pakistan during a military standoff in South Asia in May 2025.

India did not invite Türkiye to its briefing to foreign envoys on the military confrontation as a mark of protest against Ankara’s support for Islamabad.
Officials had also reportedly flagged concerns about the supply of military equipment by nations including Türkiye and Azerbaijan to Pakistan after the standoff.

Türkiye, along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, had reportedly played a role in brokering a ceasefire in the US-Iran conflict.

Turkish Ambassador to India Ali Murat Ersoy has said the time was ripe for Ankara and New Delhi to “breathe new life into their diplomatic relations,” The Hindu reported.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Türkiye’s President Recep Erdogan in 2023 at the G20 summit in New Delhi, while Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar’s last meeting with his Turkish counterpart took place in February 2024 on the sidelines of an ASEAN summit.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk is seeking to have OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman fired as part of his lawsuit against the artificial intelligence giant, court documents filed on Tuesday show.

The mogul sued OpenAI in 2024, accusing it of defrauding him of $38 million in initial funding he contributed when co-founding the company in 2015, under the understanding that it would remain a nonprofit. The AI startup, valued at $852 billion, restructured late last year, and is now run as a nonprofit that holds a 26% stake in its for-profit arm, which includes ChatGPT.

Musk’s lawyers are seeking to “strip Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of their positions of authority and the personal financial benefits they extracted from OpenAI’s illicit for-profit operations and conversion,” according to the latest filing.

Musk left OpenAI in 2018 due to disagreements with Altman, bought Twitter (now X) in 2022, and launched his own artificial intelligence firm xAI the following year.

In February, xAI and OpenAI announced deals with the Pentagon to integrate their artificial intelligence tools into the US military’s classified systems. Altman claimed that his company agreed to cooperate under the condition that its tools would not be used for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.

Anthropic’s newest AI model is “extremely autonomous,” can reason like an advanced security researcher and is far too powerful for public release, the company claimed on Wednesday, as it continues to fight the Pentagon in court.

In Washington, the two-week ceasefire with Iran has been hastily presented as the beginning of de-escalation and as proof that pressure had once again created the conditions for diplomacy. Yet once the political packaging is removed and events are viewed in their true strategic dimension, the picture looks very different.

What really happened is a forced interruption, reached under pressure and surrounded by incompatible interpretations in Washington and Tehran. The temporary nature of this pause, its mediated character, and the striking divergence in how its meaning is understood all indicate that this is not the end of a war, but a breathing space within an unfinished conflict whose core political contradictions remain unresolved.

More importantly, in the eyes of many outside observers and much of global public opinion, Iran now appears to be the clear winner of the present battle. It absorbed the blow, answered with force and dignity, refused capitulation, and most importantly, gradually shifted control over the very logic of a war imposed upon it. The US and Israel had expected to define the rules of the conflict and then present any compelled Iranian retreat as proof of their own victory. What happened in practice was the opposite. Iran not only refused externally imposed terms, but also raised the cost of war to a point where the American military campaign became a political liability for the US itself. That is why this moment is increasingly perceived as a sign that even under conditions of overwhelming technological and military superiority, the US can no longer automatically convert a campaign of strikes into the submission of its opponent.

Why Washington backed off

From the outset, the operation rested on a familiar formula of coercion. The US and Israel proceeded on the assumption that a series of destructive strikes combined with intimidating rhetoric would compel Iran to accept external demands. This logic has long been a hallmark of American policy in the Middle East. First a condition of maximal pressure is created, then the adversary is left with a choice between submission and devastation, after which any tactical retreat is presented as evidence that Washington has imposed its will. But Iran once again exposed the central weakness of that model. A large state with internal mobilization, a resilient political system, and a strong historical consciousness cannot necessarily be broken by a single cycle of punishment, even when that punishment inflicts enormous damage. Iran is not invulnerable, but it has shown itself to be extremely hard to break. Its leadership remained in place, the state system did not disintegrate, its capacity to retaliate was not reduced to irrelevance, and its influence over the strategic environment around the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, by all indications, remained intact.

For that reason, Donald Trump’s sudden reversal in the final hours before the expiry of his own ultimatum should not be read as the confident gesture of a victor, but as the compelled maneuver of a leader urgently seeking an exit from an increasingly dangerous configuration. Shortly before the pause was announced, American rhetoric had already escalated to threats against civilian infrastructure if Iran did not ensure passage through Hormuz on Washington’s terms. Such signals were widely taken as evidence that the crisis had approached an extremely dangerous threshold. The subsequent pivot toward a temporary halt in attacks and toward negotiations means that pressure had begun to work not only against Iran, but against the American side itself. Continuing the war threatened Washington with multiple layers of cost. Military uncertainty remained high, allies were uneasy, markets were reacting nervously, and the prospect of a prolonged conflict without a swift and convincing outcome was becoming increasingly real.

Iran’s losses have hardened it

From a military standpoint, the US and Israel undeniably inflicted serious damage on Iran. Infrastructure was struck, losses were significant, economic pressure intensified, and social strain inside the country increased. But war cannot be measured simply by the number of destroyed targets. In the end, war is judged by whether force achieves the political outcome for which it was launched. And the internal political collapse that the architects of the campaign may have hoped for did not occur.

Iran, by contrast, responded not only militarily, but politically and psychologically. External pressure on this scale almost always produces a double effect. It heightens fear, exhaustion, and anger, yet it can also sharply strengthen a sense of historical community, especially when society perceives events not as pressure on a government alone, but as an attack on the country itself, on its sovereignty, and on its right to independent existence. That is precisely what appears to have happened here. Even if anxiety, confusion, and fatigue accumulated within Iran, the war simultaneously fostered internal consolidation, mass mobilization, and a strengthened conviction that national survival itself was at stake. This is one of the most important reasons why Iran now appears, in the eyes of many external observers, as the winner of the current phase. It turned its own resilience into a political resource, while its adversaries, having begun the war from a position of strength, ultimately found themselves searching for a formula to stop it.

This does not mean that Iran is free of internal problems. It remains a complex country marked by serious social, economic, and political contradictions. But the scale of the attack altered the hierarchy of threats within the country. When a state is subjected to direct strikes, when threats are made against its infrastructure, and when external aggression becomes openly demonstrative, internal dissatisfaction recedes behind the logic of national survival. In that sense, the US and Israel achieved the opposite of what they may have intended. Instead of loosening the internal fabric of Iranian society, they contributed to tightening it. The more the war came to be seen in Iran as an assault on the nation as a whole, the less likely internal political fragmentation became, and the greater society’s willingness to see resistance as the only dignified response.

The outcome for Iran is far from pure triumph. Yet politically it is of enormous importance. Yes, the losses were severe. Yes, economic pressure has not disappeared. Yes, the risk of renewed escalation remains. But in international politics, what matters is not only who suffered more destruction, but who could not be broken. Iran has not been reduced to a passive object of someone else’s will. On the contrary, it has managed to seize the political initiative. If one side begins a war in the expectation of forcing capitulation and ends by turning to mediation and bargaining over the parameters of negotiation, then its original design has already failed.

Ripples across the world 

The regional consequences of the war were equally revealing. The conflict very quickly ceased to be merely about the US, Israel, and Iran. It cast doubt on the entire security architecture of the Middle East, an architecture that for decades rested on the American military umbrella. For a long time, Arab monarchies were offered a relatively simple formula. The US would provide security, and regional partners would pay for it with contracts, political loyalty, and a partial limitation of their own autonomy. But a large war with Iran showed that this structure no longer appears either unconditional or reliable. Any major confrontation with Tehran automatically turns the bases, ports, energy infrastructure, and shipping routes of Washington’s allies into zones of heightened risk. That is why the reaction of Gulf markets to the ceasefire looked almost euphoric in its relief – enormous relief that the region had, at least temporarily, stepped back from the edge of catastrophe.

At the global level, the consequences also extended far beyond the regional theater. Any crisis around the Strait of Hormuz immediately affects the world economy, maritime logistics, insurance markets, energy prices, and the broader psychology of financial systems. The very reaction of markets to the halt in hostilities showed that this war was a systemic danger. This is especially painful for the US because it undermines one of the central pillars of America’s image in the world. For decades, it has sought to present itself not merely as a global source of order. Yet with the Iran war and its consequences, American power increasingly came to be seen as a producer of chaos, which then attempted to repackage a temporary pause as a diplomatic success.

What are the chances for a lasting peace?

The current pause looks not like a strategic settlement, but like a tactical stoppage. The reversal by the White House was simply too abrupt to be seen as part of a long-calculated design. Only recently, the rhetoric had approached an almost apocalyptic register, and suddenly Washington was speaking of a workable basis for future agreement. Such contrasts usually mean that the original scenario either failed or became too dangerous to sustain.

The negotiation process itself is of particular importance. Its structure points to a difficult and complex bargaining process. The American side seeks to present events as the result of successfully applied pressure, while Tehran emphasizes that a ceasefire does not cancel its sovereign claims and does not amount to recognition that the aggressor was right.

There already seems to be struggle over the interpretation of the pause itself. Iran has reportedly submitted to the US, via Pakistani intermediaries, a 10-point peace plan that has to be the basis for any lasting peace it will accept. This plan includes several conditions that Washington has already rejected in the past. But even the fact that such a plan is formally under discussion shows that the US is now compelled to discuss a framework for halting the conflict, while Iran is in a position to advance conditions of its own.

The mediated character of the negotiations suggests that direct trust between the sides is almost entirely absent, and that each fears being trapped within the other’s interpretive framework. In such a context, a mediator is needed to construct a formula sufficiently flexible for both sides to accept in practice without publicly abandoning their own narrative. Washington wants the pause to be seen as the fruit of force. Tehran wants it to be seen as the fruit of endurance and successful resistance. This is the central struggle within the negotiation process.

As for the conditions of the parties, they arise from opposite strategic imperatives. The US wants to restore navigational security, reduce Iran’s capacity for retaliation, and frame negotiations in a way that can be presented to an American audience as evidence that deterrence has been restored. The White House also needs to avoid allowing the conflict to become a prolonged, costly, and politically toxic campaign. Iran, by contrast, wants to fix in place the fact of its own steadfastness, obtain guarantees against renewed strikes, prevent the pause from becoming merely a prelude to a new wave of pressure, and preserve its right to dictate at least some of the terms of future discussion. That is why this conflict cannot be quickly dissolved. The sides are arguing not only over mechanisms, but over the meaning of what has happened. One side is trying to prove the effectiveness of coercion. The other has already, in effect, demonstrated its limits.

Israel was a direct aggressor and an active participant in the pressure campaign, yet in recent weeks its role noticeably receded into the background, because Trump’s sharp statements and ultimatums effectively overshadowed the Israeli factor in the international information space. As a result, Netanyahu largely succeeded in removing himself from the center of critical attention at precisely the moment when that was most advantageous for him. While much of the world was preoccupied with the war around Iran, Israel continued its occupation, destruction, and military pressure in southern Lebanon. This goes to show how easily, amid a larger crisis, attention to Israeli actions can be pushed to the margins even when Israel remains one of the principal sources of destabilization on adjacent fronts.

If the pause does not in fact extend to Lebanon, then that means that the war has not really ended – it has merely been partially reconfigured. One front has been temporarily cooled, another remains active, and the possibility of their renewed convergence remains. This is the clearest sign of a tactical pause. Strategic peace presupposes a new order and a new equilibrium. Nothing of the kind has emerged here. No actor has renounced escalation as such. No one has definitively accepted a new regional configuration. The confrontation has been interrupted, but not overcome.

In the end, the war exposed a structural miscalculation in American strategy. The US and Israel did not abandon the logic of coercion, but they were forced to recognize that this particular phase of coercion had failed to produce the political result they expected. Washington appears to have underestimated Iranian resilience, the scale of Iran’s response, the sensitivity of global markets, the anxiety of its allies, and its own domestic political risks. That is why there arose an urgent need to shift the crisis into a format of temporary ceasefire and mediated negotiation. For Iran, by contrast, the story, despite enormous losses, became a moment of political affirmation.

The most enduring outcome of these weeks will likely be measured by a change in global perception. The world saw that Washington is still capable of driving events to the threshold of a major regional catastrophe. But it also saw that Washington can no longer turn military escalation into stable political order with the same confidence and speed. The world saw that Iran can be gravely wounded, yet is difficult to break. It also saw that even though the war was imposed by the US and Israel, Iran responded in such a way that, in the eyes of many societies, it was Iran that displayed resilience, initiative, and strategic composure. That is why the present pause is perceived not as a triumph of American strength, but as evidence of its limits.

An Iranian delegation led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has arrived in Islamabad for talks with the US, as efforts to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East continue amid a fragile ceasefire.

US Vice President J.D. Vance is also en route to Islamabad for the talks, saying Washington is prepared to engage in good-faith diplomacy if Tehran does the same.

US President Donald Trump earlier said that he had asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to scale back the bombing of Lebanon, as Iran insisted that the two-week ceasefire with the US should also encompass fighting in that country.

Despite Trump’s request, Lebanese media reported Israeli strikes across the country on Friday. However, Iranian media claimed that Tehran forced Israel to stop attacks on Beirut as a precondition for Pakistani-mediated talks with the US delegation.

The exact outlines of a potential US-Iran peace deal remain unclear, after Iranian media shared a plan envisaging non-aggression, Tehran’s control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of some uranium enrichment, stopping Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, and the lifting of all sanctions. The US previously opposed many of the terms.

As the tentative US-Iran truce appears to be generally holding in the broader Gulf, Trump warned that Iran had “better stop” charging fees from vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, after the Islamic Republic vowed to take the management of the strategic waterway to a “new stage.”

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains limited and under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has published a map of “designated routes” citing the risk of mines.

Key developments:

• The Iranian delegation led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan for the upcoming talks with the US. The group includes Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Ali Akbar Ahmadian, the secretary of the Defense Council, and Central Bank governor Abdolnaser Hemmati.

• US Vice President J.D. Vance is en route to Islamabad

• US President Donald Trump has warned that strikes on Iran can resume if a deal is not reached within 24 hours. The US warships are being reloaded “with the best weapons ever made,” he told the New York Post ahead of the talks.

• Ghalibaf has stated before travelling to Islamabad that the talks would only commence if two conditions are met. Israeli strikes on Lebanon must cease and Iran’s frozen assets must be released before the start of the negotiations, the Iranian parliament speaker said.

Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates. You can also read our previous updates here.

Nine deaths and disappearances of high-profile US scientists in the last three years has set a “disturbing pattern,” according to US intelligence sources cited by the Daily Mail.

In the latest incident, the body of missing cancer research scientist Jason Thomas was discovered in a Massachusetts lake last month. The month prior, retired Air Force General William McCasland, who reportedly worked on the US nuclear program, went missing, while astrophysicist Carl Grillmair was gunned down on his porch in California.

“You can say these are all suspicious, and these are scientists who have worked in critical technology,” the Daily Mail cited former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker as saying.

Foreign intelligence services belonging to both US allies and adversaries have targeted Americans in possession of top scientific secrets over the decades, he reportedly said. “It’s been happening since the Cold War… Especially when nuclear technology and missile technology were first coming to the forefront.”

Prior to his disappearance, McCasland led the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), where he reportedly oversaw the funding of a jet engine project by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) materials chief Monica Reza, who also went missing last year, just months after assuming the position.

Grillmair’s work on the US NEOWISE and NEO Surveyor orbital telescope is also tied to the Air Force, as both are used by the US military to track foreign satellites and missile launches, the outlet reports.

Anthony Chavez and Melissa Casias, who both worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), which has cooperated with the AFRL on nuclear research, were reported missing last summer. Both reportedly left their New Mexico homes on foot and left their cars, keys, wallets and phones before disappearing.

Another respected physicist Nuno Loureiro, who was reportedly working on breakthrough fusion energy research, was fatally shot in Massachusetts in December.

The administration of US President Donald Trump is “weaponizing Christianity” to justify its actions in the Middle East, while Israel continues to act with impunity as much of the West turns a blind eye, Irish activist and satirist Tadhg Hickey has said.

Appearing on RT’s East Meets West show, hosted by Tara Reade and Olga Bataman, Hickey described it as ironic that Trump and other officials in his administration have invoked biblical messaging in their public statements on the war against Iran, when in reality their actions are “going further and further away from what Christ’s teachings were.”

“It’s a weaponizing of Christianity that I find really appalling. It’s really vulgar this idea that Jesus is this kind of agent of war for these people, and there’s nothing Christian about their values or their behavior,” Hickey said.

He described Israel as acting with total impunity in Gaza and elsewhere, and attempting to “get away with as much as they can” while Trump is in the White House, safe in the knowledge that they will face no resistance from Washington or the broader West.

Hickey also discussed his experience of being detained in Israel after attempting to deliver aid to Gaza as part of the Freedom Flotilla in 2025.

“We were abducted in international waters, brought to a terrorist prison… put into prisoner garb, denied medical attention, no access to lawyers, no yard time. There was a 75-year-old Irish guy, he was denied access to his insulin… it was a miracle he survived. I don’t think they actually would have tried to kill one of us, but if one of us had died in one their cells, that would have been a big bonus [for them], because it would have been a deterrent for people going again,” the activist said.

Watch the full episode with Hickey below.

A ceasefire deal struck by Washington and Tehran is a “disaster” and “failure,” several prominent Israeli politicians have said. Israel was left out of the equation, they argued, calling it a strategic mistake on the part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

US President Donald Trump announced a two-week pause to the US-Israeli war on Iran to negotiate a long-term solution to the conflict on the basis of a 10-point plan put forward by Tehran. It reportedly includes Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of its uranium enrichment, the lifting of sanctions, and the cessation of war on all fronts, including Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Netanyahu’s office said on Wednesday it “supports” Trump’s decision while maintaining that Israel would continue its military campaign against the Iran-linked Hezbollah group in neighboring Lebanon.

“Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and didn’t meet a single one of the goals that he himself set,” the lawmaker said in a post on X. Former Deputy Economic Minister Yair Golan, who leads the Democrats party, also branded the development a “total failure” in a social media post, adding that Iran emerged from the conflict stronger than before.

MP Avigdor Liberman, the head of the Yisrael Beytenu party, also claimed that peace with Iran under the conditions listed in its plan would only lead to another conflict later.

The US and Israel launched an unprovoked bombing campaign against the Islamic Republic in late February, openly stating they were seeking regime change and an end to Iran’s nuclear program. The conflict killed thousands and caused unprecedented disruption to global energy supplies, mainly due to Tehran’s effective closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Regardless of how the conflict between the United States and Iran formally concludes, its symbolism is already unmistakable. An ancient civilization, one of the oldest continuous states in human history, has emerged as the final obstacle to the project of American global dominance. That alone tells us something about the direction in which the world is moving.

For historians, the deeper meaning of the current Middle Eastern crisis lies in the confrontation between two powers at opposite ends of the historical spectrum. Iran is arguably the world’s oldest centralized state, with roots stretching back to around 530 BC. Since then, it has never ceased to exist as a unified political entity. That continuity is remarkable. Even Russia, the major Western European powers, India and China have all experienced fragmentation at various points in their histories.

The United States, by contrast, is among the youngest major nations – barely 250 years old. Its history is ten times shorter than that of Persia. In that sense, the present conflict pits antiquity against modernity, a civilization forged over millennia against a state that rose rapidly in a uniquely favorable historical moment.

In purely military terms, such comparisons mean little. The United States retains overwhelming destructive capacity. If it chose to do so, it could devastate Iran. This is, after all, the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons against civilian populations. That fact alone should temper any illusions about the limits of American power.

Yet the long-term significance of this confrontation lies elsewhere. It isn’t about whether Iran can defeat the United States in a conventional sense. It’s about whether the current international order, one shaped by American dominance, can continue to function as it has.

This doesn’t make it invincible. But it does mean that it must be taken seriously, not only as a military opponent, but as a political and historical actor. Iranian decision-making reflects a depth of strategic thinking that few contemporary states can match. It’s precisely this quality that makes Iran such a difficult counterpart, both for allies and adversaries.

The United States, meanwhile, has long sought to imprint itself on history as a transformative force. Yet its successes have been tied to exceptional circumstances rather than intrinsic durability. Its meteoric rise in the 20th century was made possible by a unique convergence of factors.

First, that century witnessed an unprecedented clash of ideas. For the first time in history, global politics was driven not only by states and interests, but by competing ideologies – liberalism, communism, socialism and nationalism – each claiming universal relevance.

Second, Western Europe, which had dominated world affairs for centuries, was exhausted by internal conflict. Russia and China, though powerful, were primarily concerned with preserving their independence rather than projecting global influence. This left a vacuum that the United States was uniquely positioned to fill.

Finally, the collapse of European empires created a vast number of new states, many of them vulnerable. The United States lacked the capacity to subdue major powers directly, but it could exert influence over smaller, weaker countries. This allowed it to construct a global system of influence that, under normal historical conditions, would have been difficult to sustain.

That illusion is now fading.

The United States is facing a profound internal crisis, intellectual and political. Its political system has become increasingly polarized, its strategic thinking narrower, and its ability to formulate coherent long-term policies more limited. These weaknesses are visible in the decisions and contradictions of recent administrations.

Even Western Europe, once firmly within the American orbit, is showing signs of resistance. The assumption that the transatlantic relationship would remain unchallenged indefinitely is proving to be misplaced.

In this context, the conflict with Iran takes on broader significance. It is not merely another regional war. It is part of a larger process in which the United States is being forced to adapt to a reality that other states have always known: that no single power can exercise uncontested control over global affairs.

Iran’s role in this process is, in many ways, symbolic. It’s not a perfect state. It lacks the economic resources of China, the mobilization capacity of Russia, or the intellectual traditions of Western Europe. Even a victory over the United States would not transform it into a global hegemon.

And yet, it may prove decisive in bringing an era to a close.

The consequences extend far beyond the Middle East. What is at stake is not simply the outcome of a particular conflict, but the broader structure of international relations. The idea that one state can impose its will universally, shaping the global order in its own image, is being tested, and found wanting.

History offers many examples of powers that aspired to such dominance. None succeeded in the long term. Even those that appeared closest ultimately encountered constraints, structural or strategic, that they couldn’t overcome.

The United States is no exception.

The end of this illusion will mark the true conclusion of the 20th century, an era defined by ideological confrontation, unprecedented globalization and the temporary ascendancy of a single power. What follows will be more familiar: a world of multiple centers of power, competing interests and shifting alliances.

The war between the United States and Iran is one of the moments through which this transition is taking place.

Regardless of how it ends, one conclusion is already possible. Iran, by standing its ground, has made a significant contribution to the evolution of the international system. It has become, in effect, the final weight that brings down a structure built on overreach and illusion.

The world won’t be the same. Not because of the destruction or the diplomacy that may follow, but because a fundamental idea, that of uncontested global hegemony, is losing its hold.

The US-Iran ceasefire, which was announced last night by US President Donald Trump, brings a cautious sense of optimism and hope that the war may eventually come to an end. However, a ceasefire is not a peace agreement. The two-week pause in hostilities could unfold according to different scenarios: it could lead to meaningful negotiations and ultimately a comprehensive peace deal, or it could be terminated, and the conflict would enter a new phase. 

Moreover, we shouldn’t underestimate the fragility of such agreements. A ceasefire can be broken at any moment – within days or even hours. It’s entirely possible that Washington could abruptly change its stance; for instance, Trump might claim that Iran is acting in bad faith and use that as justification to end the ceasefire and resume military operations.

At the same time, the very structure of the ceasefire raises important questions. Reports indicate that the agreement includes a 10-point plan proposed by Iran, which the US has acknowledged as the basis for current negotiations. These talks are expected to take place in Islamabad, with Pakistan playing the role of mediator.

Both the ceasefire and America’s acceptance of Iran’s proposal as a foundation for negotiations raise many questions. If Iran has truly been “defeated” as Trump has repeatedly claimed during the 39 days of intense conflict, or if it has been “effectively destroyed” as his comments suggest, then why is Washington considering Tehran’s offers as a starting point for peace talks?

The aforementioned 10-point plan – which is said to form the basis for a potential peace agreement and which, at least rhetorically, Trump seems willing to discuss – deserves particular scrutiny. The points include commitments to non-aggression, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the lifting of primary and secondary sanctions, the termination of UN Security Council resolutions and IAEA Board of Governors’ decisions, compensation payments to Iran, the withdrawal of American troops from the region, and the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

Agreeing to this point would mean that the US is effectively endorsing a significant reduction of its geopolitical influence in the Middle East. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that the US will be reluctant to take such a step. Moreover, with the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence coming up, it’s unlikely that Trump (who coincidentally is also celebrating his 80th birthday this year) would want to mark this occasion with what could be seen as a geopolitical capitulation.

The proposal to end hostilities across all fronts, including in Lebanon, also raises serious concerns. Even if such a demand is formally included in the negotiation package, its practical implementation is highly questionable. Reports are already emerging about continued strikes on Hezbollah militia positions in Lebanon, with no signs that Israel is prepared to fully scale back its military operations or alter its current strategy. In fact, Israel will likely be focused on securing at least some form of victory for itself. Thus, this appears to be more of a desired political outcome for Iran than a realistic commitment that could be swiftly and consistently executed by all parties.

Similarly, the idea of compensation payments to Iran seems even less feasible. Politically, it’s hard to imagine the US directly agreeing to compensate Tehran for war damage. This would not only impose financial costs on Washington but would also symbolize an acknowledgment of responsibility – something the US is unlikely to accept. Consequently, this point seems more like an element of Iran’s maximalist position rather than a genuine condition for any future agreement.

Of particular interest is the point regarding Iran’s continued control over the Strait of Hormuz. Here, we may find one of the key geopolitical priorities. If we were to hypothetically assume that the US agreed to such a formulation, it would signify much more than mere acknowledgment of the status quo. Essentially, it would equate to recognizing Iran’s dominance over one of the most crucial strategic nodes in global energy trade. In other words, Washington would be indirectly acknowledging Tehran’s geopolitical triumph.

In this context, other proposals appear more realistic – specifically, a partial or phased lifting of key sanctions, as well as a potential reevaluation or suspension of certain international legal restrictions, including UN Security Council resolutions and IAEA governing board decisions. These elements could become bargaining chips, as they allow for flexible interpretation, gradual implementation, and the potential for politically advantageous presentations for both parties.

When it comes to recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the US is likely to adopt a more complex and ambiguous stance. Washington may not directly deny Iran’s right to limited nuclear activities, but it will likely encumber that right with numerous conditions, technical constraints, verification mechanisms, and international oversight, effectively narrowing Tehran’s operational freedom. In essence, the US will probably seek a diplomatic framework that appears to be a compromise but fundamentally preserves pressure and control.

Therefore, viewing the 10-point plan not as a mere declaration but as a potential foundation for a real agreement reveals that its provisions vary significantly in terms of feasibility. Some points demonstrate Iran’s maximalist negotiating position and are unlikely to be fully accepted by the US. Others may serve as points for negotiation and compromise. Only a few points seem to form a realistic basis for further discussions. Consequently, the very act of discussing this proposal is important not so much as a sign of impending peace but as an indicator of the conditions under which Tehran seeks to solidify its military, political, and geo-economic positions in a post-conflict reality.

Firstly, Pakistan has traditionally maintained working relationships with both Iran and the US. Despite complicated relations with Washington in recent years, Pakistan remains a crucial regional player with communication channels to both sides. Its ties with Iran are bolstered not only by geographical proximity and shared security concerns but also by pragmatic cooperation in energy and border stability. Moreover, Pakistan is the only Muslim nation recognized as a nuclear power, which considerably elevates its stakes as a negotiator.

Secondly, selecting Pakistan as a mediator may indicate a desire to move away from traditional negotiation venues associated with the West or international organizations, opting instead for a more neutral or flexible diplomatic environment. This approach can reduce public pressure and facilitate negotiations in a more confidential format. 

In addition, for Pakistan, this represents a significant opportunity to elevate its international standing. By acting as a mediator in such a sensitive conflict, Islamabad positions itself to play a more prominent role in regional and even global politics. Moreover, it’s important to consider the broader context – specifically, the increasing influence of ‘Global South’ nations in conflict resolution when mediation increasingly extends beyond the traditional Western diplomatic sphere.

As for the ceasefire and the upcoming negotiations, the situation remains highly uncertain at this stage. The ceasefire should be viewed not as a resolution to the conflict but rather as a temporary pause, the outcome of which is still unclear. 

US President Donald Trump has, in the end, found a way out of the situation he created by embarking on a reckless war against Iran. The threat of destroying an entire civilization provided him with the pretext to step back.

Indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington, conducted through intermediaries, primarily Pakistan and, behind it, China, have produced a ceasefire. Trump may claim that Iran was cowed by his threats, but the reality is different.

A ceasefire under conditions where the Strait of Hormuz remains under Iranian control suggests that Tehran has not backed down. Washington, in effect, has.

It is too early to speak of any “golden age” emerging from these talks. But the outlines of the conflict’s outcome are already visible.

1. Iran has held firm.

For decades, Iran faced the threat of joint aggression by the United States and Israel. That threat has now been tested, and has failed to break Tehran. Neither Washington nor Tel Aviv proved capable of imposing their will by force.

The result is clear: Iran has consolidated its status as a major regional power, standing alongside Israel as one of the decisive actors in the Middle East.

The Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf have discovered both their vulnerability and their dependence. In a conflict between the US/Israel and Iran, they proved unable to defend their own interests. Meanwhile, American bases on their territory, far from guaranteeing security, became magnets for Iranian retaliation.

Conclusion: US security guarantees have been shown to be unreliable. This lesson will not be lost on Washington’s allies.

3. Military power has reasserted primacy.

The conflict has underlined a broader truth about the emerging international order: military force outweighs economic and financial leverage.

As Pushkin wrote:

“All is mine on earth, said gold.
All is mine, said iron cold.
I will buy it all, said gold.
I will take, said iron cold.”

Sanctioned Iran, burdened by economic difficulties, has effectively withstood, and in strategic terms defeated, a global superpower. Meanwhile, its far wealthier southern neighbors have been reduced to little more than spectators, or worse, targets.

Conclusion: In today’s world, hard power determines outcomes.

Iran has emerged from the conflict intact, but transformed. During the war, a shift long anticipated by analysts appears to have taken place. Real power has moved away from the clerical establishment and toward the security apparatus.

The country is no longer defined primarily by its formal leadership, but by the senior ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Conclusion: Iran will remain an Islamic republic, but one in which the IRGC plays the decisive role. Its policy is likely to be firm, disciplined and pragmatic.

Moscow has navigated the conflict with a degree of strategic discipline. It has maintained its principles, calling aggression by its name, expressing solidarity with Iran, and vetoing what it viewed as an unbalanced UN Security Council resolution on the Strait of Hormuz.

At the same time, it has preserved working relations with key actors: explaining its position to Gulf partners, avoiding direct confrontation with Trump, and refraining from damaging ties with Israel.

The broader consequences of the conflict, a temporary spike in oil prices, strains in transatlantic relations, and a further diversion of US attention from Ukraine, have unfolded largely independently of Russia’s direct involvement.

Looking ahead

The war has opened new opportunities for Moscow. Iran, having endured a severe test, has strengthened its regional and international standing. This creates conditions for closer cooperation between Russia and Tehran.

More broadly, the outlines of a new Eurasian security architecture are becoming visible. Russia, China, Iran – alongside states such as Belarus and North Korea – form the core of this emerging system.

In the south, Iran has effectively halted an American geopolitical advance. In the west, Russia seeks to do the same in Ukraine. In the east, China continues to expand its military capabilities while advancing its diplomatic agenda.

It is through such developments, not declarations, but shifts in power and alignment, that a multipolar world is taking shape.

A two-week ceasefire announced by US President Donald Trump appeared to have brought a temporary halt to the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Washington says it now aims to negotiate a long-term peace deal based on a “workable” 10-point proposal put forward by Tehran.

Over the past six weeks, the conflict has killed thousands, leaving much of Iran in rubble and its people defiant. It has also caused unprecedented disruption to global energy supplies, mainly due to Tehran’s effective closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz. 

Here is what we know so far about the agreement, its terms, and the path ahead.

Who brokered the US-Iran deal?

The ceasefire was primarily brokered by Pakistan, which has been acting as a diplomatic intermediary between Washington and Tehran. In his announcement, Trump directly credited Pakistani leaders for his decision to suspend the bombing of Iran.

What is in Iran’s 10-point plan?

Iran has put forward a 10‑point proposal that Trump described as a “workable basis” for negotiations. According to Iran’s semi‑official Mehr News Agency, the plan includes:

What has Trump said about the peace plan?

Trump announced the “double-sided ceasefire,” stressing Iran’s agreement to ensure the “complete, immediate and safe opening” of the Strait of Hormuz through which roughly a fifth of the world’s daily oil supply passes. 

Trump has also stressed that Iran would no longer be allowed to enrich uranium and will have to dig up and remove all the “deeply buried Nuclear ‘dust’.”

In return, he said, the US has suspended planned strikes on Iranian infrastructure, including bridges, power plants and other key installations, pending negotiations. Trump said the US would also consider tariff and sanctions relief for Tehran. 

He also stated that the current Iranian plan is “not good enough” and warned that the US would resume its strikes if no final deal is reached by the new deadline.

What has Iran said about the ceasefire deal?

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council confirmed its acceptance of the ceasefire and said that negotiations with the US would begin in Islamabad on April 10, with a two-week period that may be extended by mutual agreement. 

The council stressed that the talks “do not mean the end of the war” and that Iran would continue military operations if its demands are not fully met.

Tehran framed the ceasefire as a “historic and crushing defeat” for the US, claiming Washington was forced to accept its 10-point plan as the basis for talks.

How has Israel responded to the truce?

Israel did not appear to be a part of the ceasefire discussions between the US and Iran, but has backed the deal. 

However, despite the temporary truce being ordered on all fronts, Israel has claimed the terms do not apply to Lebanon, where it has been conducting large scale airstrikes and has launched a ground invasion.

The death toll from Israeli strikes on Lebanon has exceeded 1,500 people since the start of the war, the country’s ministry of health has reported. Another 4,812 people have been injured, including hundreds of women and children, as well as dozens of paramedics and healthcare workers.

Is fighting still going on in the Middle East?

Despite the ceasefire, attacks have continued across the region. Israel has said it launched its largest wave of strikes on Lebanon since the war began, claiming to have fired 100 missiles in the span of just 10 minutes, supposedly targeting Hezbollah targets in Beirut and other areas across the country.

At least one oil refinery in Iran has also been hit, with several explosions reported at the Lavan refinery in southern Iran shortly after the ceasefire was announced. The cause of the blast is still unknown.

Iran also appears to have launched a wave of attacks on Gulf states. Kuwait reported it intercepted 28 drones, some of which had successfully struck oil facilities, power stations, and water desalination plants, causing significant damage.

How have markets reacted?

Financial markets have responded sharply to the ceasefire news. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures fell nearly 18%, last trading near $96 per barrel. Brent crude dropped more than 16% to around $94 per barrel. Asian stock markets surged, with Japan’s Nikkei 225 gaining 5%, South Korea’s Kospi soaring nearly 7% and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rising by 3%. US stock futures also rallied sharply, while Treasury yields eased.

What has Moscow said?

Russia has welcomed the ceasefire. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Moscow “was pleased with this news” and supports the decision not to continue down the path of armed escalation. He expressed hope that direct contacts between Iranian and American delegations would take place “in the coming days.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova added that the approach of an “aggressive, unprovoked attack on Iran has failed” and that the US had suffered a “crushing defeat.”

What happens next?

Negotiations between the US and Iran are scheduled to begin in Islamabad on April 10, with the ceasefire providing a two-week window for diplomacy. However, both sides have presented starkly different versions of what has been agreed upon, and the Iranian council has warned that any final agreement depends on securing Tehran’s conditions and that “this does not mean the end of the war.”

Despite the markets appearing to react positively to the ceasefire announcement, experts warn that the aftermath of the disruptions may be felt for months to come as energy prices are expected to remain high.

Bill Gates will testify before a US congressional committee about his interactions with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to media reports.

The Microsoft co-founder is set to sit for a transcribed interview on June 10, multiple outlets said on Wednesday, citing anonymous sources. It follows a March 3 request from lawmakers seeking details about his ties to Epstein.

Gates is the latest high-profile figure to agree to testify before the House Oversight Committee as part of the probe into the disgraced financier, who died in a New York jail cell in August 2019.

The inquiry has already included testimony from former US President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

”While he never witnessed or participated in any of Epstein’s illegal conduct, he is looking forward to answering all the committee’s questions to support their important work,” the spokesperson also said in a statement.

Last November, US President Donald Trump signed a law requiring the Justice Department to release files from its Epstein investigations. More than 3 million documents have since been made public in total, including those describing details of Gates’ communications and relationship with the late financier.

Other documents suggest Gates may have leveraged Epstein’s network for health-related influence, with DOJ files citing meetings in which healthcare issues were discussed.

Earlier this year in an interview with 9 News Australia, Gates apologized for his ties to Epstein, calling it “foolish” to have spent time with him and saying their interactions were limited to dinners and did not include visits to Epstein’s island.

He claimed the meetings were focused on fundraising for global health initiatives linked to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.