Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s alleged drug use is “an open secret,” his former spokeswoman, Yuliya Mendel, has claimed on The Tucker Carlson Show.

Allegations of drug use first surfaced during the 2019 presidential election campaign, in which Zelensky defeated incumbent Petro Poroshenko. Zelensky, a former comedy actor, dismissed the claims as slander at the time, and both candidates publicly underwent tests for alcohol and drugs.

Mendel worked for Zelensky between 2019 and 2021 and has since become highly critical of her former boss. In an interview released on Monday, Carlson asked whether Zelensky used drugs, to which Mendel replied: “This is an open secret.”

“The thing is that I’ve never seen him taking drugs. However, (while) writing my book, I met a lot of people who confirmed that they saw him taking drugs in different clubs. Only one saw him taking drugs in 2021,” she alleged. Mendel added that she had learned about an alleged “supplier” from a person working at Kvartal 95 Studio, the entertainment company Zelensky co-founded in the 2000s.

Zelensky’s former press secretary alleges he urged subordinates to carry out ‘propaganda like Goebbels’

Yulia Mendel claims that after a drop in ratings in 2019, the Narcofuhrer ordered his PR team to improve his image, pointing to the effectiveness of Nazi Germany’s propaganda… pic.twitter.com/k6s7xpuE8V

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) May 12, 2026

“All these people are talking about cocaine, yes,” Mendel said. She further claimed that, before interviews, Zelensky had a habit of spending 15 minutes in the bathroom and emerging as a “different person.”

Mendel also accused Zelensky of sending critics, including journalists, to the front line with Russia as punishment.

Political opponents, including Kiev Mayor Vitali Klitschko, have frequently accused Zelensky of abuse of power. Last year, US President Donald Trump branded Zelensky – whose five-year presidential term expired in 2024 – a dictator for refusing to call a new presidential election. Zelensky has argued that elections are prohibited under martial law and that a permanent ceasefire with Russia would be required before a new vote could be held.

US President Donald Trump is considering resuming the bombing campaign against Iran as peace talks remain stalled, Axios reported on Monday, citing three US officials familiar with the matter.

On Sunday, Trump rejected Iran’s latest terms as “totally unacceptable” and said the ceasefire reached around a month ago was “on massive life support.”

According to Axios, Trump was set to meet with his national security team on Monday to discuss next steps, including potentially resuming Project Freedom – an operation aimed at guiding ships through the Strait of Hormuz – as well as restarting airstrikes and hitting the remaining 25% of targets identified by the Pentagon but not yet struck.

The Washington Post, citing a CIA assessment, reported last week that Iran retained about 75% of its pre-war mobile launchers and roughly 70% of its missiles, and could withstand a US naval blockade for at least three to four months.

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said on Sunday that the US had “no alternative” but to accept Tehran’s terms. “The longer they drag their feet, the more American taxpayers will pay for it,” he wrote on X. Iranian state media described Trump’s demand to shut down the country’s nuclear sites as “a non-starter that Iran has rejected for decades.”

According to Press TV, Iran’s conditions include the lifting of sanctions, reparations, and a new framework governing the Strait of Hormuz that would recognize “Iran’s sovereign control over this vital waterway.”

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is using the conflict with Russia to enrich himself and his associates, his former spokeswoman, Yuliya Mendel, has claimed in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

Mendel served as Zelensky’s press secretary from 2019 to 2021. Her allegations came as Andrey Yermak, Zelensky’s former influential chief of staff, was named a suspect in a money laundering case involving an elite development project. Zelensky’s longtime former business partner, Timur Mindich, fled the country last year to avoid arrest in connection with another major corruption scandal involving energy-sector kickbacks and implicating several top officials.

In an episode of The Tucker Carlson Show released on Monday, Mendel described her former boss as a “dictator” who had grown “detached from reality” and employed “thousands of talking heads” to craft a favorable image both at home and abroad.

“There are a lot of people in his government who want peace. (Zelensky) is going to come up with any condition, he is going to change his positions all the time just to prolong this war and to get more money,” Mendel said, arguing that ending the conflict would amount to “political suicide” for Zelensky.

When Carlson suggested that Ukraine would not defeat Russia in a war of attrition, Mendel replied: “I think it’s obvious to Zelensky too. But he thrives on this war. Why would he end it?”

Zelensky, whose five-year presidential term expired in 2024, has refused to call elections, citing martial law. The move has been criticized by both US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mendel, citing an unnamed insider, claimed that secret polls commissioned by the Ukrainian government showed Zelensky would be “unelectable” if he chose to run again.

Denmark’s government has collapsed after a record poor election showing for Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. King Frederik X has now asked Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen to form a right-wing government, but little will change: every major Danish party is preparing for war with Russia.

In a statement on Friday night, Denmark’s monarch announced that he had tasked Poulsen with forming a government “that does not involve the participation” of Frederiksen’s center-left Social Democrats or Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s Moderates. The announcement came after Frederiksen tried and failed to build a government after winning a plurality – but not a majority – in general elections in March.

Frederiksen’s party won just under 22% of the vote in March, the worst result for the Social Democrats since 1903.

The election was dominated by two issues: the rising cost of living, and immigration. Poulsen’s center-right Venstre party, Frederiksen’s Social Democrats, and Rasmussen’s Moderates are all in favor of restricting inward migration, but the right-wing Danish People’s Party wants citizenships revoked, migrants deported, and “measures that will lead to Muslim net emigration from Denmark.”

Two issues that went undiscussed in the runup to the vote were Denmark’s support for Ukraine, and its historic rearmament program. Unlike in recent elections in Hungary and Bulgaria, where the frontrunners had dramatically different views on relations with Kiev and Moscow, blind support for Ukraine is apparently baked into the Danish system.

Denmark’s uniparty

During Denmark’s last general elections in 2022, Frederiksen focused her entire campaign around defense and security issues. On these, her views were indistinguishable from those of her rivals. Six months before the election, Denmark’s five main parties had signed a ‘National Compromise on Danish Security Policy’ in which they agreed to hike defense budgets, inject an additional 7 billion DKK ($1.1 billion) in emergency funding into the country’s armed forces, and end Russian energy imports.

Frederiksen and Poulsen both explicitly blamed Russia for a series of drone sightings at Danish airports and military sites in late 2025, despite months of investigation concluding that there was no credible evidence the drones ever existed. Frederiksen used the drone panic to push her rearmament program, telling the public in September that “there is primarily one country that poses a threat to Europe's security – and that is Russia… and that is why we are embarking on a historic buildup here in Denmark.”

Under Frederiksen, Denmark has given Ukraine just over €11 billion in bilateral military and economic aid. At 3.27% of its GDP, Denmark has proportionately handed Ukraine more money than any other Western country. After meeting Frederiksen in Cyprus in April, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “noted the cross-party consensus on supporting Ukraine” in Denmark, according to a Ukrainian government statement.

More of the same

A government led by Poulsen will in all likelihood deliver more of the same. Poulsen warned in 2024 that Russia could attack NATO territory “within a three- to five-year period.” To prepare for this eventuality – which Russia has outright dismissed as “ridiculous” and a ploy by European leaders to extract more tax money from their citizenry – Poulsen has called for Denmark to increase military spending yet again, to 4% of GDP. Such an increase would put the country’s per-capita defense expenditure higher than that of the US. 

Spoke with Denmark’s Minister of Defence Troels Lund Poulsen. Strengthening cooperation on F-16 ammunition, Patriot systems, joint defence production, and support for Ukrainian brigades. Denmark is a reliable partner delivering real results for Ukraine’s defence. Thank you for… pic.twitter.com/h8uRZfB0oX

— Mykhailo Fedorov (@FedorovMykhailo) February 6, 2026

Poulsen’s potential coalition partners include the Danish People’s Party, Liberal Alliance, and Conservatives. Of these, the Danish People’s Party is the only voice of moderation on Ukraine. Party leader Morten Messerschmidt has called for an end date to military aid to Kiev, has urged Ukraine to make territorial concessions for peace, and opposes its accession to NATO.

“Every time we spend a billion in Ukraine, that money goes from Denmark, from welfare, from whatever it is we want here,” he told Danish state broadcaster DR in 2024. Messerschmidt added that he intends to pressure whoever is in power in Copenhagen to “conduct a Ukraine policy that is based on the world of reality and not on a fantasy world.”

Will Russia’s relations with Denmark change?

It is highly unlikely that the transfer of power from Frederiksen to Poulsen will alter Moscow’s sub-zero relations with Copenhagen. Denmark currently has no ambassador to Russia, and is considered an “unfriendly” nation by the Kremlin.

“If anyone wishes to talk, we will never refuse dialogue, even though we fully realize… that reaching an agreement with the current generation of European leaders will most likely be impossible,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in January. “They have entrenched themselves too deeply in a posture of hatred towards Russia.”

At least 70 Labour MPs are demanding that Prime Minister Keir Starmer resign, Sky News reported on Monday. This comes after the party came out as the biggest loser in last week’s local elections, relinquishing more than 1,300 council seats across the country.

In addition to dozens of lawmakers calling for Starmer to go, at least three junior members of his government have so far resigned from their positions, Sky News reported.

Under Labour rules, a formal leadership challenge would require backing by at least 81 party MPs, a fifth of the party’s total roster in the House of Commons. Former foreign secretary and Labour MP Catherine West announced that she’s gathering support to kickstart the process and elect a new leader by September.

“The results last Thursday show that the PM has failed to inspire hope,” she wrote on X. “What is best for the party and country now is for an orderly transition.”

Starmer has sunk in the approval polls since his party’s landslide victory in the 2024 general election. The decline followed deeply unpopular austerity measures, the resurfacing of the historical Pakistani rape gang scandal, and government response to the 2024 anti-immigration protests and riots – which sparked allegations of “two-tier” justice after hundreds of British citizens were arrested for social media posts.

Half of Britons want Starmer to step down, while only 29% want him to remain in office, according to a YouGov poll published on Monday that surveyed 4,904 UK adults.

Euroskeptic, anti-immigrant Reform UK has emerged as the biggest winner in the local elections, taking more than 1,200 local council seats across the country. “Betrayed voters have left Labour for good,” party leader Nigel Farage said on X on Monday.

Germany and Ukraine will jointly develop long-range drones, German Defense Minister Boris Pistiorius has said during an unannounced visit to Kiev. The Ukrainian military has routinely used unmanned aerial vehicles for attacks deep inside Russia that targeted civilians and critical infrastructure.

Moscow has repeatedly accused Kiev of “terrorism” over the strikes. Last week, one such attack killed five civilians in Crimea.

Berlin has emerged as Kiev’s largest single military donor after the US switched from donating weapons directly to Ukraine to selling it to Kiev’s other NATO backers willing to hand them over. Germany spent some €20 billion ($23.5 billion) on arms for Ukraine between January 2022 and February 2026, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

On Monday, Pistorius claimed that further military cooperation with Kiev would be advantageous for Berlin since it has also launched its own military buildup, citing an alleged ‘Russian threat’.

According to Pistiorius, the “Brave Germany” program he signed off on Monday together with Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Federov will focus on supporting startups capable of demonstrating “promising innovations.”

Ukraine’s most prominent drone manufacturer, Fire Point, recently found itself at the center of a corruption scandal when leaks exposed its close ties to Timur Mindich, a former business partner and longtime associate of Vladimir Zelensky. Mindich stands accused of orchestrating a $100 million graft scheme. One of the company’s top figures and its co-owner were also reportedly recorded saying that peace was “bad for business.” Prior to the scandal, the company was touted globally by Zelensky himself.

Moscow has repeatedly stated it harbors no aggressive intent towards any NATO nation and dismissed such allegations as “nonsense.” It also warned that the current German and EU leadership is transforming the bloc into “a Fourth Reich.”

Andrey Yermak, a former influential chief of staff to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, has been named a suspect in a new criminal case, according to a statement posted on Telegram by the country’s Western-backed anti-corruption agencies.

The former official is accused of being part of a criminal group that laundered 460 million hryvnias ($10 million) through an elite residential construction project.

Often described as the grey cardinal behind Zelensky, Yermak was forced out in November 2025 after the anti-corruption agencies raided his properties as part of a high-profile corruption probe. The investigation was focused on a $100 million graft scheme linked to Zelensky’s inner circle and his former business partner and close associate, Timur Mindich.

Yermak himself denied ties to corruption at the time and claimed he stepped down to avoid “creating problems” for Zelensky.

The former chief of staff now stands accused of violating Article 209 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code, which covers “money laundering and legalization of ill-gotten gains.” Earlier on Monday, the Ukrainian media reported that Yermak was subjected to some “investigative procedures” by the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).

In December, the Ukrainian media reported that Yermak had retained influence following his resignation and was talking to Zelensky daily by phone and meeting him most evenings at his residence despite holding no formal government position.

The news comes amid another corruption scandal. Last month, Ukrainskaya Pravda released what it called leaked transcripts from surveillance recordings of Mindich and his business partners, as well as Ukrainian government officials. The files that have since become known as ‘Mindich tapes’ included a conversation Mindich had with a woman identified as Natalia, who reportedly oversaw a luxury construction project for him and Yermak. The leaks are yet to be officially verified.

In a brief statement to journalists on Monday evening, Yermak denied any involvement in the Dinastia (Dynasty) development project outside Kiev. He also denied being featured in conversations involving Mindich that were recorded by law enforcement.

Read RT's curated coverage of the ongoing investigations into allegations of corruption and graft by Zelensky's inner circle here.

A right-wing Austrian politician has demanded that the country’s Finance Ministry explain how nearly $22 billion in cash and gold was shipped to Ukraine from Austria since 2022 without triggering concerns about money laundering or regulatory oversight.

In a statement published on Sunday, Austrian Freedom Party (FPO) Secretary General Christian Hafenecker called out what he described as Vienna’s “two-class justice system” for overlooking massive payments to Kiev, while keeping a tight hold on taxpayers’ purse strings.

“We’re not talking about play money here: 1,030 registered cash and gold shipments, around €12 billion ($14 billion) plus $7.75 billion, physically transported over 1,300 kilometers into the war zone,” Hafenecker said.

“And the responsible finance minister simply tells me… ‘We know nothing, we’re not investigating anything, we haven’t collected any information.’ That’s not an answer, that’s dereliction of duty,” he added.

The politician demanded full disclosure on all cash shipments from Austria to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict, a full audit by the country’s Financial Market Supervisory Authority, and a report by the Austrian Money Laundering Reporting Office in parliament.

Major probes by Ukraine’s Western-backed anti-graft agencies have implicated senior officials in Vladimir Zelensky’s government since last year. Two ministers and the Ukrainian leader’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, stepped down following the massive scandal.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has slammed the current leadership in Kiev, calling it a “criminal gang” sitting on “golden potties,” and interested far more in personal enrichment than in the fate of ordinary Ukrainians.

The EU might be on the verge of a new migrant crisis, with more than half a million people waiting in Libya alone to cross into Europe, Greek Migration Minister Thanos Plevris has said.

The bloc was first inundated by asylum seekers from the Middle East and Northern Africa during the 2015 refugee crisis, when a million migrants entered Europe, straining welfare systems and prompting tens of millions of European voters to turn to far-right political parties.

Greece remains one of the bloc’s main entry points, registering 48,771 arrivals in 2025, according to UNHCR data. According to the UN refugee agency, 7,589 migrants and asylum seekers have arrived in the Mediterranean country this year as of May 3, including 5,615 by sea.

Athens has introduced a number of tough policy measures in a bid to stem the flow over the past years, including detention for those denied asylum. Commenting on the situation on Sunday, Plevris said that Greece was “the first country to criminalize illegal residence” and would not allow those denied protection to just roam free.

He also described the situation in Libya as the biggest problem faced by his country and the EU. According to Plevris, around 550,000 people have gathered there and are now seeking to enter Europe.

In February, Plevris also announced that it was working together with Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and Denmark to create “return hubs” for rejected asylum seekers outside of the EU’s borders, with Africa being the preferred destination.

Libya became a key transit point for human trafficking and migration to Europe via the Mediterranean following a NATO-backed uprising in 2011 that led to the overthrow and assassination of longtime ruler Muammar Gaddafi. The EU has struggled to manage the migration crisis since 2015, with Greece, Italy, and Spain receiving the highest number of arrivals across the Mediterranean.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urged his countrymen to adopt austerity measures in the wake of the Middle East conflict.

Apart from utilizing public transport, work-from-home, and carpooling in an apparent bid to save fuel, he has suggested that Indians put one of their most treasured fascinations on hold: their overwhelming fixation on gold.
Not buying the precious metal, he hinted, could cut India’s dollar outflows substantially.

Curbing gold purchases is seen as one of the key steps that would invariably have an impact on the economy of the nation of 1.4 billion people. The bet on slashing gold purchases has a sounder rationale than other steps outlined by Indian prime minister, as it is seen as a step that individuals can control directly.

The economics

India’s foreign exchange reserves as of May 1, 2026, totaled $690.7 billion, according to data released by the Reserve Bank of India. The forex reserve position has seen a steady decline recently from the $728 billion recorded in February.

The CAD is the gap that occurs when a country spends more foreign currency on imports, income payments, and transfers than it earns from exports and overseas receipts. Higher imports of gold widen India’s current account deficit because India pays in foreign currency for the precious metal, raising the import bill without directly boosting export earnings.

The South Asian nation’s imports of gold totaled $72 billion in FY26, a 24% surge from a year ago. A widening current account deficit will put pressure on the rupee, raise external borrowing needs, and make the economy more vulnerable to global capital outflows.

Ballooning import bill

India is the world’s second-largest gold buyer. For every ounce of imported gold, the payment is made in dollars. Of the total import bill of $775 billion, four commodities stand out for their weight. Crude, gold, vegetable oils, and fertilizers together accounted for more than a third of the country’s massive import bill.

Crude oil is the obvious leader, accounting for $134.7 billion.

That leaves Indians’ famous appetite for gold as the most obvious target for restraint. With a gold import bill of about $72 billion – nearly double the combined value of vegetable oil and fertilizer imports – curbing demand offers a clear way to bring some discipline to India’s external accounts.

It is also one of the most debated options, because gold in India is as much an emotional purchase as a financial one, with weddings driving a large share of domestic buying. Gold as an investment option has not yet sunk in for a majority of Indians.

Would curbs really matter?

Assuming a dip in gold purchases happens, how would that affect the country’s economy? If the country curtails its importing of gold by 30% to 40%, that can lead to savings of $25 billion, according to NDTV projections.

If the figure can be raised to 50%, the savings would further jump to $36 billion. In a scenario where the CAD is projected to be $84.5 billion, it would be nearly cut that figure in half. The savings can be routed to energy purchases, which in turn are essential for vital activity, including farming.

How war shapes outcomes

When a conflict like the present one in the Middle East happens, oil prices soar. This is a direct result of transit hazards to shipping, which block the oil trade. A fifth of the world’s energy commodities pass through the Strait of Hormuz, which is mostly controlled by Iran.

Many refining and production facilities across the Gulf have already suffered extensive damage. The world’s oil inventories are shrinking at the fastest pace on record, Bloomberg reported. Even if the current predicament ends, a return to the $70 per barrel price range is unlikely.

For India, that means paying more for oil imports for a much longer period, implying higher dollar outflows. Stronger demand for dollars would weaken the rupee, and a weaker rupee would, in turn, make all imports more expensive, creating a cascading effect across the economy.

Glitter of gold

A pause in gold buying seems like a sensible option for a nation which, as a whole, can adapt while it curbs the demand for dollars. A dip in dollar demand would mean less pressure on the rupee and on the cost of imports.

India’s domestic gold consumption remains large but increasingly price-sensitive. According to the World Gold Council, India’s total gold demand rose 10% year-on-year to 151 tons in Q1 2026. But in value terms, the surge is 99%, as record prices have lifted spending.

Last year’s figure has some solace on offer for policy planners. For the full year 2025, India’s overall gold purchases fell 11% to 710.9 tons, and jewelry consumption dropped 24% to 430.5 tons. This means that while Indian households have a strong affinity for buying gold, they tend to cut back when prices rise.

Public broadcasters in Spain, Ireland and Slovenia have said they would not air the 70th anniversary Eurovision Song Contest, which begins on Tuesday in Austria and will culminate in Saturday’s grand finale, citing opposition to Israel’s participation.

The three countries, along with the Netherlands and Iceland, withdrew on Monday from this year’s event in Vienna, leaving the contest facing the biggest boycott in its 70-year history.

Vienna police have said they expect disruptive protests and possible attempts to block the event, particularly on the last day. Authorities said a pro-Palestinian demonstration involving around 3,000 people has been registered for May 16.

The lead-up

Israel has rejected accusations of genocide since launching its operation targeting Hamas in Gaza after the militant group made its deadly incursion into southern Israel in October 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 250 others hostage. The enclave’s authorities say Israel’s response has left nearly 70,000 Palestinians dead.

In December 2025, Swiss singer Nemo announced that he is returning his 2024 Eurovision Song Contest trophy in protest over Israel’s continued participation in the competition.

During the competitions in Malmö, Sweden, in 2024 and Basel, Switzerland, in 2025, large anti-Israel protests took place outside the venues, while the country’s participants were placed under heavy security protection.

Vote-rigging accusations

In last year’s contest, Israeli singer Yuval Raphael got second place and won the popular audience vote, leading multiple countries to raise concerns about outside interference in the voting process.

Following the pushback, Eurovision changed the rules, lowering the maximum number of votes each fan could cast from 20 to 10, and banned “disproportionate” promotion campaigns. However, the contest stressed that no rules were broken.

In the contest’s two-part voting process, the jury’s ranking is added to an audience score, with each viewer able to vote multiple times. Each vote costs a fee.

Israeli soft power

According to a new investigation by the New York Times, Raphael won the popular vote in several countries where the public is highly critical of Israel.

The Israeli government funded a concerted internet campaign, buying advertisements in multiple languages urging viewers to vote for their contestant up to the then-maximum 20 times, the NYT reported. En masse, it would have taken only a few thousand viewers dropping 20 votes each to secure second place, the newspaper said.

In 2024, West Jerusalem spent more than $800,000 on Eurovision-related advertising, with the bulk of the money coming from the Foreign Ministry, the NYT wrote, citing Israeli Government Advertising Agency data.

The Eurovision Song Contest, organized annually by the EBU, has long faced accusations of political bias, with critics saying voting patterns often reflect political alliances, cultural ties or historical relationships rather than musical merit.

The contest has faced accusations of double standards after banning Russia following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Moscow in turn accused organizers of favoring Western participants and promoting anti-Russian sentiment.

French presidential hopeful Florian Philippot has called for lifting sanctions against Russia and restoring Russian energy imports. In an interview with RT, the politician claimed that Brussels-driven EU policies run counter to France’s national interests. 

A former vice president of the National Front (now National Rally) and ex-member of the European Parliament, Philippot announced on Saturday that he will run in the 2027 election. He leads the sovereigntist movement ‘Les Patriotes’ and is a longtime critic of the EU, the euro, and NATO. He advocates restoring French sovereignty, reducing dependence on supranational institutions, and ending French military and financial aid to Ukraine. 

“I want, and it is in my program, for France to regain its independence by leaving all the supranational globalist structures: the EU, the euro, NATO,” Florian Philippot told RT France on Sunday. “And I want a policy of dialogue and friendship with Russia, and not, as today, one of mistrust, war, and insults. All of this is absurd for our national interests.” 

The politician said Paris should “take back control” by withdrawing from free trade agreements such as Mercosur, which he said “condemn French farmers to death.” He added that sanctions on Russia imposed by Brussels should be ended in order to restore the flow of Russian gas and oil. 

In addition, the politician pledged to expand the use of referendums, including citizen-initiated votes, as part of strengthening popular sovereignty. He also called for reducing France’s dependence on the EU, which he said is largely shaped in Berlin and Washington rather than in Paris. Philippot stressed that leaving the EU would allow France to lower energy and electricity costs. 

France is heading toward a highly fragmented presidential race, with around 30 people already expressing interest in being on the 2027 ballot. These include Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of ‘La France Insoumise’, Bruno Retailleau, president of ‘Les Republicains’, Xavier Bertrand, a senior center-right politician, David Lisnard, mayor of Cannes, Laurent Wauquiez, a prominent conservative figure, and Edouard Philippe, France’s former prime minister.

Donald Trump is set to touch down in Beijing, China, on Wednesday for a two-day state visit – the first by a US president in eight years – as relations between the world’s two largest economies teeter at a crossroads defined by the Iran war, trade friction, and technological rivalry.

The visit is expected to feature a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping on Thursday morning, to be followed by a visit to the Temple of Heaven and a state banquet, as well as a working lunch on Friday before Trump departs for home.

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly described the trip as “a visit of tremendous symbolic significance” while teasing “more good deals on behalf of our country.” 

Iran and oil

The Iran war and the Hormuz crisis are expected to loom large over the agenda, with an unnamed US official telling reporters during a briefing that Trump would likely “apply pressure” on China on the purchase of Iranian oil and on the alleged supply of dual-use components to Tehran.

In response, China ordered its firms to ignore US sanctions, a move Max Meizlish, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, described as an “unprecedented… measure of defiance by Beijing.” 

Trump is also expected to call on Xi to leverage Beijing’s unique clout over Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway accounting for around 20% of pre-war seaborne oil trade. China, itself the world’s largest buyer of Gulf oil, has been sympathetic to the cause, urging Tehran to remove obstacles to maritime traffic.

The ‘Five Bs’ of trade

The two leaders are poised to discuss what observers have labeled the ‘Five Bs’: Chinese purchase of Boeing aircraft, American beef and soybeans, and the creation of a Board of Trade and a Board of Investments.

As the world’s largest importer of soybeans, China has historically purchased half of US exports of the crop and has been a primary market for American agricultural produce. The soybean trade has not been problem-free, however, as US beans currently face a total duty of 13% from China, while Brazilian beans are subject to only 3%. In addition, while China fulfilled its pledge to purchase 12 million metric tons of beans in 2025, it is unclear whether Beijing will meet the larger target of 25 million tons annually for 2026-2028.

Taiwan hotspot

Taiwan, which China regards as part of its sovereign territory, has long been a sore point in relations between Washington and Beijing. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has described the self-governed island as “the biggest point of risk” in the bilateral relationship and urged Washington to “honor its commitments and make the right choice, to open up new space for China-US cooperation.”

An unnamed American official told the Financial Times, though, that “we don’t expect to see any changes in US policy [on Taiwan] going forward.” 

While the Trump administration has continued to supply Taiwan with weapons, the US president has previously expressed skepticism about defending the island and accused it of stealing the US semiconductor manufacturing industry.

Rare earths and tariffs

China holds a powerful card in its near-total grip on rare earth mineral supply chains, with analysts cited by the Guardian suggesting Beijing may dangle a long-term commercial arrangement to grant US access to the commodities, on condition they are not used for military ends.

As for the wider trade war, both sides are also locked in a “ceasefire” that puts Trump’s effective tariffs at between 19% and 24% after peaking at 145% during intense tit-for-tat escalations. The US and China are reportedly debating a one-year extension in exchange for guaranteed rare earths flows.

The digital battleground

Trump’s visit comes as the White House has accused China of “stealing” AI technologies, including running “deliberate, industrial-scale campaigns” to extract capabilities from America-based AI models to train cheaper rivals.

In response, the Chinese Embassy in Washington said Beijing “opposes the unjustified suppression of Chinese companies by the US,” adding that it “attaches great importance to the protection of intellectual property rights.” 

Beijing has long protested what it views as a US crackdown on its tech companies, including restrictions on Huawei and a push to replace China-linked technology in American-connected cars, a policy widely seen as a blow to Chinese EV manufacturers.

The Lebanese Health Ministry has accused the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of deliberately targeting medics during airstrikes on the country.

Israeli attacks on Lebanon continue to intensify despite a US-brokered ceasefire between the sides, which took effect in mid-April.

The latest wave of IDF strikes on Lebanon left 51 people dead, including two medics, the country’s health ministry said in a statement on Sunday.

“The Israeli enemy continues to violate international laws and humanitarian norms, adding more crimes against paramedics, as it directly targeted two points of the Health Authority in Qalawiya and Tibnin, Bint Jbeil district, in two raids,” the statement read.

According to the ministry’s data, 2,846 people were killed when Israel launched its military operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon on March 2, just days after attacking Iran together with the US. More than 550 of those deaths occurred after the truce had been introduced.

Israel already faces accusations of deliberately hitting ambulances and hospitals during the conflict in Gaza, with West Jerusalem saying they were targeted due to being used by Palestinian armed group Hamas.

War surgeon Tahir Mohammed, who worked in both the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, told Al Jazeera that “we used to see our colleagues in Gaza come through the door all the time. I’ve had colleagues, nurses, medical students killed by Israeli weapons, and so to see the same policy of targeting healthcare workers in Lebanon… it’s consistent.”

The IDF said on Sunday that it targeted more than 20 facilities of Hezbollah in several areas of southern Lebanon, including weapons depots, command centers and other “buildings used for military purposes.”

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam told Al-Arabiya the same day that a total of 86 villages in the south of the country remain under Israeli occupation. The Lebanese city of Bint Jbeil has become “a copy of Gaza” due to the vast scale of destruction, he said.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has confirmed that US President Donald Trump will pay a state visit to Beijing from May 13 to 15, the first such trip in nearly nine years.

The summit had initially been planned for late March but was postponed due to the US-Israeli war on Iran, which disrupted global energy markets following the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Principal deputy White House press secretary Anna Kelly described the trip as one of “tremendous symbolic significance” that would focus on “rebalancing the relationship with China and prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence.”

The US president will hold bilateral talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, and the two leaders are expected to meet again on Friday for a tea session and working lunch.

Last month, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Washington was seeking to preserve stability in bilateral ties while securing continued access to Chinese rare earth minerals essential for American industry.

China, which has rejected Washington’s “unilateral” sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector, has repeatedly called for the war to end. Trump’s visit comes just a week after Beijing hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

The path to the summit was paved by a temporary trade truce reached in South Korea last October after Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods climbed as high as 145%. Beijing responded by restricting exports of rare earths critical to US industry and military production, forcing several American factories to suspend operations.

After crying wolf over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program for decades, Washington has finally pushed the Islamic Republic over the brink, with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei proclaiming last month that Tehran will protect its nuclear and missile technology “as national assets.”  

Tehran had long maintained that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes only, a fact endorsed by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Decades of crippling sanctions and a punitive war, however, have compelled it to change track.

In a message on the occasion of National Persian Gulf Day (when Persia liberated the waterway from 115 years of Portuguese control in 1622), Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei asserted that Washington has suffered a “humiliating defeat,” which opens a “new chapter” in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

He said Iran shares a “common destiny” with its neighbors in the region, which will not be dominated by “outsiders who come from thousands of kilometers away.” He promised that new legal regulations and management systems in the Strait will benefit all of the nations of the region while yielding economic dividends for Iran.

This significant announcement was accompanied by an invitation to the Gulf States to accept Iranian protection for their safety as the era of American protectionism is over. The same day, a spokesman for the Iranian Armed Forces warned that if the US attacks again, the region’s oil and gas infrastructure will be destroyed.  

Last week, after US President Donald Trump made a U-turn on ‘Project Freedom,’ Iran reportedly launched a new mechanism for overseeing maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.  There has been a constant churn in the regional chessboard since the US-Israel attack on Iran and decapitation of its top spiritual and military leadership on February 28. Most notable is the United Arab Emirates’ decision to exit the Saudi-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) that decides the oil extraction quotas of member states, and the price at which oil will be sold in the international market. 

In the short term, Abu Dhabi’s defection from the oil cartel could lead to its expulsion from the Arab League, with consequences for its identity as a safe luxury destination with unique architecture (Burj Khalifa, Dubai Frame), high-end leisure (Palm Jumeirah, indoor skiing), and as a magnet for affluent professionals in its tax-free, centrally located business hub (Dubai). 

However, the UAE’s exit could provoke other members to weigh the value of remaining in OPEC, given the current political instability, inability to trust the US, and the grim reality of falling oil revenues. More countries could decide upon their own production, adding to volatility in the oil markets. Increased supplies could soften prices over time and benefit oil refining and marketing companies in countries such as India. Some introspection has already begun with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud asserting that, “the era of relying on the United States has ended. If Trump could not protect his own country, how can he protect ours?” 

Araghchi told the media that the US was responsible for the failure of the first round of negotiations in Pakistan in mid-April with its “excessive demands,” adding that “safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is an important global issue.” As a mark of respect to the negotiators, Araghchi met Pakistani military and civilian leader as well as Omani leaders before travelling to Russia. Both Pakistan and Oman continue to be involved in backchannel efforts to prevent a return to an open US-Israel war on Iran.

The key role, however, will be played by Moscow, as evidenced by the 90-minute telephone call between Presidents Putin and Trump, which covered a range of events, including the Iran war, the Ukraine conflict and the attempted attack on Trump during a high-profile dinner in Washington. 

The latest reports suggest that the exchange or proposals to end the war between Tehran and Washington, conducted through Pakistani mediators, is not yielding results. According to AP, Iran’s response to Washington’s counter-proposal submitted last week calls for a wider end to hostilities on multiple fronts, including Lebanon, before reopening the Strait of Hormuz and moving ahead with further nuclear talks. Iran’s earlier demands included guarantees against military aggression, the withdrawal of US military forces from near Iran, a lifting of the naval blockade, the release of Iran’s frozen assets, compensation payments, a lifting of sanctions, and end to the war on all fronts including Lebanon, and the recognition a new mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz.  

Trump, however, on Sunday called Iran’s response “totally unacceptable.”  Trump has repeatedly extended the ceasefire, arguing that Iran’s leadership is divided and unable to formulate a unified position. Iranian officials, for their part, have publicly rejected Washington’s terms as an ultimatum, accusing the US of trying to turn negotiations into a surrender process after failing to achieve its stated goals on the battlefield. With diplomacy currently at a deadlock, the US finds itself isolated from many of its traditional allies on the matter. 

The US decision not to quarantine passengers of the hantavirus-stricken cruise ship, the MV Hondius, could be dangerous, the chief of the World Health Organization has said.

Since April 11, three people aboard the Dutch-flagged Atlantic liner have died from the rare pathogen, which is typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings, urine or saliva, while several others have contracted the disease. The vessel was carrying 147 passengers and crew from 23 countries.

On Sunday, 17 Americans and one UK national residing in the US disembarked the vessel, which docked at the Spanish island of Tenerife, and are currently on their way back home.

The passengers will be flown to the National Quarantine Unit in Nebraska for what US health officials have described as a brief visit to check their health, not quarantine.

One American, the only to have tested positive for the disease, will be placed in a biocontainment unit, according to the US Department of Health.

During a press conference in Tenerife on Sunday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the UN health body’s advice for dealing with MV Hondius passengers “is clear: starting from May 10, 42 days of quarantine, but it could be in a facility or at home.”

When asked about the approach taken by the US, he warned that it “may have risks.”

However, Ghebreyesus stressed that the WHO doesn’t impose anything on countries; it only proposes to them what it considers the most appropriate way to deal with the situation.

The UK and France announced earlier that they would require their passengers to quarantine at a staffed facility or in isolation at home for 42 and 45 days, respectively.

Ghebreyesus said last week that, despite being “serious,” the hantavirus “is not another COVID” due to its limited human-to-human transition.

In the past months, numerous reports have emerged that Somali pirate groups have acquired modern weapons and technology from the Houthis.

Ties between the Yemeni Zaydi Shiite movement Ansar Allah (better known as the Houthis), Somali pirates, and two terrorist organizations in Somalia, Al-Shabaab and the Islamic State – Somalia Province (IS–SP), continue to strengthen. This has been confirmed by both officials in Somalia and various UN reports.

In January 2026, Mohamed Musa Abulle, deputy director of intelligence for the Puntland Maritime Police Force (PMPF), said that some Somali pirate groups had received GPS devices from the Houthis, enabling them to “accurately track the routes of commercial vessels.” He noted that the security forces believe some members of these groups have undergone military training in Yemen. 

“This new technology has significantly simplified their planning of attacks far from the Somali coast,” the official stated.

A month earlier, on December 12, 2025, the PMPF intercepted a boat off the coast of Eyl carrying explosives and chemicals used for making explosive devices. At the time of the interception, there were seven people on board, two Yemeni nationals and five Somalis. The operation was part of Puntland’s counterterrorism efforts, in the course of which local security forces destroyed over 100 Islamic State facilities in the Cal Miskaad mountains, where militants were based.

‘Transactional, not ideological’

The 2025 report by the United Nations Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team also mentioned deals between the Houthis and terrorist groups in Somalia, characterizing their relationships as “transactional or opportunistic, and not ideological.” According to UN experts, Al-Shabaab militants met with Houthi representatives in Somalia at least twice, in July and September, to request modern weapons and training.

“In return, Al-Shabaab was to increase piracy activities within the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia, targeting cargo ships and disrupting vessel movement as well as collecting ransom from the captured vessels. During this period, Al-Shabaab was reported to have received some small arms and light weapons and technical expertise from the Houthis,” the report stated.

The same report noted that the Houthis maintain an agreement with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) which has been in place for over three years and involves mutual non-aggression, prisoner exchanges, and arms transfers. While AQAP primarily attacks local targets in Yemen, it seeks to expand operations beyond its borders, including in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Somali pirates, who also collaborate with the Houthis, operate as a criminal organization separate from the terrorist groups. The ties between them are transactional and situational rather than ideological. Primarily motivated by economic gain, pirates seek large hauls or ransom payments, while groups like Al-Shabaab and ISIS are driven by ideology.

Occasionally, pirates partner with the Islamists to ensure their own safety or obtain logistical support in areas under their control. For instance, in March 2024, Al-Shabaab militants in the Sanaag region of northern Somalia struck a deal to provide protection for pirates in exchange for 30% of all ransoms and a share of any loot.

How much do pirates earn?

Since the early 2000s, piracy has thrived in the port city of Eyl in Puntland, which has earned the nickname ‘Harunta Burcadda’ (Pirate Capital). Small bands of pirates boldly attacked massive container ships and oil tankers, forcing shipping companies to steer clear of the Horn of Africa.

From 2005 to 2012, Somali pirate groups reportedly made between $339 million and $413 million, according to World Bank data. Between 2013 and 2019, the European Union’s counterpiracy mission, Operation Atalanta, launched in December 2008 to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia, recorded 26 attacks by Somali groups. In 2020-2022 there was a temporary lull in pirate activity, with no recorded attacks. However, in the following years piracy resumed – six attacks were recorded in 2023, and as many as 22 attacks in 2024. 

This prompted international naval forces to bolster patrols in Somali waters. The Puntland Maritime Police Force (PMPF) in collaboration with Operation Atalanta, evolved into a well-trained and experienced counter-terrorism unit. However, they were compelled to redirect a significant portion of their troops inland to support Puntland security forces against IS–SP in the Cal Miskaad mountains. Pirates took advantage of this, and the situation was further exacerbated by ongoing maritime instability due to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.

Throughout 2024 and 2025, pirates continued to target commercial vessels, executing at least six hijackings. These attacks occurred as far as 2,270 miles from the Somali coast in the Indian Ocean. In April 2026 alone, they successfully detained at least three ships, including a tanker and a fishing trawler.

The recent success of pirates off the coast of Somalia can largely be attributed to the war initiated by the US and Israel against Iran. This conflict has shifted the region’s focus toward the Persian Gulf, prompting forces that once ensured security in the Red Sea to redirect their efforts toward escorting vessels attempting to navigate the blocked Strait of Hormuz.

Puntland and Somaliland, Israel and the US

The main source of pirate activity in Somali waters is Puntland, which positions itself as an autonomous state within Somalia. Since 2024, it has functioned independently of the federal government. Located in the tip of the Horn of Africa, Puntland does not claim full independence from Somalia, unlike Somaliland to the north, which actively seeks international recognition for its sovereignty.

Somaliland has made significant strides in this regard. On December 26, 2025, Israel became the first (and currently the only) country to officially recognize the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Somaliland. It later emerged that Israel, in collaboration with the US and the UAE, has begun constructing a military base in the port city of Berbera in northern Somaliland. This base is intended to serve as a launchpad for intelligence-gathering and operations against the Houthis, who regularly target Israeli territory.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unexpected recognition of Somaliland at the end of 2025 likely aimed to establish a strategic Israeli foothold in the Gulf of Aden, close to Yemen’s coastline, where the Houthis operate. The Houthis renewed their conflict with Israel on March 28, threatening to disrupt shipping traffic in the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. Satellite images obtained by Le Monde indicate that the Berbera airport has been expanded since October 2025. 

Interestingly, this airport was originally built in the 1970s by Soviet specialists, who established a naval base around the Bab-el-Mandeb strait during the Cold War to control maritime routes and counter American influence while maintaining a presence in the Indian Ocean.

Somali pirates conduct maritime attacks from Puntland, where terrorist groups like Al-Shabaab and IS–SP operate; however, these groups are not present in Somaliland. Thus, from a strategic perspective, for foreign states Berbera holds greater significance than the port of Bosaso in Puntland, as it allows them to exert influence in the region without having to aid local authorities in their fight against terrorism and piracy.

Two axes of international influence

Following Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, experts began discussing the formation of two competing ‘axes’ defining foreign interests in the Horn of Africa. The emerging Berbera Axis (Israel – UAE – Ethiopia – Somaliland) is aimed at securing access to ports and monitoring capabilities in the Red Sea, as well as countering the dominant influence of Türkiye and Iran in the region.

Somaliland boasts 850 kilometers of coastline along the Gulf of Aden, directly opposite Yemen across the narrow Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. This geographical advantage allows Israel to gather real-time intelligence, conduct drone surveillance, and swiftly respond to missile and UAV attacks from the Houthis. Tel Aviv’s strategic partners in the region include the UAE, which normalized relations with Israel in 2020. Since 2018, through its largest port operator, DP World, the UAE has been working on expanding and modernizing the port of Berbera.

Ethiopia, which maintains friendly ties with both Tel Aviv and Somaliland’s capital, Hargeisa, also benefits from Israel’s recognition of the self-proclaimed republic. The December agreement grants Addis Ababa greater leverage for potential access to the Red Sea. According to a Memorandum of Understanding signed between Ethiopia and Somaliland in January 2024, Somaliland agreed to lease a part of its coastline to Ethiopia for 50 years. However, following negotiations facilitated by Türkiye, Addis Ababa has been discussing this issue with the federal authorities in Somalia. Both processes are still in the development phase.

The second axis, known as the Mogadishu Axis (Somalia-Türkiye-Egypt-Saudi Arabia), aims to protect Somalia’s sovereignty against external intervention. Türkiye plays a crucial role here, having become Somalia’s primary foreign partner since the 2010s. In 2017, Ankara opened its largest military base abroad, TURKSOM, in Mogadishu. Türkiye has trained thousands of Somali soldiers, many of whom serve in the elite Gorgor unit, deployed against al-Shabaab. On February 9, 2026, the Turkish parliament extended the mandate of its naval forces operating in Somali waters, the Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea for another year. Türkiye has also deployed F-16 fighter jets and helicopters to Mogadishu.

On February 9, 2026, Saudi Arabia signed a military agreement with Somalia aimed at ensuring “regional stability and security in the Red Sea.” Discussions included the establishment of a naval base in the port town of Las Qoray. Additionally, Riyadh is mediating and possibly sponsoring a potential deal for Somalia to acquire 24 JF-17 Thunder Block III fighters from Pakistan for $900 million.

Clearly, Egypt could also be part of the Mogadishu Axis, since it views the Israel-Somaliland-Ethiopia alliance as a possible strategic blockade. For Cairo, the Suez Canal is not just a matter of revenue but of national survival.

On February 8, 2026, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi met with his Somali counterpart, reaffirming that “Egypt will always remain a sincere partner and unwavering supporter of Somalia.” Following the meeting, Cairo deployed over 1,000 troops to Mogadishu as part of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

The role of Iran

Iran is not part of any of the aforementioned axes, but it actively participates in the anti-Israeli Axis of Resistance which includes various groups across the Middle East. In fact, the Berbera Axis emerged in response to threats from Iran and its proxy forces, particularly the Houthis. 

Tehran’s relationship with Mogadishu has been strained. In 2016, Somalia severed diplomatic ties with Iran (acting in solidarity with Saudi Arabia), accusing it of meddling in its internal affairs and promoting Shiism. While relations were restored in 2024, tensions persist to this day.

Mogadishu has strongly condemned Iran’s recent attacks on critical energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, which have disrupted maritime shipping routes and exacerbated Somalia’s humanitarian crisis. 

Moreover, Iran is indirectly complicit in deals between the Houthis, Somali pirates, and the militant group Al-Shabaab, as it is the primary arms supplier for the Ansar Allah movement. Tehran uses Somalia’s coastline as a key transit point for weapons shipments to the Houthis. Incidents involving the interception of such shipments have been documented in the report by the Panel of Experts on Yemen, submitted to the UN Security Council on October 11, 2024. In recent years, this cooperation has evolved into a full-fledged regional network encompassing Al-Shabaab and local piracy groups.

In addition to established players like Türkiye and the UAE, long-time rivals Israel and Iran are a influencing the region’s political landscape. Amid the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, their confrontation in the Red Sea is growing, and this is vividly demonstrated by the Iranian proxy forces’ support for Somali pirates.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urged the public to cut their fuel usage by returning to public transport and remote office work amid the energy supply disruptions caused by the US-Israel war on Iran.

International conflicts, especially the current Middle East conflict, have put pressure on oil prices and depleted India’s foreign exchange reserves, Modi said on Sunday.

“During the Corona period, we developed many systems of work from home, online meetings and video conferences, and we even became accustomed to them,” he said, adding, “If we restart these systems, it will be in the national interest.”

ICYMI: PM Modi Calls for ‘Collective National Effort’ to Ease Global Economic Pressures Brought on by West Asia War

PM Modi advocated for Indian citizens to use public transport and EVs where possible and called for a revival of ‘Covid-era’ efficiency measures, such as WFH and… pic.twitter.com/6L7PXweWUl

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) May 11, 2026

The prime minister urged citizens and institutions to prioritize remote work and digital interactions as steps to slash fuel consumption and ease pressure on the economy.

“We must prioritize work from home, online conferences, and virtual meetings again. We must also place a strong emphasis on saving foreign exchange, as petrol and diesel have become so expensive globally,” Modi said.

He also advocated for the wider use of public transport, including metro and railways, as well as electric vehicles for the movement of goods to reduce dependence on fuel imports.

Modi positioned the appeal as a broader national effort to minimize the shocks of oil supply disruptions triggered by the Middle East conflict. Modi’s statement came on the day when US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s response to a proposal for ending the war.

India’s central bank has said a 10% rise in crude prices cuts economic growth by 15 basis points and lifts inflation by 30 basis points. Though the federal government has forecast economic growth for the current fiscal year at 6.8%-7.2%, economic agencies, including Goldman Sachs, have put forth estimates in the 5.9%-6.2% range.

In nature, nearly everything obeys the law of the pendulum. Motion begins with an impulse, accelerates under the pressure of kinetic energy, reaches an extreme point, and then, sooner or later, is pulled back toward balance. This balance is never absolute and never eternal.

It is only a temporary state of stability, a pause before the next shock, the next pressure, the next external force that sets the mechanism in motion again. Political history has often moved with the same rhythm. Empires expand and contract, revolutions radicalize and institutionalize, wars erupt and then search for a language of exhaustion. The current war of the United States and Israel against Iran is no exception.

An uneasy balance

The active phase of aggression against Iran, which began on February 28 with large scale US and Israeli strikes, lasted almost two months in its most intense form. The conflict opened with coordinated attacks on Iranian military, infrastructure, and leadership targets, after which Iran’s response transformed the initial strike into a wider regional confrontation. In the pendulum analogy, Iran’s retaliation became an additional impulse of kinetic energy. It did not stop the mechanism. It gave it another swing. It widened the arc of the war, pulled the Strait of Hormuz into the center of the crisis, disrupted energy flows, and forced Washington to confront the fact that military pressure alone was no longer producing political control.

Now the pendulum appears to be moving back toward its point of equilibrium. Not toward peace in the full moral sense of the word, and not toward reconciliation, but toward temporary stabilization. In politics, equilibrium is often less a triumph of wisdom than a recognition of limits. The US has discovered the limits of coercion, Iran has discovered the limits of escalation, and Israel has discovered that even military superiority cannot easily enforce a durable regional order. The region itself has once again discovered that no war around Iran remains confined to Iran.

The first round of negotiations in Islamabad failed, but it did show that diplomacy was still working beneath the surface. In early April, Iran and the US received a plan for ending hostilities, described as a two-stage framework that would begin with a ceasefire and move later toward a broader final agreement involving nuclear restrictions and sanctions relief. Later reporting described a one-page memorandum that would declare an end to the war and open a 30-day negotiation window on the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, and US sanctions.

The first track of the reported two-track structure is a peace arrangement, or more precisely, an arrangement for stopping the war. The second track is a nuclear settlement, which would require more time, more legal formality, and probably a Security Council framework. According to reports, the emerging plan would first use a memorandum of understanding to announce an end to hostilities across several fronts, including Lebanon, while both sides would commit to respecting each other’s territorial sovereignty. After that, the parties would receive roughly 30 days to negotiate sanctions relief, compensation, the release of frozen assets, nuclear limits, and the reopening of maritime routes.

Such a formula reflects the real balance of pressure. Washington wants a nuclear agreement, but it needs the Strait of Hormuz reopened and the war politically closed. Tehran wants sanctions relief and security guarantees, but it also needs time to repair damage, restore internal economic confidence, and convert battlefield endurance into diplomatic leverage. The US reportedly offered partial sanctions relief and the release of some Iranian frozen funds as part of the emerging framework, while Iran would accept limits or a moratorium connected to uranium enrichment and maritime restrictions.

How the US played itself into a corner

The American position is weakened by a central contradiction: Washington entered the confrontation with overwhelming force, but it did not receive overwhelming political support. NATO allies praised certain objectives, but repeatedly avoided direct participation in the US campaign. Later, they refused to join Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports, proposing instead to help only after fighting ended. That was a sign that American power, while still enormous, no longer automatically produces allied obedience in wars that others consider optional, risky, or politically toxic.

Washington’s regional partners were also cautious. Gulf states may fear Iran, but they also fear becoming the battlefield on which American and Iranian escalation is settled. The Strait of Hormuz crisis demonstrated that the geography of this war gives Iran a lever that cannot be bombed away without consequences for everyone. Iran’s military response inflicted costs on American positions and assets in the region, while its control over the maritime choke point turned a war against Iran into a global economic problem.

First came force. Then came the blockade. Then came an operation to overcome the consequences of the blockade and a counter-blockade. Then came a pause in that operation because diplomacy again became necessary. In chess this is called zugzwang, a state where every available move worsens the player’s position. Escalation risks a larger regional war. De-escalation looks like retreat. Maintaining the blockade hurts global trade and alienates partners. Lifting it without concessions looks like failure. Demanding total Iranian capitulation makes agreement impossible. Accepting partial compromise undermines the original rhetoric of maximum pressure.

A shaky foundation

The new de-escalation plan recognizes that Iran cannot be wished out of the regional order, that American military power cannot secure Hormuz without political arrangements, and that Israel’s preference for permanent strategic pressure cannot by itself produce a stable Middle East. If the plan is real and if the parties accept its core logic, it could become a temporary bridge from war to managed confrontation.

Yet the risks remain enormous, and the first of those risks is Israel. Any agreement that reduces pressure on Iran will be viewed by Israeli hardliners as a strategic defeat. Israel may fear that even a limited peace memorandum gives Iran time to rebuild, rearm, and restore deterrence. If Israeli leaders conclude that diplomacy is freezing the conflict on terms favorable to Tehran, they may attempt to sabotage the process through new strikes, intelligence operations, or pressure on Washington. The broader war has already included multiple fronts, and reports on the emerging state of affairs explicitly mention hostilities beyond Iran, including in Lebanon. Any front left unresolved can become the spark that pushes the pendulum outward again.

The third risk is the nuclear issue itself. A peace memorandum can be short because silence often helps diplomacy. But a nuclear agreement cannot be built on silence. It must answer hard questions about enrichment, stockpiles, verification, sanctions sequencing, compensation, and the legal durability of commitments. The earlier JCPOA experience remains the shadow over any new arrangement. Iran will be justified to ask why it should accept restrictions if a future US administration can abandon the agreement. Washington, in turn will want some guarantees that it can trust Iran’s nuclear restraint after war. Resolving these mattes will take specific mechanisms, not mere rhetoric.

Still, the possibility of a new agreement is real if viewed pragmatically. The pendulum is settling toward equilibrium, if slowly, because the previous level of kinetic energy has become unsustainable. The forces that pushed the system into motion are still present, but the system seeks rest because continued motion threatens to break the mechanism.

The coming weeks will show whether the new two-stage plan is a genuine bridge or only another tactical pause. If the memorandum is signed, it may pull the pendulum into temporary balance. If Israel rejects stabilization, or if Washington treats the agreement as a pause before renewed pressure, the pendulum will again receive an impulse. And if that happens, the next swing may be wider, faster, and more destructive than the last.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that he plans to “wean” his country off US financial aid within the next decade, while blaming social media “manipulation” for declining public support for his country among Americans.

Israel is the largest recipient of aggregate US foreign aid since World War II, having received more than $300 billion in economic and military assistance from Washington since 1948.

Under a ten-year agreement signed in 2016, the US committed $38 billion in military aid to Israel through 2028, including $5 billion for the Iron Dome missile defense system. Overall, American assistance accounts for roughly 16% of the country’s military budget.

In an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes aired on Sunday, Netanyahu was asked whether it was time for the Jewish state to “reexamine and possibly reset” its financial relationship with Washington.

“I want to draw down to zero the American financial support, the financial component of the military cooperation that we have,” the prime minister said, stating that the process should “start now” and be completed “over the next ten years.”

Netanyahu noted that he is well aware of declining support for Israel in the US. A recent Pew poll indicated that six in ten Americans have a very or somewhat unfavorable view of Israel, up seven percentage points since last year and nearly 20 points since 2022.

The Israeli leader outright dismissed the notion that the war in Gaza might have “contributed to this negative impression of Israel,” blaming the shift almost entirely on social media.

“Israel is besieged on the media front, on the propaganda front, and we’ve not done well on the propaganda war,” he said.

“We have several countries that basically manipulated social media with bot farms with fake addresses, to break the American sympathy to Israel.”

In March, US Senator Bernie Sanders filed three resolutions seeking to block nearly $660 million in arms sales to Israel, arguing that three-quarters of Democrats and two-thirds of independents oppose Washington sending weapons to the country.

The Ukrainian military has violated the Victory Day ceasefire more than 16,000 times since it took effect on Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.

In a statement on Sunday, the ministry said Ukrainian forces had carried out drone and artillery strikes on civilian sites in Crimea, Belgorod Region, Kursk Region, Kaluga Region, Rostov Region, and Krasnodar Region. In Belgorod alone, five civilians, including a teenager, were injured in Ukrainian drone attacks, according to regional governor Vyacheslav Gladkov.

Ukrainian troops also carried out 676 strikes against Russian positions using artillery, multiple-launch rocket systems, mortars, and tanks. Kiev’s forces launched 6,331 drone attacks and attempted eight assaults on Russian positions.

Russian forces “continue to strictly observe the ceasefire regime and remain at previously occupied lines and positions,” the ministry stated.

The Victory Day truce announced by Russia last week to mark the 81st anniversary of the end of World War II was initially set to expire on Sunday, but following a proposal from US President Donald Trump, Moscow agreed to extend it for two more days.

Throughout the conflict, Moscow has repeatedly declared temporary truces during major religious and national holidays. Last month, Russia announced an Easter ceasefire, which the Defense Ministry said was violated by Ukrainian forces more than 6,500 times within 32 hours.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the warning apparently reached Washington and contributed to Trump’s extended ceasefire initiative. He also said that while the globalist faction of Western elites is still effectively waging war against Russia, using Ukrainians as proxies, the conflict is heading towards its end.

The British Army has airdropped a team of medics accompanied by paratroopers to treat a suspected hantavirus case on the remote island of Tristan da Cunha. The patient was among the passengers who left the Dutch-flagged cruise vessel MV Hondius before the deadly outbreak was confirmed.

The cruise liner, now dubbed the “plague ship” by some media, initially carried 175 guests and crew from 23 countries when it suffered an outbreak of a rare pathogen typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings. The outbreak was caused by the Andes strain of hantavirus – the only one known to be capable of human-to-human transmission through close contact.

9,788km from the UK across the South Atlantic, one operation 🪂@BritishArmy and @RoyalAirForce joined forces to deliver urgent medical supplies to one of the world’s most remote communities, Tristan da Cunha. pic.twitter.com/uOQJP6pmcy

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) May 10, 2026

On Saturday, a British Royal Air Force A400M aircraft dropped two medics and six paratroopers on the island, along with oxygen and medical supplies to aid in the treatment of the case. The small island, with a population of fewer than 300, has no airstrip and is reachable only by sea.

UK specialist paratroopers and military clinicians have carried out a daring parachute operation to deliver critical medical support to Tristan da Cunha – Britain’s most remote inhabited Overseas Territory – after a suspected case of Hantavirus was identified on the island. pic.twitter.com/w0xPU8fvcw

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) May 10, 2026

The World Health Organization has so far reported eight hantavirus cases linked to the MV Hondius, including six confirmed cases and two still considered suspected. Three people have died from the infection. Authorities are also trying to trace the contacts of some two dozen people who disembarked at St. Helena on April 24, along with the body of the first victim.

Patient zero is believed to be a 70-year-old Dutch man, who was the first to die from the disease. According to the New York Post, he was an ornithologist who visited a landfill near the Argentinian city of Ushuaia for birdwatching shortly before boarding the ship. There, he and his wife, who also died, could have inhaled particles from the feces of local rats known to carry the disease.

US President Donald Trump has called Iran’s response to Washington’s latest proposal for ending the war “totally unacceptable,” after Tehran insisted it would not surrender its strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz without concessions.

The details of Iran’s response have not been made public, but according to US media reports, Tehran’s counterproposal focused on ending the war and securing guarantees that hostilities would not resume, while offering none of the nuclear concessions sought by Washington.

“I have just read the response from Iran’s so-called ‘Representatives.’ I don’t like it — TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday. He previously told Axios that the Iranian reply was “inappropriate,” but did not elaborate.

Tehran has also made clear that it views control over the Strait of Hormuz as a central bargaining chip, with Mohammad Mokhber, a top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, comparing the waterway’s strategic value to an “atomic bomb” and vowing that Iran would not “forfeit the gains of this war.”

The latest exchange comes after weeks of fragile diplomacy and intermittent clashes around the Strait of Hormuz, where the US has enforced a naval blockade and Iran has sought to assert control over the strategic waterway.

The diplomatic setback also comes as tensions rise over possible European involvement in the Gulf. France and Britain had been discussing a multinational mission to secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, while Tehran has warned that any such deployment would draw an immediate response. 

US President Donald Trump has said his country will get hold of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium “at some point,” repeating one of his key demands in peace talks.

In an interview aired on Sunday, journalist Sharyl Attkisson asked Trump what stage the war with the Islamic Republic had reached, considering that the US has yet to secure Iran’s fissile material.

“Well, we’ll get that at some point, whatever we want,” he said. “We have it surveilled, you know, I did a thing called Space Force… If anybody got near the place, we will know about it. And we’ll blow them up.”

The US and Israel launched their attack on Iran in late February, framing the war as a way to preempt Tehran’s development of a nuclear weapon.

Russia has repeatedly offered to aid in the peace process and help remove the material.

“Not only did we make such an offer; we already implemented it once before, back in 2015. Iran has complete trust in us, and not without reason,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told journalists during Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on Saturday. Russia has never violated its agreements and continues to cooperate with Iran on its peaceful nuclear energy programs, he added.

While Iran has not published a response to the latest US offer, it has consistently refused to hand over its uranium stockpile or halt its civilian nuclear program, while demanding that Washington provide guarantees of non-aggression and remove its forces from the region. Tehran has also long denied plans to build a nuclear bomb.

Russia expects Armenia to explain its lack of reaction to the “anti-Russian” statements made by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky during a recent summit in Yerevan, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Providing a venue for such rhetoric goes against the spirit of partnership between the two nations, he told journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday.

Zelensky was in Yerevan earlier this week for a two-day summit of the European Political Community (EPC), an EU-led intergovernmental group launched in 2022 in response to the escalation of the Ukraine crisis. He asked for more military and financial assistance from the West while claiming that Moscow was scared that Ukrainian “drones may buzz over Red Square” ahead of Victory Day celebrations in Russia.

The Russian Defense Ministry then warned that if Ukraine attempted to disrupt the festivities with attacks, a major retaliatory strike would follow.

On Thursday, the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned the Armenian ambassador in Moscow to protest “opening the floor” for Zelensky’s “terrorist threats against Russia.”

Peskov maintained that Yerevan has a “sovereign right” to define its foreign policy and host any summits it wants, adding that Moscow only wants it not to take an anti-Russian position.

Relations between Russia and Armenia started to cool after Pashinyan came to power in 2018. During his time in office, Armenia lost a proxy war with neighboring Azerbaijan over the latter’s region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Pashinyan then attempted to fault Moscow for not providing military assistance at the time.

The headlines are filled with reports of growing discord inside NATO. Donald Trump openly questions the value of allies who, in his view, fail to carry their share of the burden. Western Europe complains about the unreliability of its American patron while simultaneously pledging loyalty to the Atlantic alliance. Beneath the daily noise, however, something far more significant is taking place: the gradual transformation of Europe’s political and military order.

For decades, the United States guaranteed Western Europe’s security while those Europeans concentrated on prosperity and welfare. That arrangement now appears increasingly unstable. Washington’s strategic priorities have shifted toward Asia and the confrontation with China. Europe remains important as a logistical and political platform for American power, but it is no longer the unquestioned center of US grand strategy.

Trump didn’t create this process, though he has accelerated it dramatically. His irritation with NATO is not simply personal caprice. It reflects a deeper American conclusion that the era of underwriting Western European security indefinitely has become too expensive and strategically distracting.

The alliance itself was built for another age and another purpose. NATO was designed to contain the Soviet Union and anchor American influence in Europe. It was never intended to become a global instrument for confronting China. Yet this is precisely the direction in which many in Washington would like to push it.

These Europeans, however, do not share America’s sense of urgency regarding Beijing. For most of them, China is an economic competitor, not an existential threat. Russia, by contrast, remains the central security obsession of much of the bloc, especially in Northern and Eastern members. 

France has emerged as the loudest advocate of greater Western European strategic independence. Paris retains a long tradition of military autonomy and still possesses something few other European powers can claim: a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent. France cannot realistically replace the American nuclear umbrella over Western Europe, but it increasingly seeks to position itself as the ideological leader of a more self-reliant bloc.

Britain, meanwhile, continues its traditional balancing act between the EU and the United States. London insists on its independence from Brussels while simultaneously searching for external support from Washington. Northern and Eastern states remain intensely hawkish and committed to confrontation with Russia, regardless of whether the Americans remain fully engaged. Southern Europe appears far less enthusiastic, distracted instead by migration, economic stagnation and domestic instability.

As so often in European history, however, the decisive factor will likely be Germany.

Much of post-war Europe was built around one central idea: Germany must never again become an independent geopolitical force. After 1945 the country was divided, militarily constrained and tightly integrated into Western structures under American supervision.

Even German reunification in 1990 was accepted partly because Germany remained embedded inside NATO. At the time, many believed that anchoring a unified Germany within the Atlantic alliance was the safest possible arrangement for Europe.

Ironically, that very decision became one of the starting points of today’s geopolitical crisis. NATO expansion eastward created a security architecture that Moscow increasingly viewed as hostile and destabilizing.

Former Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced a “new era” in 2022 following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. For some time the slogan appeared largely symbolic. Under Germany’s current leadership, however, concrete changes are beginning to emerge.

Berlin is discussing accelerated rearmament, expanded military infrastructure and legislative changes aimed at increasing recruitment for the Bundeswehr. The debate over compulsory military service, once politically unthinkable, has returned to the mainstream.

Recent comments by Franz-Josef Overbeck, the Catholic military bishop of the Bundeswehr, are revealing. Overbeck openly called for Germany to send forces to the Strait of Hormuz and argued that compulsory military service should be restored not only for men but also for women.

His reasoning was blunt. Germany, he argued, can no longer remain on the sidelines in an increasingly dangerous world.

Many within Germany’s political establishment likely agree with him privately. Politicians, however, remain cautious because German society is still deeply uncomfortable with militarism and foreign deployments. Decades of post-war political culture have created a pacifist instinct that remains powerful among voters.

At the same time, Germany faces mounting economic difficulties. This is not merely a temporary downturn. The old German economic model rested heavily on cheap Russian energy and export-driven industrial growth, not to mention stable globalization. Much of that foundation has eroded.

As a result, discussions that would once have been politically toxic are now occurring openly. Militarization is increasingly presented not simply as a security necessity, but also as a potential engine of economic renewal.

Only a few years ago such arguments would have sounded extraordinary in Germany. Today they are becoming part of mainstream debate.

This is where the historical dimension becomes impossible to ignore.

German political culture has long been characterized by discipline and a tendency to follow strategic paths with remarkable determination once a consensus forms. In calmer periods this can be an enormous strength. In moments of geopolitical confrontation, however, it can become dangerous.

The path on which Russia once again serves as Germany’s principal antagonist is deeply familiar from European history.

Trump’s pressure on NATO is therefore acting as a catalyst for changes that were already underway. Western Europe is being pushed, reluctantly and unevenly, toward greater military independence. Whether this ultimately strengthens NATO or gradually hollows it out remains unclear.

The alliance is unlikely to collapse outright. Institutions of this scale rarely disappear suddenly. More likely is a gradual transformation into something narrower and more fragmented.

A core bloc focused primarily on containing Russia may emerge within NATO, while the United States shifts more of its attention toward Asia.

Whether such a bloc becomes effective will depend above all on Germany. If Berlin fully embraces rearmament and strategic emancipation from American oversight, Europe’s political landscape could change profoundly and by the end of Trump’s presidency, this process may already be far advanced.

Thus, once again, Europe may discover that history is not something safely confined to textbooks. The old rivalries and anxieties that shaped the continent for centuries have an unsettling habit of returning precisely when people convince themselves they are gone forever.

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

The EU plan to phase out Russia as an energy supplier will end in the US reselling Russian oil and gas to Europe at far higher prices, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has warned.

Speaking in Bratislava on Sunday, Fico said Washington has “a huge interest in buying all transit infrastructures” across the European continent.

“So the Russians will supply the Americans with gas and oil at standard prices, and the Americans will sell it to us with an American high-margin surcharge. Are we such idiots already?” he said.

Already, “the share of Russian liquefied gas in Europe is increasing,” Fico added, pointing out the hypocrisy of Brussels singling out countries like Slovakia to pressure over Russian fuel supplies. “So we can’t, but France can buy liquefied gas from Russia.”

Contrary to the EU, Bratislava’s position is to “diversify the supply options for all fuels,” he said.

In February, the European Commission doubled down on long-standing plans to phase out Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027.

According to Moscow, such US projects, as well as sanctions against Russian oil companies, are part of a sweeping strategy to capture the energy market.

Washington is aiming to monopolize all international energy supply routes in an attempt to attain global economic dominance, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told TV BRICS earlier this year.

Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina has dismissed Defense Minister Andris Spruds after Ukrainian drones hit oil storage facilities on the Baltic state’s territory.

“The drone incident this week clearly showed that the leadership of the defense sector failed to deliver on its promise of a safe sky over our country,” Silina wrote on X.

She added that Spruds had lost both her trust and the trust of the public.

Spruds, however, stated that he had already decided to resign himself. He accused the prime minister of rushing to announce his dismissal for political reasons and lying about informing him and his party, the Progressives, in advance.

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

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga commented on the scandal on Friday, claiming he had addressed the issue with Riga and apologized to the three Baltic states and Finland. The top diplomat also attempted to shift the blame to Russia.

The Ukrainian military needs to pull back from Donbass for the peace process to move forward, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said. Talks between Moscow and Kiev will remain stalled until then, he told journalist Pavel Zarubin, adding that the Ukrainian government knows this.

Russia and Ukraine have held several rounds of talks, including with US mediation, since early 2025, when President Donald Trump returned to the White House. The process has slowed down following the latest US-mediated meeting in Geneva in February.

According to Ushakov, any new meetings will not change the situation unless Ukrainian troops are withdrawn. “Until [Ukraine] makes the step, one can hold some more rounds, dozens of rounds [of talks] but we will remain in the same spot,” he said.

“They know in Ukraine that it must be done and they will do it sooner or later,” the presidential aide stated. Ushakov also said that Moscow maintains close contacts with Washington when it comes to the peace process, adding that Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, could visit Russia “soon.”

Earlier this week, Ushakov called a potential Ukrainian withdrawal from Donbass “one serious step” that would greatly advance the settlement process. Military action would cease after that, he stated on Thursday.

The two Donbass republics voted to join Russia together with two other former Ukrainian territories – Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions – in autumn 2022. In March, President Vladimir Putin stated that only between 15% and 17% of the Donetsk People’s Republic remains under Kiev’s control. In April, the Russian military reported fully liberating the neighboring Lugansk People’s Republic.

The Ukrainian leadership has repeatedly refused to both recognize the status of the new Russian regions or to cede any territory to Moscow. It also maintains that recapturing the regions incorporated into Russia is one of its ultimate goals.

Telegram co-founder Pavel Durov has accused France of hypocrisy after prosecutors expanded a criminal investigation into Elon Musk’s X. Durov said French authorities were violating citizens’ privacy while accusing the social media platform of similar conduct.

The entrepreneur made the remarks on Sunday, just days after the Paris prosecutor’s office announced that it would seek new charges against X over alleged illegal sexual deepfakes made by the platform’s Grok AI, as well as unlawful data extraction and other crimes.

“The French government is accusing X of the very things the French government itself is doing,” Durov tweeted.

The French government is panicking. They know a major political shift in 2027 will expose their misdeeds – so they’re trying to silence free speech platforms under whatever pretext they think they can get away with.

He called on the international community to back X against what he called the French state’s “immoral assault” on the social media app.

The tech mogul has denied any wrongdoing and dismissed the legal action as a “political attack.”

Last month, the US Department of Justice reportedly denied a request from French prosecutors to cooperate in the investigation. US President Donald Trump’s administration has long been critical of what it has called attacks on free speech and political opposition in the EU and UK.

Durov’s Telegram has also faced legal troubles in France. The entrepreneur was arrested at a Paris airport in 2024 and indicted on a dozen charges after French prosecutors accused him of being complicit in crimes committed using his social media platform. Durov has since been allowed to leave France, despite the ongoing investigation.

Long before the D-Day landings came to symbolize the decisive turning point of the Second World War in many Western narratives, the Soviet Union had already spent years bearing the brunt of the war against Nazi Germany, suffering massive losses while repeatedly urging Britain and the US to open a second front.

By June 1944, when Allied troops landed in Normandy, the Soviet Union had already spent almost three years bearing the brunt of the war, grinding down Hitler’s forces on the Eastern Front after suffering devastating losses and the brutal occupation of much of its territory.

Not only did 27 million Soviet citizens died during the war – a toll unmatched by any other Allied nation – approximately 70% to over 80% of all German military deaths in WWII occurred on the Eastern Front, fighting the USSR. Yet in much of today’s Western discourse, the Soviet role in defeating Hitler is often overshadowed.

The issue resurfaced recently after US President Donald Trump delivered a Victory in Europe Day statement praising the US and Britain for defeating Nazi Germany without mentioning the Soviet Union.

Ukraine should not be using Estonian airspace for drone attacks on Russia, the Baltic nation’s defense minister, Hanno Pevkur, has said.

Over the past few weeks, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland have reported several cases of Ukrainian UAVs crashing in their territory. Moscow previously accused NATO members of quietly permitting Ukraine to target Russian territory, particularly energy facilities in northwestern Leningrad Region.

Earlier this week, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said that he told Vladimir Zelensky that Helsinki deems Ukrainian aircraft entering its airspace “unacceptable.”

Speaking about incursions by Kiev’s UAVs on Sunday, Pevkur said that the Estonian authorities “will start dealing with this very quickly now.” Kiev would have to explain “what exactly it means and what they themselves had in mind by it,” he added.

“Certainly, the easiest way for the Ukrainians to keep their drones away from our territory is to control their activities better,” the defense minister said, as cited by ERR website.

“Russia could take control of Ukrainian drones and send them toward us,” Tsahkna claimed.

Latvian Defense Minister Andris Spruds previously declined to criticize Ukraine, insisting that it “has every right to defend itself.” Breaches of Riga’s airspace by foreign aircraft will continue as long as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine remains unresolved, Spruds claimed, blaming Moscow for the incursions.

Kiev is considering sending Ukrainian expert teams “to help directly strengthen the airspace” of the four countries, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga wrote on X on Friday.

Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu said in April that either Western air defenses are proving ineffective against Ukrainian UAVs or the Baltic States and Finland “deliberately provide their airspace, thereby becoming open accomplices in aggression against Russia.”

US President Donald Trump has indicated that moving American troops from Germany to Poland is on the table. The statement comes as the Pentagon prepares to withdraw around 5,000 soldiers from the Western European nation over the next year.

Trump first announced plans to withdraw the troops from the country earlier this month. The announcement came shortly after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Washington “obviously has no strategy” in the Iran war and that the US “is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership.”

Trump has since gone on to warn that the Pentagon would be “cutting a lot further than 5,000” of the roughly 36,000 active-duty service members from Germany.

“Well Poland would like that,” Trump told journalists on Friday when asked about the prospect. “We have a great relationship with Poland. I have a great relationship with the president. ... I like him a lot, so that’s possible.”

Polish President Karol Nawrocki said on Wednesday that Poland is prepared to host US troops withdrawn from Germany and that he would personally lobby Trump to redeploy them eastward. However, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned on Monday that Warsaw should not “poach” troops from its allies.

Spain has denied the use of a naval base near Cadiz for strikes on Iran and closed its airspace to US aircraft involved in the campaign, with officials and Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez condemning the war as illegal and unjust.

Italy has also denied access to its air base in Sicily, citing the need for prior authorization. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said the conflict has worsened regional instability and driven up energy prices, and called Trump’s attacks on Pope Leo XIV over his opposition to the war “unacceptable.”

The US president has repeatedly called NATO a “paper tiger” after allies refused to join the US-Israeli bombing campaign in the Middle East, and has accused the bloc of failing to properly support US efforts in Ukraine.

Global oil inventories are shrinking at the fastest pace on record amid continuing disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, Bloomberg has reported.

The outlet cited data from Morgan Stanley on Saturday showing that global oil stockpiles fell by about 4.8 million barrels per day between March 1 and April 25. The figure surpasses previous inventory drawdown records tracked by the International Energy Agency, it added.

The Strait of Hormuz off Iran’s coast normally carries about one-fifth of the global oil and LNG trade. Tanker traffic through the waterway has remained heavily disrupted following the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran and repeated accusations by both sides of violating a fragile ceasefire.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump warned that Washington may revive and expand “Project Freedom,” a naval operation in the Strait of Hormuz, if a peace deal is not reached with Iran. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that military options remain on the table if diplomacy fails.

The US, which has increased crude and fuel exports to offset global supply disruptions, has also been drawing down its domestic inventories, Bloomberg noted. According to Energy Information Administration data, US fuel stockpiles recently fell to 11% below the five-year seasonal average. Despite President Trump’s claims that the US “doesn’t need” the Strait of Hormuz, the country still imports some crude oil from Persian Gulf producers.

Scuffles broke out in several European cities as Ukrainian nationals and pro-Kiev activists tried to disrupt Victory Day celebrations across the continent on May 9.

Russian expats in Europe and members of local civic organizations marked the 81st anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany by laying flowers at memorials to Soviet troops and participating in ‘Immortal Regiment’ marches, carrying portraits of their relatives who fought in the Great Patriotic War. The commemorative events went on despite provocations by supporters of Ukraine.

The ‘Immortal Regiment’ march in the Spanish city of Barcelona was peaceful until participants were approached by a group of protesters, who also carried an anti-fascist banner, but began chanting anti-Russian slogans. The tensions escalated into a brief physical altercation between the sides, with the provocateurs retreating before the police could intervene.

In the Polish capital, Warsaw, pro-Kiev activists attempted to disrupt the flower laying ceremony at a Soviet memorial cemetery. They set up banners with nationalist slogans and used loudspeakers to play obscene songs. Footage captured a woman being pushed after attempting to snatch the Russian flag from one of the activists. Major clashes were avoided due to a large police presence in the area.

Minor scuffles occurred outside a Soviet memorial in Berlin’s Treptower Park after protesters carrying Ukrainian flags arrived on the scene, with at least two people being arrested. The German police also detained a number of people across the city for violating a ban on displaying Russian and Soviet symbols.

Members of the Ukrainian community wrapped in national flags also attempted to interfere with Victory Day celebrations in the Swiss city of Geneva, shouting nationalist slogans and singing Ukrainian songs.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said earlier this week that “there were, there are and there will be provocations” during commemorative events, but that Moscow was ready for them. In a separate interview with RIA Novosti, Zakharova suggested that in Europe “many are being paid” to display hatred towards Russia.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has pushed back against what he described as a “new Iron Curtain” between the EU and Russia, calling for the restoration of pragmatic dialogue with Moscow instead of continuing “hatred.”

Fico, who has described himself as one of the EU’s “black sheep” over his stance on Russia, was the only sitting EU leader to travel to Moscow for Victory Day celebrations on May 9 and to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, drawing harsh criticism from Brussels and several member states.

In a video statement posted on Facebook on Saturday, Fico accused the EU of downplaying the Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazi Germany. Speaking aboard the Slovak government jet while returning from Moscow, he warned that Brussels’ Russia policy was damaging the bloc’s competitiveness and energy security.

He also shared footage of his visit.

“I reject a new Iron Curtain between the European Union and Russia. We are interested in standard, friendly, and mutually beneficial relations with this world power,” Fico said.

He argued that the EU was making a “huge mistake” by relying on sanctions and military support for Ukraine instead of direct political dialogue with Moscow.

“We cannot, just out of hatred for Russia, replace one energy dependence with another – this time American,” he argued. According to energy data, the US supplied more than half of the bloc’s liquefied natural gas imports in 2025.

Ukrainian enlistment officers have reportedly opened fire at members of the Roma community who were attempting to storm a recruitment center in Transcarpathia, western Ukraine.

The incident occurred in the village of Mezhgorye on Saturday after a press gang seized a local man, according to Ukrainian journalist Vitaly Glagola. Around 30 people reportedly gathered outside the enlistment office and tried to force their way inside by hurling objects and breaking down doors.

The journalist claimed that several shots were fired using a pistol and a Kalashnikov rifle. He added that officials initially denied the shooting, saying that only two blank rounds had been fired, which contradicted footage in which “at least four shots” could be heard.

“Now even the testimony of the TCC employees themselves does not match,” Glagola wrote on Telegram.

The “threat was localized, and the attack was repelled,” the office added in a statement on social media.

Faced with mounting losses, widespread desertion, and a shortage of willing recruits in the conflict with Russia, Ukrainian recruitment squads have increasingly resorted to coercion and brute force to fill the ranks.

The practice, commonly known as “busification,” involves military-age men being seized on the streets, at workplaces, and in residential areas before being taken to enlistment centers against their will and reportedly dispatched to the front after only cursory training.

A Frontier Airlines flight from Denver International Airport had to be aborted after the jet struck and killed an unknown person on the runway during takeoff, local officials have said.

The trespasser was hit by the plane two minutes after jumping the perimeter fence late on Friday, according to the airport. Videos from the scene captured the damaged engine blades, suggesting that the trespasser had been sucked into the turbine.

”We’re stopping on the runway,” the pilot told the control tower. “We just hit somebody. We have an engine fire… An individual was walking across the runway.”

An air traffic controller was heard warning his colleagues that the runway was closed after the incident, saying: “I do have limbs on the runway… I’ve got what appears to be a deceased person on the runway.” One of the first responders was also heard telling control that “there does appear to be human remains on the runway.”

The collision resulted in an engine fire and forced an evacuation of passengers via slides as smoke filled the cabin of the narrow-body Airbus A321 aircraft. Twelve of the 224 passengers on board suffered minor injuries in the incident, with five of them requiring hospitalization.

INCRÍVEL::::
IMAGENS FORTES::::
Pra você entender o que aconteceu com o voo da Frontier Airlines em Denver ontem à noite.

Um homem pulou a cerca do aeroporto às 23h17.

Às 23h19 — apenas 2 minutos depois — ele foi atingido por um Airbus A321 totalmente carregado, em velocidade… pic.twitter.com/oX8VzUAihr

— The Clown (@TheClownNow) May 9, 2026

The passengers were able to film the exact moment of the collision and the evacuation process. One of the witnesses told KUSA-TV that the jet lifted off the ground for a split second, but landed again after hitting something.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has hit back at German Chancellor Friedrich Merz after he criticized Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico for attending Victory Day celebrations in Moscow.

Merz said he “deeply regretted” Fico’s trip and claimed it did not reflect the EU’s “common view,” speaking at a press conference in Stockholm on Saturday.

“We will talk with him about this day in Moscow today,” he said. “We are celebrating Europe Day here in Stockholm today. And this is something completely different.”

When asked to comment on Merz’s remarks, Zakharova argued that modern Europe would not exist without the Soviet sacrifice that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.

The spokeswoman added that despite numerous attempts “to save them,” EU nations “always reorganize themselves into a concentration camp.”

Fico, who has long opposed Brussels’ stance toward Moscow, including military aid to Kiev and anti-Russian sanctions, was the only EU leader to attend the Victory Day commemorations in person this year.

Despite Lithuania and Latvia refusing his aircraft access to their airspace, the Slovak leader insisted he would still travel to Russia, saying the Baltic states would not prevent him from paying tribute to those who liberated Slovakia from Nazi occupation.

Putin praised Fico’s “unwavering stance on preserving the historical truth about the events of the Second World War and the Red Army’s role in liberating Europe from Nazism,” and highlighted the contribution of Slovak resistance fighters to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

The Russian president also thanked Slovakia for preserving Soviet war memorials and burial sites, noting that the official opening of a Red Army military cemetery in Michalovce is expected soon.

Clashes broke out in the Spanish city of Barcelona after several protesters attempted to disrupt a Victory Day commemoration marking the 81st anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat.

Victory Day is celebrated annually in Russia and most former Soviet republics on May 9 with military parades and Immortal Regiment marches, during which participants carry photographs of relatives who fought in World War II.

Footage filmed in Barcelona on Saturday showed people carrying Russian and Soviet flags as they peacefully gathered for the event before a counter-protester carrying a black-and-white banner approached the crowd, shouting derogatory slogans.

The provocation escalated into a physical altercation, after which the protesters fled before police intervened. The procession later continued through the city, with patriotic songs playing in the background.

“It is a very important day for our people. It is a day of remembrance for our grandparents who died during World War II,” one participant said.

The Immortal Regiment was first held in the Siberian city of Tomsk in 2012 and quickly spread across Russia and other countries. The initiative has since become popular among Russian-speaking communities living abroad.

This year, commemorative events took place in several countries, including India, Bangladesh, Kuwait, China, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, the US, and multiple cities across the EU.

A similar incident took place in Amsterdam during an Immortal Regiment march on May 2, when several Ukrainian nationals attempted to disrupt the procession by shouting anti-Russian slogans while carrying placards splashed with red paint.

Around 27 million Soviet citizens died during World War II, one of the highest death tolls suffered by any nation in the conflict. Moscow has repeatedly accused the US and EU member states of distorting historical truth and belittling the crucial role of the USSR.

Israel secretly built a military outpost in the Iraqi desert to support its air campaign against Iran and even launched strikes on Iraqi troops who nearly discovered it, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing US officials familiar with the matter.

The clandestine base was set up shortly before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran in late February, according to the report.

The US was reportedly aware of the installation, which housed Israeli special forces, served as a logistics hub for the Israeli Air Force, and hosted search-and-rescue teams in case Israeli pilots were shot down.

The outpost was nearly exposed in early March after a local shepherd noticed “unusual military activity,” including helicopter flights, and alerted authorities. Iraqi soldiers then moved to investigate the site but came under heavy fire. The attack left one Iraqi soldier dead and two others wounded.

Baghdad initially blamed Washington after security forces found evidence that foreign military personnel had been operating in the area.

“It appears there was a certain force on the ground before the strike, supported from the air, operating beyond the capabilities of our units,” Lt. Gen. Qais Al-Muhammadawi, deputy commander of Iraq’s Joint Operations Command, told Iraqi state media after the March attack. “This reckless operation was carried out without coordination or approval.”

Israeli aircraft carried out thousands of strikes during the five-week campaign, while the Iraqi desert outpost gave Israeli teams a forward position closer to the battlefield.

The IDF did not comment on the latest report, which adds to growing scrutiny of how Israel’s confrontation with Iran has expanded into a broader regional conflict, pulling the US deeper into hostilities.

Former US counterterrorism chief Joe Kent, who resigned in protest in March, has accused Israel of driving Washington into a war despite US intelligence assessments that Tehran was not actively building a nuclear weapon.

Trump administration officials have denied that Israel dragged Washington into the war. US War Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this week that President Donald Trump acted based on “American interests” and his “America First” policy, dismissing the idea that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had pulled the US into the conflict as a “false premise.”

The arrival of the hantavirus-stricken MV Hondius cruise ship off Spain’s Tenerife poses little risk of contagion to local residents, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has said.

The Dutch-flagged Atlantic liner, carrying 147 passengers and crew from 23 countries, suffered an outbreak of the Andes strain of hantavirus, a rare pathogen typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings, urine, or saliva.

The distressed vessel, dubbed the “plague ship” by some media, departed from Argentina for Cape Verde on April 1. The first victim, a 70-year-old Dutch man, began showing signs of illness on April 6 and died on April 11. His 69-year-old wife accompanied his body to South Africa, where she later also succumbed to the disease in a Johannesburg hospital on April 26. A third passenger, a German woman, died from the illness on May 2.

However, Ghebreyesus assured Tenerife residents that hantavirus, while “serious,... is not another COVID.”

“The risk to you, living your daily life in Tenerife, is low. This is the WHO’s assessment, and we do not make it lightly,” he wrote in a letter on Saturday.

The WHO director-general added that the passengers “will be ferried ashore at the industrial port of Granadilla, far from residential areas, in sealed, guarded vehicles, through a completely cordoned-off corridor, and repatriated directly to their home countries.”

Ghebreyesus arrived on the Spanish island to personally oversee the operation and again reassured residents that the risk was low during a short briefing alongside Spanish Health Minister Monica Garcia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that a meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky could take place “anywhere,” including in a third country, but only after a final long-term peace agreement is fully prepared and ready for signing.

“The Ukrainian side and Mr. Zelensky, they are ready to have a personal meeting... We have never refused,” Putin said during a press conference after Victory Day celebrations on May 9. “We can meet in the third country as well, but only after there is an ultimate agreement regarding a peace deal that must be a long-term deal.” 

He stressed that the meeting should be the “final thing,” the signing ceremony, and not turn into negotiations. Recalling the Minsk Accords experience, Putin noted: “We can speak hours, day and night and it would yield no results. We need specialists to take care of that... then we can meet, we can sign.” 

During the same May 9 briefing, Putin declared that the Ukraine conflict “is heading towards the end.” 

These remarks came one day after US President Donald Trump expressed hope that the ceasefire declared by Moscow on May 8 could lead to the fighting wrapping up soon.

Last December, Putin reiterated that Russia seeks a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict provided its root causes are eliminated.

Crowds of people gathered in the Estonian city of Narva to watch the Victory Day concert and fireworks display held in Russia’s Ivangorod, situated just across the border.

The Estonian authorities banned Victory Day celebrations on May 9, penalizing anyone seen with Soviet or Russian-themed symbols, such as the Ribbon of Saint George.

One of the spectators on the Estonian side of the Narva river told RT on Sunday that compared to previous years, even more people had come to the embankment to see the event. The person said that Victory Day “has always been the most important holiday for us, no matter what.”

Victory Day celebrations across Russia and the world: As it happened (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)

The person added that his boss at work had objected to him going to watch the Victory Day concert, but he went anyway. He explained to RT that his own relatives had fought against Nazi Germany, adding that the “desire to pay homage to our heroes beats fear of any potential punishment” from the Estonian authorities.

As the celebrations unfolded across the river, some Narva residents lit lanterns in greeting to their neighbors in Ivangorod, according to footage sent to RT by a subscriber. She said the gesture has become a local tradition dating back to the coronavirus pandemic, when border crossings became difficult.

According to the news agency, citing Ivangorod and Narva residents, many people in Estonia spent several hours in lines at the border just to watch the celebrations on the Russian side.

Aleksandr Drozdenko, the governor of Leningrad Region, where Ivangorod is located, previously told TASS that it was particularly important to the regional authorities that the “concert is also being heard on the other side of the Narva River.”

“We know that there are people there, to whom Victory Day is just as important, and they are waiting for this day,” the Russian official said. According to Drozdenko, “on both riverbanks, people are singing our common songs familiar from childhood,” in what he described as “people’s karaoke.”

The celebration culminated in a bright fireworks display over Ivangorod, watched from both banks of the river.

Meanwhile, the Estonian police reported that at least 20 administrative cases related to Victory Day celebrations were initiated on Sunday, as reported by Delfi media outlet. Most of those involved displays of banned symbols.

Victory Day celebrations across Russia and around the world concluded on May 9, while President Vladimir Putin wrapped up a series of meetings with foreign leaders who came to Moscow and spoke to journalists about the Ukraine conflict, Russia-China ties, and other international issues.

“I think the matter is heading towards the completion of the Ukrainian conflict,” the Russian leader said while answering questions from the press. He also did not rule out a possible meeting with Vladimir Zelensky in a third country once final agreements on a settlement are reached.

Here are some further highlights from Putin’s remarks:

Western elites fighting Russia with Ukrainian hands

Putin stated that it is the globalist faction of Western elites that is effectively waging war against Russia, using Ukrainians as proxies.

“We need to make sure that no one is threatening us. This is our goal,” Putin said when asked about the parameters of peace negotiations. He emphasized that Moscow is well aware of Western assistance to Ukraine, particularly with drone technology, but noted that the other side is now looking for ways to establish contact, fully understanding that further escalation could be very costly.

Trump supported Victory Day ceasefire

“President Trump supported it,” Putin said. Russia publicly announced the truce, but Kiev instead proposed a ceasefire starting on May 6, which it apparently had no intention of upholding.

The Ukrainian military violated the Victory Day ceasefire on 8,970 occasions after Moscow ordered all of its troops along the front line in Ukraine to halt combat operations and remain in their positions, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

Moscow warned partners about possible retaliatory strike on Kiev

The Russian leader emphasized that Moscow has no desire to escalate or worsen relations with anyone, and that it repeatedly warned its foreign partners about the possible consequences of Kiev’s provocations on Victory Day.

Putin pointed out that all key Ukrainian government and military decision-making centers are located in central Kiev, in close proximity to dozens of foreign diplomatic missions. He said Russia clearly outlined the potential scenario that could unfold, first warning key partners such as China and India.

Moscow also informed Washington about the possible consequences, which Putin believes contributed to Trump’s extended ceasefire initiative.

Ukraine yet to respond to Trump’s POW exchange initiative

Moscow sent Kiev a list of 500 Ukrainian prisoners of war and proposed an exchange back on May 5, but has yet to receive a response, Putin said. When Trump later announced an even larger 1,000-for-1,000 POW swap, “we supported it right away,” Putin added.

According to the Russian president, Ukraine said it needed time to review the proposal and later stated that it was “not prepared” for the exchange.

Putin explains absence of military vehicles at Victory Day parade

“We decided that we would definitely hold festive events, but without the demonstration of military equipment. Not only due to security concerns, but above all because the armed forces must focus their attention on the final defeat of the enemy,” Putin said.

The president added that the decision was taken long before any provocative statements from the Ukrainian authorities. The parade on May 9 still included marching servicemen and an aviation flyover.

Putin hopes for restoration of ties with West in future

Putin expressed confidence that Russia would restore relations with many Western countries in the future, even as he blamed Western politicians for triggering the Ukraine conflict.

Seeking to use Ukraine as an instrument of their geopolitical goals, these Western figures deceived everyone, and they’re now publicly admitting it... And they began deceiving us about the West’s eastward expansion back in the early 1990s... All of this, taken together, provoked today’s situation.

The Russian leader stressed that Moscow had never closed the door to negotiations with the EU or Ukraine and mentioned former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as a preferred intermediary for dialogue.

Russia offered help on Iran nuclear issue

According to the president, the United States, Iran, and Israel initially agreed to the idea. However, both Washington and Tehran later hardened their positions: the US demanded that the uranium be sent only to its territory, while Iran proposed creating a joint Russian-Iranian enterprise on its own soil to dilute the uranium. As a result, the situation has reached a complete deadlock.

Europe has become Russia’s “principal adversary” for the first time since the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, the president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), Dmitri Trenin, has told Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.

In the latest episode of Going Underground, the renowned international affairs expert said that “today, Russia is at war again, and this is not simply a war between Russia and Ukraine” but rather a proxy war against Moscow that is being waged by the West.

According to Trenin, while the US under President Donald Trump has increasingly distanced itself from the Ukraine conflict, European involvement has become progressively more prominent of late. He told Rattansi that elites in European capitals are using a perceived Russian threat in an apparent effort to consolidate the “crumbling” European Union and to “relaunch their economies through militarization.”

“They’re trying, above all, to keep themselves in power” by pushing alarmist narratives regarding Russia, he added.

The international affairs expert expressed confidence that Russia would eventually accomplish its goals in the conflict, though it would take a long time. He defined Russia’s vision of victory as the vanquishing of neo-Nazi elements within Ukraine, as well as “those forces in Europe, primarily among the elites, that have built Russia into a bogeyman again.”

Commenting on Trump’s attempts at mediation, Trenin claimed that the US president is “essentially powerless to insist on something that is of central importance to ending this conflict,” and so his role is rather limited in defining its course. According to the RIAC president, Trump has apparently been unable to get EU warmongers and the Ukrainian leadership to act on the understanding reached by him and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, last August.

At 6:00 PM on May 8, 2026, the plane carrying Robert Fico, the Slovak Prime Minister and leader of the Direction – Social Democracy party (SMER-SD), landed in Moscow. This fact was covered in great detail by both Russian and European media, and for good reason.

A week earlier, Lithuania and Poland had officially stated that they would not allow Fico’s plane to pass through their airspace on its way to the Russian capital. In order to avoid taking a long detour, Slovakia’s air route was reluctantly provided by Germany, Sweden, and Finland.

For Robert Fico, who has served as Slovakia’s prime minister since 2023 (and previously in 2006-2010 and 2012-2018), this was his third trip to the Russian capital for Victory Day celebrations. The first was back in 2015, when Fico marked the 70th anniversary of victory alongside then-Czech Prime Minister Miloš Zeman. The context of that parade was dramatic: despite the milestone anniversary, the 2015 parade cemented a shift in the list of high-ranking guests, in which Western leaders came to make up the smallest possible share.

At that time, a new participation format was introduced: leaders did not attend the stands on Red Square to watch the parade of Russian elite troops and equipment, but instead appeared only for the laying of flowers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier near the Kremlin walls. Thus, during the 2015 parade itself, Fico and Zeman held a working meeting and joined later for the Minute of Remembrance.

Fico’s second visit, on May 9, 2025, cost him dearly in terms of electoral support. The 80th anniversary of victory, along with the relatively strong personal ratings of Fico and his party, encouraged the prime minister to attend the parade. The consequences were swift: SMER-SD’s rating fell from 24% to 18%, its lowest level in the preceding three years of Fico’s time in office. Protests took place in Bratislava, and were attended by up to 60,000 people. It would seem that a tough lesson should have been learned – and yet the charismatic Fico is in Moscow once again.

To understand the Slovak leader’s motives, one has to look closely at Slovakia’s domestic political landscape and the foreign policy meetings Fico has held in recent months. At the beginning of February, the country declared a state of emergency in the oil sector in connection with the cutoff of Russian oil transit through Ukraine.

Officially, the issue was said to be pipeline damage in Ukraine. However, the leaders of Slovakia and Hungary (which also was not receiving Russian oil) stated that the problem was rooted in Kiev’s political decisions. Interruptions in energy supplies for Slovakia threaten disruptions to key industrial sectors concentrated in automobile manufacturing, which accounts for about 13% of the country’s GDP and nearly half of the republic’s total exports.

These include plants such as Jaguar Land Rover in Nitra and KIA in Žilina. Because of their production needs, they are critically dependent on deliveries of industrial diesel products and plastics (petrochemical products) from Slovakia’s only oil refinery, Slovnaft. In terms of direct employment, about 9,000 families work at the plants in Nitra and Žilina. Further along the chain, one job on the assembly line creates up to four jobs among suppliers (logistics, seating, plastics, catering). Thus, the real dependency rises to 35,000-40,000 people. Beyond them, other key players in the market – Volkswagen Bratislava, Volvo in Košice, and others – would also begin to stall because of energy shortages. Altogether, another 230,000 or so people are employed in this broader sector.

At the same time, for Fico, who has crossed the midpoint of his current term as prime minister, it is extremely important to prepare for the next electoral campaign, which will culminate in September 2027 – both to avoid alienating the party’s core voter base and to expand its support beyond it. That can be achieved only by preventing serious political and economic crises like the oil sector emergency that occurred in February of this year.

A second important factor is Fico’s recent foreign-policy meetings. Among the most resonant was the European Political Community summit in Yerevan on May 4, 2026. During the event, the attention of the Russian audience was focused on the Slovak leader’s closed-door meeting with Zelensky, where support for Ukraine’s accession to the EU was discussed. After the meeting, Fico said he would convey Ukrainian proposals to the Russian leader during talks following the Victory Day celebrations on May 9. We can assume that a “package of proposals,” or ultimatum, on transit issues will be transmitted via the Slovak leader. Yet precisely such an approach legitimizes Fico’s trip to Russia for the Victory Day celebrations, with Brussels’ silent consent.

It is customary to think that the relatively good relations which exist between Slovakia and Russia are grounded in pragmatism and cheap energy prices. But today’s reality is deeper. Slovaks are warmer and more rational than their neighbors in the Visegrád region. Having always played second fiddle in the history of great empires and middle states – Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia – they learned clearly that ideology is expensive, while survival requires intelligence and flexibility. This understanding enables Slovakia to find ways to make lemonade out of lemons. It should be noted that this brings results: a country which, because of its geographic position, historical circumstances, and energy problems, could be considered an outsider in European politics, is becoming its cyberpunk.

In cyberpunk, life unfolds simultaneously in two incompatible realities according to the principle of “Low Life, High Tech,” using system errors that ultimately form of glitch art – the art of digital interference. Its expressive means are bugs, noise, and wave distortions of the image. Thus, glitch-art diplomacy can be described as the foreign policy of a state that is consciously or forcibly built on protocol violations, unpredictability, and the use of systemic errors. In other words, if classical diplomacy is the polished skill of negotiations and playing by the rules, then “glitch diplomacy” is the aesthetics of apparent chaos, behind which stands a thoughtful, if simple, system.

It is precisely in this way that the foreign policy of modern Slovakia should be viewed. In the eyes of the nation, Robert Fico is a hero who breaks the binary European logic of ‘friend/enemy’ by building a bridge between West and East. In Russian discourse, it is emphasized that most European countries have ‘lost their agency’ by adhering to the shared algorithms of Brussels and Washington. Slovakia, by contrast, is capable of acting outside these algorithms, which is regarded as constructive pragmatism.

In the EU’s binary coordinate system, Slovakia is viewed more as its own systemic error. Since it is one of ‘theirs’, it can be corrected and managed. This is precisely the message Fico will voice in Moscow – and no matter how ultimatum-like or harsh it may be – this makes the Slovak leader’s policy acceptable to Brussels. In this way, Slovakia remains a small but critically important node through which East and West continue to exchange signals.

As Russia marks the 81st anniversary of its victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, the ensuing global conflicts are a grim reminder of the lessons learned (or lost) over the last century. While the Indian Republic joins its strategic partner in celebrating the defeat of fascism, it is worth retracing the common thread of civilizational history that the two giants share.

During the World War II, both Soviet and Indian troops (under British command) contributed decisively towards the defeat of the Axis forces. During the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, Indian and Soviet divisions coordinated their operations to secure the Persian corridor linking the Allies to the USSR. Elsewhere, while the Soviet forces fought the bulk of the German armies in the Eastern European theater, Indian contingents fought the Axis in the South-East Asian, North African, West Asian theaters, as well as playing a critical, often under-recognized role in the Allied invasion of Italy.

Simultaneously, Indian leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose sought to secure external support in their fight for independence. In his efforts to secure cooperation, his first port of call in 1941 was to the Soviet Union. Being unsuccessful he made his appeal to the Germans and the Japanese. Nevertheless, he was appalled at the German invasion of the USSR and in June 1941, declared that Indians had come to regard the ‘Third Reich’ as an aggressor. He believed that the USSR would ultimately become Britain’s adversary in the future and died in 1945 in pursuit of greater collaboration with Moscow.

Subhas Chandra Bose was not the only leader aspiring to closer ties with the USSR. Russia had long been part of a utopian hope, and when Indians thought about progress and development, they looked to Russia for inspiration.

During that period myriad factors contributed to the Indian and Soviet lack of understanding of each other’s positions. Post-October Revolution, the British Raj took comprehensive measures to prevent the entry of Soviet personnel and citizens into British India. After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks abandoned the extensive Tsarist intelligence networks deployed within the sub-continent and relied on information communicated by the Communist Party of India (CPI) who themselves were at odds with the dominant Indian National Congress (INC).

After attaining independence, these relations transformed into a peculiar multi-bilateral process where the Soviet government engaged with both the newly independent Indian government and the CPI. During the formative years the preference was given to the latter with support being provided in collaboration with the Communist Party of Yugoslavia for the CPI to undertake an armed proletarian struggle in 1948. However, Indian refusal to acquiesce to all Western positions in the international arena and its efforts in securing a settlement towards the Korean conflict led to changes in perceptions within the Soviet leadership. Stalin in conversation with Indian Ambassador to the USSR K. P. S. Menon expressed his view of a world divided into black and white with a lonely grey India occupying the middle ground. 

A decisive change in relations ushered in with the ascendancy of Nikita Khrushchev and the subsequent process of destalinization. Simultaneously, two trends came into being: firstly, the acceleration of the rivalry between the US and the USSR and subsequently the systems of capitalism and communism, and secondly, the trend of decolonization. Indian foreign policy under the leadership of its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, gravitated towards the concepts of non-alignment and ‘Panchsheel’ (or Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence).

The USSR itself shifted from a policy of ‘those who are not with us, are against us’ to ‘those who are not with the West, are possibly with us’. Under this new policy, encapsulated within the concept of Peaceful Coexistence propounded at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Moscow essentially saw the non-aligned movement with its anti-colonial stance as an ally.

Until the 1960s, the Indian armed forces had been largely equipped with British-origin weaponry. Post-1962, India embarked on a military modernization spree aided by the Soviets. The primary driver was the deterioration of both Indian and Soviet relations with China. Soviet economic aid to India was forthcoming, establishing steel plants such as the Bhilai Steel Plant, which to date remains a flagship unit of the country. The ushering in of détente brought American embargoes on weapons supplies to both Pakistan and India during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War. Taking an alternative approach, the Soviets sought reconciliation and succeeded with the 1966 Tashkent Agreement.

The integrity test of the Indian-Soviet relations occurred during the 1971 Bangladesh crisis. Having achieved rapprochement towards China with Islamabad’s assistance, the US did not want to constrain continued Pakistani atrocities in East Pakistan. New Delhi and Moscow finalized the 1971 Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, thus setting the stage against a Pakistan-US-China grouping.

The Indian economy took a distinctly socialist turn during Indira Gandhi’s tenure, noticeably due to internal crisis of leadership rather than external factors. However, the slowdown in Western economies, the 1973 US-USSR Grain Deal, and the combined Oil Shocks due to the Arab-Israel war and the Iranian Revolution gravely affected Indian economic indices. The Soviet Union, itself facing a stagnating economy, wasn’t able to extend economic aid. New Delhi had to instead rely on US supplies while resisting American attempts to arm-twist changes to the Indian domestic economy. However, in terms of arms supplies, the USSR remained the dominant partner for India for the entirety of the Cold War.

During the Unipolar Moment, India sought to turn around its relationship with the US, the sole hegemon. With the ascendancy of Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2000, relations with India were upgraded to a Strategic Partnership the same year. India was at that time under sanctions from the US for its 1998 nuclear tests, and the relationship would not be reset until the 2006 Indo-US Nuclear Agreement. Two trends dominated during this time period: firstly the September 9/11 attacks and the subsequent Global War on Terror, and secondly the normative principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) arising out of the 1993 Rwandan Genocide. Moscow’s disillusionment with Western promises to accommodate Russian interests – epitomized in the 2007 Munich Speech – coincided with New Delhi’s rapprochement with the US.

However, Moscow and New Delhi soon found themselves advocating similar positions when the R2P reached its crescendo during the 2011 Libyan intervention. India, Russia, and China abstained and later opposed the increasingly blurred distinction between protecting civilians and regime change operations. The RIC grouping evolved into BRICS as a major non-Western institution with the joining of South Africa in 2010. At the same time, Indian-Russian relations were further upgraded to a Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership.

The issue of a common European security architecture has disintegrated into a proxy conflict involving Ukraine, and the Israeli-US assault on Iran has effectively ended the liberal-international order. In these times, Indian-Russian relations have shown adaptability and resilience by concluding the Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics Agreement (RELOS). The agreement allows the stationing of foreign troops on Indian soil (a first in the state’s history), which the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) signed with the US does not cover. While debates for and against it are far from being settled, it allows a near permanent Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean (where the US operates the Diego Garcia base) and conversely Indian presence in the Arctic and the Pacific. In effect, the RELOS exemplifies deeper military integration between the two states than the 1971 Treaty ever envisioned.

Ultimately, for most of their existing histories, the trajectories of the two civilizational giants have been in harmony. Similar to the World War II, the RELOS signals commitment from both states’ leadership to proactively respond to international challenges by building on each other’s strengths.

In times beleaguered by strife and paralysis of institutional organs of intervention, bilateralism is rarely a better response to a polycentric disordered world. But when on rare occasions it does show adaptability and strength – as in Indian-Russian relations – it has the capacity to propel both states to unimaginable heights.

Andrei Starikov, director of the documentary film ‘Victory Day in the Baltics: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow’, spoke with RT about how Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are shaping the historical memory politics of the Western world. He also discussed how it has been turned into a political instrument by the supporters of Hitler and their descendants, who returned to the Baltic nations after the Cold War, and why the Baltic region could become a serious flashpoint. 

RT: Andrei, your film addresses the revision of the outcomes of the Second World War, a topic that the Western audience knows little about. Do you think this is a coincidence or the result of a deliberate information strategy?

Andrei Starikov: I wouldn’t exaggerate and say that it’s some kind of centralized effort to suppress information. It’s not a conspiracy or a particular strategy. We are, rather, talking about a certain perception: every country or society has its own pain points that it focuses on. 

However, it’s crucial to understand that even if a topic seems to be of regional importance, its implications can be global. History provides examples of this; the First World War was sparked by a local event – the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. At first glance, it seemed like a minor incident, but it triggered a massive conflict.

The situation in the Baltic states follows a similar logic. This is a small region but it lies at the intersection of major powers’ interests.

Looking at the bigger picture, we observe a broader geopolitical landscape composed of the United States, China, and Russia. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia ceased to be the superpower it once was, and a ‘belt’ of new states (the former Soviet republics) formed around it.

The Baltic countries – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – are part of this belt. These countries are Russia’s neighbors but they are also part of Western structures like the EU and NATO. And today, they find themselves in a challenging position. 

RT: Why is it challenging? 

Andrei Starikov: Primarily because of their historical and demographic structure. After 1991, a Russian-speaking population remained in these countries. In Latvia, nearly half of the population is Russian-speaking; in Estonia, it’s about 35-40%; Lithuania has a lower percentage of Russian speakers, but still a considerable number. 

It’s important to note that Russians didn’t appear there by chance. And it didn’t occur instantly. Some residents are descendants of migrants from the days of the Russian Empire – as far back as the 18th and 19th centuries. There were also religious migrations, such as Old Believers who fled church reforms.

In the 20th century, more migrants came during the Soviet era. When these territories joined the USSR, specialists such as engineers, workers, and builders migrated there actively. They established enterprises, infrastructure, and cultural institutions in the new republics.

During Soviet times, the Baltic nations found themselves in a unique position. These republics were sort of the ‘showcase of the USSR’ – a region that demonstrated the level of development, quality of life, and efficiency of the system. Thus, the Russian-speaking population appeared in the Baltics as a result of a lengthy historical process. 

From ‘bridge’ to frontline

RT: Today, the Baltic states refer to the Soviet era as “occupation” and Russians are seen not as settlers but as “occupiers.”

Andrei Starikov: When speaking of this, we must consider the historical context of the early 20th century. During that time, both Western and Eastern Europe demonstrated a strong interest in leftist ideas. Communist parties enjoyed significant support due to widespread disillusionment with capitalism, dire social conditions, and a lack of basic rights for workers.

The Soviet Union was viewed as a project that offered an alternative: social guarantees, education, healthcare, and labor rights protection.

Thus, the incorporation of the Baltics into the USSR in 1940 was part of a broader historical process supported by a segment of society. It wasn’t forced; it didn’t stem from Moscow’s ultimatum. It was a natural process that many welcomed.

Later, during the Soviet period, active modernization began in the region, involving the construction of industries, infrastructure, and cultural institutions. This further integrated the Russian-speaking population that had moved to Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

RT: Why did the authorities’ stance change drastically after the collapse of the USSR?

Andrei Starikov: A new identity was formed at that time. When countries emerge from a large political entity, they need to redefine who they are. This is often done through a rejection of their past.

For the Baltics, distancing themselves from the Soviet legacy symbolized a break from Russia. Geopolitics plays a role here: when you push away from one center of power, you inevitably gravitate toward another.

Small nations caught between major powers can rarely maintain neutrality. It’s like in physics – larger bodies attract smaller ones. The Baltic nations faced a choice: to serve as a ‘bridge’ between the East and the West or to become a dividing line. Unfortunately, political elites chose the latter path, and this led to heightened tensions both externally and internally. 

The people resist, many pack their bags and leave. When society operates under a constant state of opposition, people seek more stable conditions – they emigrate, postpone starting families, and birth rates decline.

All the challenges that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are currently facing stem from their leaders’ decision to play an active role in the confrontation between Russia and the West.  

This is an awful course that affects both those who identify themselves as ethnic Lithuanians, Estonians, and Latvians, and the remaining Russian population.

Naturally, this creates tension within these countries and outlines a potential civil conflict. I repeat: there are those who lean towards Russia and wish to facilitate dialogue, and then there are those who desire war. The latter include nationalists whose stance has been shaped by those who fought alongside Nazi Germany and those who fled to Latin America and other countries after the war.

Victory Day and the battle over historical memory

RT: What role does Victory Day play in this conflict?

Andrei Starikov: Victory Day is the cornerstone of historical memory. The anti-Hitler coalition emerged victorious in WWII, and the Soviet Union was  part of it. The USSR suffered the heaviest losses, as most battles occurred on its soil. Moreover, the Nazi occupation was exceptionally brutal and terror-driven in Soviet territories. It was true genocide.

For Russia and many post-Soviet countries, victory over Nazism is more than just a date; it’s woven into their identity and collective memory – a vital element that resonates powerfully even with today’s generations, the descendants of the victors. For the people of Russia and neighboring countries, Victory Day remains a deeply significant, emotional, and truly national holiday.

Any attempts to challenge or reinterpret this holiday cause deep pain. The memory of WWII victory in Russia is codified not only socially but also legally – it’s enshrined in the constitution. Yet, it transcends mere legal norms; it forms an organic foundation upon which modern Russian identity and foreign policy thinking largely rest.

Any actions taken against the symbols of this holiday – especially in the post-Soviet space – are perceived in Russia as personal affronts and insults. Naturally, such steps provoke strong reactions, both socially and politically.

In some ways, this can be likened to how the legacy of the Civil War continues to shape the national consciousness in the United States. Much time has passed, yet the topic remains part of the national consciousness and evokes strong responses.

Today, in the Baltic states – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – public celebrations of Victory Day are prohibited.

Related events, concerts, fireworks, and WWII victory symbols are banned. Those who attempt to publicly commemorate the day face administrative and sometimes criminal charges. People may be fined, persecuted, sometimes even stripped of their status or deported.

Russia perceives any actions regarding May 9th acutely – especially when they are prohibitive or demonstrative in nature. For Russia, this is a day of remembrance and at the same time a celebration of victory, and such [prohibitive] measures are seen as an assault on [historical] memory. 

This is particularly painful for those for whom this day holds personal significance – the descendants of the veterans and their families, for whom the memory of the war is alive. When people are forbidden from honoring that memory and denied the opportunity to pay their respects, it generates a lot of tension.

RT: Can we say that the leadership of the Baltic states, which has banned Victory Day, aims to provoke Russia?

Andrei Starikov: Their actions are mostly symbolic but [for Russia, it’s a] deeply sensitive matter. Such actions are perceived as attempts to offend, provoke, and humiliate. 

This is particularly hard for the older generation living in the Baltic states, including those who experienced the war or grew up in its aftermath. For these individuals, Victory Day isn’t just a date on the calendar – it’s part of their life. 

When these people are denied the chance to commemorate Victory Day, when their rights are restricted, their access to healthcare or social services is limited, and when they are pushed out of public life, it feels like an assault on the very memory of Victory. 

Today, one of the main threats is that in the political elites of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, there are strong forces that advocate for revanchism and seek to reinterpret the outcomes of WWII. They prioritize rigid ideological positions over pragmatism, economic development, or constructive dialogue.

Such an approach creates points of tension that could escalate into larger conflicts. History shows that major wars often stem from local crises. Today, the Baltic Sea region – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – has become one of those sensitive flashpoints.

The tail wagging the dog

RT: How significantly do perspectives on WWII differ in Eastern and Western Europe? Can we say that the Baltic states influence how the wider Western world interprets history?

Andrei Starikov: Since joining the European Union and NATO, the Baltic countries have positioned themselves as sort of ‘experts on Russia.’ They say, ‘We know Russia better than anyone else; our historical experience and Russian language skills give us unique insights because we lived in the Soviet Union.’ 

Despite their small size – these nations collectively have only a few million inhabitants – they have actively engaged in shaping EU policy in Eastern Europe. Through participation in EU institutions, through resolutions, memoranda, and committee work, they have managed to set a tougher and more confrontational tone towards Russia.

Additionally, there’s the factor of emigration. After WWII, people from these countries emigrated to the West – particularly to the US, Latin America, and Australia. Over time, they integrated into political and social structures there, forming lobbying networks. Today, these connections continue to function, amplifying their agenda.

RT: Did the Baltic states’ accession to the EU mark a turning point after which Russia and the West began to view 20th-century historical events differently?

Andrei Starikov:  It was a significant milestone, but not the starting point. Small states positioned between major power centers can’t exist in a vacuum or remain entirely neutral.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Baltic nations chose to distance themselves from their Soviet past – and consequently, from Russia. In doing so, they inevitably began to construct their identities in opposition to Russia.

This process began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Joining the EU and NATO solidified this choice and gave them added confidence, partly due to the NATO ‘security umbrella’. 

From that point on, they were able to adopt a firmer stance, often disregarding Russia’s position.

Can the truth about WWII still be defended?

Andrei Starikov: I believe we can. Some aspects are open to interpretation, but there are also fundamental truths. WWII victory is one of these truths. It’s not merely a historical fact; it serves as a critical reference point.

No matter how hard people try to reinterpret, distort, or rewrite it, this victory remains relevant. It represents a triumph over an ideology that denied the value of human life.

For Europe and the West, this moment is just as significant as the Civil War is for the US. It was a dialogue about values, albeit in a deeply tragic context. The victory in WWII set a trajectory toward progress, human rights, and equal opportunities. For Russia, it’s even more pivotal. It’s not just a part of history – it’s foundational to its identity.

That’s why this memory cannot be erased. It still prevents the world from descending into full-scale conflict. It shows that even in times of intense opposition, dialogue, alliances, and shared victories are possible. In this sense, it serves not only as a remembrance of the past but also as a guide for the future. 

Understanding and remembering history is crucial. It can be complex and contradictory. Yet, the goal of politicians and leaders should be to avoid igniting new conflicts based on old wounds and to create space for coexistence.

Conversely, when tensions arise and forces that are interested in escalating the conflict come to power, this creates global risks. These ‘marginal’ groups seize power, create flashpoints and put all of us at risk of nuclear catastrophe. We must stop them, apply pressure, and unite our efforts to defeat them early on, preventing them from spreading their influence.

The Baltic states and other such regions require special attention, since local crises can lead to much more serious consequences. Without addressing the Baltic issue, it will be challenging to engage in dialogue and develop further. 

The US has triumphantly announced that it has removed highly enriched uranium (HEU) from Venezuela in what the US Department of Energy (DOE) hailed as a victory for America and “the world.”

In a statement on Friday, the DOE said it had completed the “removal of all remaining enriched uranium from a legacy research reactor” in the South American nation and transferred it to the US for processing and reuse. The quantity removed was 13.5 kg (30 pounds).

The move “sends another signal to the world of a restored and renewed Venezuela,” the statement reads. It also hails “[US] President [Donald] Trump’s decisive leadership” on the issue.

Washington rebooted relations with Caracas after US forces abducted and imprisoned Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January over narcoterrorism allegations. The uranium removal was coordinated with the Venezuelan Ministry of Science and Technology, the DOE statement said.

US nonproliferation officials argue that any civilian HEU stockpile, regardless of size, presents a long-term threat of theft, diversion, or trafficking and should eventually be removed from circulation. The Venezuela transfer closely resembles dozens of similar HEU-removal operations carried out over the past three decades as part of routine US- and IAEA-backed nonproliferation programs targeting civilian research reactors.

Even at the height of Washington’s hostility toward Maduro, US accusations against Caracas centered on drugs trafficking and corruption, not on any Venezuelan nuclear threat to the American homeland.

The announcement of the removal comes as the US has reached an impasse with Iran over its far larger stockpile of enriched uranium, estimated at roughly 440 kg, which Trump has repeatedly described as a major threat to US security.

The Ukrainian military has violated the Victory Day ceasefire on 8,970 occasions since it took effect at midnight on Friday, including drone and artillery strikes, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

Moscow said on Friday that it had ordered all of its troops along the Ukraine front line to halt combat operations and stay at their positions.

In a statement on Saturday, the Russian Defense Ministry stressed that its forces were continuing to abide by the ceasefire. By contrast, the Ukrainian military had conducted “strikes on our forces’ positions involving unmanned aerial vehicles and artillery,” military officials in Moscow reported. On top of that, a number of Russian regions, including Crimea, Bryansk Region, Belgorod Region, Kursk Region, and Moscow Region, have come under Ukrainian attacks.

According to the ministry, of the 8,970 ceasefire violations on Kiev’s part, 1,173 attacks were conducted by Ukrainian artillery, multiple launch rocket systems, mortars and tanks. The Russian military has additionally recorded a total of 7,151 enemy drone strikes.

Russian troops have responded in kind, launching retaliatory strikes against Ukrainian firing positions, command posts, and UAV launch sites, the Defense Ministry stated.

Earlier this week, the MOD announced a unilateral two-day ceasefire on May 8-9 to mark the 81st anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany and the end of World War II in Europe.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that he had directly asked Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to cease hostilities for three days, May 9-11, with both agreeing to the proposal. Trump added that Moscow and Kiev would swap 1,000 POWs each during the period.

“Hopefully, it is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, and hard fought War,” the US president wrote, expressing hope for a “big extension.”

Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov later confirmed that Moscow agreed to extend the ceasefire it had originally announced for May 8-9 for the period mentioned by Trump, as well as to a major prisoner exchange.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Zelensky's Kiev bag man who ran a series of corruption schemes which stole hundreds of millions of dollars from Ukraine's energy sector was alerted by a mole inside an anti-corruption agency that he was about to be arrested, minutes before the bust was due to take place, local media has reported.

Timur Mindich and his right-hand man Aleksandr Zukermanjsut fled to Israel before Western-backed anti-corruption agents raided his home. Ukrainakaya Pravda (UP) is among several outlets that have been publishing purported transcripts of surveillance records gathered during the 2025 investigation that triggered Mindich's decision to flee.

The alleged mole

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

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

No honor among thieves

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

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

Suspected tip-off network

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

Escape plan emerges

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

The so-called ‘Mindich tapes’ have confirmed long-held suspicions in Ukraine of extreme corruption in the upper echelons of Vladimir Zelensky's government and shattered the Western illusion of transparency and accountability for the hundreds of billions in 'aid' sent to Kiev.

The impact is widening since original charges were levelled last year over corruption at Energoatom and have now included Fire Point, a former movie casting and location agency linked to Zelensky's friends that has transformed into a billion-dollar drone and missile company now at the centre of allegations based on content from the Mindich tapes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RT Newsroom explains what’s going on.

2025 marked an inflection point

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

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

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

Digging into the data

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

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

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

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

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

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

What this means

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

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

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

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

The role of debt

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

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

Decline in industrial jobs in context

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

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

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

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

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

Military Keynesianism as the solution to three problems at once

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

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

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

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

How unpopular is Starmer?

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

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

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

Taxes and austerity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two-Tier Keir

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

Two Tier Keir

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

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 2, 2025

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

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

Palestine on the ballot

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bottom line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Reform UK (@reformparty_uk) May 8, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) May 7, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the crude is pledged abroad

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can be done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) May 7, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiered enlargement and punitive mechanisms

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

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

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

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

Tensions fueled by Brussels’ policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out the full interview below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out the full interview with Garland below.

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

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

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

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

The battle of narratives is going strong.

Our countries are a recurring target.

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

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

— European Commission (@EU_Commission) May 7, 2026

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

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

pic.twitter.com/n69zh60sQ3

— Luzius Meisser (@Luzius) May 8, 2026

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

Or rather pic.twitter.com/JALe2paBR7

— Frédéric Leroy (@fleroy1974) May 7, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No group has claimed responsibility for the Lokoja raid.

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

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

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

— Nigerian Army (@HQNigerianArmy) May 7, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

— DRDO (@DRDO_India) May 8, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smaller military processions and commemorative events were held across the country earlier in the day, honoring the millions who gave their lives to defeat the Third Reich.

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

Hundreds of people marched through Russian, European, the US', Middle Eastern and Asian cities, carrying portraits of their relatives who fought in WWII. 

Russian soldiers on the frontline have restored some Soviet memorials and military cemeteries. 

Victory Day celebrations have now concluded across Russia and beyond.

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

How it all started 

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

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

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

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

The country is gone, but the memory remains 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An old holiday celebrated in a new way 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since then, the pace of disintegration has accelerated dramatically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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