Nearly four years after Western governments set out to squeeze Russia’s oil revenues, Moscow is shipping crude worth more per week than at any point since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

The gross value of Russia’s seaborne crude exports surged to $2.75 billion in the week through September 27, the highest weekly figure in four years, according to tanker-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. Shipments averaged 3.71 million barrels per day over the latest four weeks, their highest since early August.

The rebound exposes a central problem with the Western strategy. Sanctions were designed to keep Russian oil on the global market to avoid a supply shock while forcing Moscow to sell it more cheaply.

Instead, Russia rerouted crude from Europe to China, India, and other markets, built alternative shipping networks, and reduced its reliance on Western services. Now, soaring global prices fueled by the US-Israeli war on Iran are making those barrels more valuable.

The plan: Keep Russian oil flowing but slash Moscow’s earnings

When the West moved against Russian oil in 2022, it faced an obvious problem: Russia was too large an exporter to remove from the market without risking a surge in global prices.

The EU was also Moscow’s biggest oil market. Europe took more than half of Russia’s oil exports in 2021, while Russia was the EU’s largest crude supplier, accounting for roughly a quarter of its imports. China, by comparison, was Russia’s largest single-country buyer.

The EU banned most seaborne Russian crude imports in December 2022, while the G7-led bloc imposed a $60-per-barrel price cap. Western shipping, insurance, and other maritime services could still handle Russian crude, but only if it was sold below the ceiling. Sanctions on petroleum products followed in February 2023.

The logic was simple: cut Russia’s revenues without removing its oil from the global market. The strategy therefore depended on keeping Russian crude flowing while using Western dominance of shipping and insurance services to constrain its price.

The plan backfired.

What went wrong?

The $60 cap initially coincided with steep discounts on Russia’s flagship Urals crude. But Moscow gradually reduced its dependence on Western shipping and insurance services by which the ceiling was supposed to be enforced.

Even the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) – a Helsinki-based research organization that has repeatedly advocated tougher sanctions on Moscow – now says the policy has “failed to impose a durable constraint on Russian crude export earnings.” It says the measure worked only for limited periods on Urals, while other grades and export channels were largely unaffected.

The EU repeatedly tightened the mechanism, lowering the ceiling first to $47.60 and then to $44.10 per barrel from February 2026. The latter was intended to remain 15% below the average market price for Urals.

Yet Urals averaged $60.22 a barrel in July – roughly $16 above the EU and UK ceiling. Russia’s ESPO crude, heavily oriented toward Asian buyers, has also consistently traded above both the old and new caps, according to CREA.

Brussels has responded by sanctioning hundreds of tankers, targeting traders, and tightening restrictions on third-country entities accused of helping Moscow circumvent the measures. Russian crude, however, continues to flow.

Four years later: Where is Russian oil going?

Russia did not stop selling oil when its biggest European customers turned away. It found other customers.

China and India emerged as the dominant destinations for Russian crude, while Türkiye also increased its role. In July alone, India imported $6.25 billion worth of Russian crude – a record high for a second consecutive month – while seaborne deliveries to China were 16% higher than a year earlier, according to CREA.

Russia also built up shipping capacity outside the traditional Western system. By June, sanctioned “shadow” tankers were carrying 66% of its seaborne crude exports, compared with just 31% aboard G7-linked vessels, CREA estimates.

Why is Russian oil worth more now?

The biggest twist has come not from Brussels or Washington, but from the Middle East. The US-Israeli war on Iran and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz have pushed global crude prices sharply higher, while attacks on regional energy infrastructure have further strained supplies.

The result is precisely the type of supply shock Western governments sought to avoid when designing the price cap – and Russia is among the producers benefiting from higher prices.

On a four-week basis, the gross value of Russia’s crude shipments has risen to $2.39 billion per week, up $290 million from the previous four-week period, according to Bloomberg.

The price shock has also complicated efforts to tighten the squeeze. Earlier this year, the EU considered a maritime-services ban that would have gone beyond the price cap by directly targeting Russia’s ability to ship oil. But soaring prices following the Hormuz disruption prompted a rethink over fears that squeezing Russian exports could worsen the global shortage, according to CREA.

The dilemma is the same one Western governments faced in 2022: squeeze Russian supply too hard and global prices could rise further – making the barrels that still reach the market more valuable.

Not all barrels are created equal: The refinery factor

The surge in the value of Russia’s crude exports does not tell the whole story.

Ukrainian drone attacks have disrupted Russian refineries, reducing domestic processing and leaving more crude available for export. Moscow has also restricted diesel shipments to protect domestic supplies.

Russian oil-product loadings fell to 4.7 million tons in July, their lowest level on record and less than half the 9.6 million tons shipped a year earlier, according to CREA. Seaborne crude revenues, by contrast, rose 7%. Russia has also raised its 2026 crude-export forecast while cutting its outlook for refined-product shipments.

The crude boom is therefore being partly offset by weaker fuel exports. At the same time, reduced refinery activity is freeing up more unprocessed oil for shipment abroad – where higher global prices have increased its value.

Europe doubles down

Despite the limits exposed by the price-cap system, Western governments are continuing to tighten restrictions and pressing European states that still rely heavily on Russian energy to cut their remaining ties.

The dispute returned to the fore this week when German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul traveled to Slovakia and urged it to move away from Russian oil and gas and increase pressure on Moscow.

Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar pushed back, saying the country’s infrastructure was built around Russian supplies and that an immediate cutoff would create “enormous problems.”

The West’s Catch-22

The West can sanction more tankers and traders, tighten enforcement, pressure remaining buyers and target third-country networks. The EU’s latest sanctions package added another 41 vessels to a list that already includes 632 ships and targeted entities in China, India, Türkiye, Kazakhstan, and the UAE.

But directly targeting Russian export volumes brings the original dilemma back into focus: the West kept Russian barrels on the market because it feared soaring oil prices – only for soaring oil prices to make those barrels more valuable.

The Russian Defense Ministry has shared footage of troops practicing an amphibious assault against a simulated enemy deep in the Arctic.

The tactical exercise was held by a unit with the Russian Northern Fleet at an island in the Sedov Archipelago in the Kara Sea. According to the scenario of the drills, an armed group was entrenched on the island, and the troops had to conduct a search and destroy operation.

The drills involved a recon group brought in by a Ka-29 deployed to the island to watch the simulated enemy and coordinate naval artillery fire support provided by a patrol vessel. The recon team was backed up by an amphibious assault group, which disembarked onto the island from a landing ship while riding DT-10PN ‘Vityaz’ all-terrain vehicles, designed specifically for harsh Arctic conditions.

The force successfully captured the bridgehead and rapidly advanced into the designated area, finding and dismantling all the mines and improvised explosive devices along the way, the ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.

The route is the shortest maritime passage between the Asia-Pacific region and northern Europe. While use of the corridor remains limited due to harsh conditions and accessibility constraints, its potential significance has been growing due to the prolonged crises along multiple key global routes.

Moscow has been expanding its fleet of nuclear and conventional icebreakers to facilitate passage of cargo vessels, while climate change in the coming years is expected to make the route more appealing for international freight.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said the UK could eventually rejoin the European Union as his government considers options for reshaping relations with the bloc a decade after the Brexit referendum.

In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday, Burnham said Brexit had done “more harm than good,” arguing that the current settlement was holding back economic growth and had failed to deliver the promised control over immigration.

He said the government would examine alternatives ranging from maintaining the status quo to joining a customs union or the single market, or even potentially going “all the way” and returning to the EU. 

Why did Britain leave the EU in the first place?

Britons voted 52% to 48% to leave the EU in June 2016, triggering years of negotiations over the terms of Brexit. The UK formally left the bloc in January 2020 and exited the single market and customs union at the end of that year.

For many Leave voters, Brexit was primarily about sovereignty and immigration rather than economics. An Ashcroft poll conducted immediately after the referendum found that 49% of Leave voters said their main reason was wanting decisions about the UK to be made in Britain, while 33% pointed to regaining control over immigration and borders. Only 6% primarily cited expected benefits from leaving the EU for trade and the economy. By contrast, 43% of Remain voters said their main concern was the risk Brexit posed to the economy, jobs, and prices.

What did Brexit achieve?

Brexit ended EU free movement and gave London control over who could move to Britain from the bloc. That did not, however, translate into lower overall immigration. Net migration instead surged as arrivals from outside the EU increased, reaching a record 944,000 in the year to March 2023 before falling sharply following tighter visa rules. Non-EU nationals continue to account for most immigration.

The change also worked both ways. British citizens lost EU freedom-of-movement rights and are now subject to the entry requirements that apply to non-EU travelers in the Schengen area.

Why is the issue being reopened now?

Critics contend that the economic costs of Brexit have overshadowed its benefits. The OBR estimates that Brexit will ultimately reduce the trade intensity of the British economy by around 15% and productivity by about 4% relative to remaining in the EU. These are long-term modeling assumptions rather than directly observed losses, while Britain’s economic performance since Brexit has also been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Ukraine conflict, and wider disruptions to global trade. 

Is preserving the UK part of the calculation?

Burnham has not explicitly linked his EU rethink to preserving the United Kingdom. But it comes as pro-independence and Irish nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland push for independence or Irish reunification while presenting closer integration with the EU as part of their preferred future.

This month, the pro-independence SNP and Plaid Cymru, together with the pro-Irish-unification Sinn Fein, jointly asserted their nations’ right to self-determination and called on London to facilitate a constitutional change, declaring that their future “belongs in the European Union.” 

Burnham, meanwhile, has made preserving the UK an explicit priority. Responding on Tuesday to Scottish First Minister John Swinney’s prediction that he would be the UK’s last prime minister, he vowed to “fight with everything I’ve got to keep it together.”

Haven’t Britain and the EU already been moving closer?

In security policy, Britain and the EU have already moved significantly closer despite Brexit. The UK remains one of NATO’s leading European military powers, while the 2025 UK-EU Security and Defense Partnership established regular strategic consultations and expanded cooperation on Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, military mobility, and arms production. It also opened the way for greater British involvement in EU defense initiatives.

Could Britain simply rejoin the EU?

Any return would be neither automatic nor a restoration of Britain’s previous membership terms. The UK would have to formally reapply and go through the EU accession process, requiring unanimous approval from member states and the consent of the European Parliament. Nor would Britain be guaranteed the opt-outs and special arrangements it enjoyed before Brexit; the terms of any renewed membership would have to be negotiated.

Immediately after the 2016 referendum, EU leaders said they regretted Britain’s decision but respected the result. During the subsequent withdrawal negotiations, Brussels took a firm line, insisting that Britain could not retain the benefits of EU membership from outside the bloc and rejecting “cherry picking” from the single market.

A decade later, however, Brussels is not ruling out London’s return. In July, EU Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said applying for membership was “entirely a prerogative” of the UK. Former EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said in June that the EU’s “door is open,” while stressing that Britain could not simply choose which EU rules to follow.

Indian designers are moving beyond manufacturing and craft work for global brands and are increasingly presenting their own collections on the international stage, fashion designer Kanika Goyal told RT at the BRICS+ Fashion Summit in Moscow.

India has long been an important source of craftsmanship and production for the global fashion industry, with much of that work taking place behind the scenes. But a new generation of homegrown labels is increasingly creating the finished product and taking its own design identity overseas.

“We’ve always been on the back end of things and walking behind the scenes,” Goyal told RT, but said Indian designers are now emerging “in a much louder way,” drawing greater attention to where the craft and techniques behind their work originate. Emerging talent is increasingly “creating the final product” and “putting it on global stage,” she added, saying that “recognition really matters.”

The shift comes as India’s textile exports rose 16.1% year-on-year in August, with ready-made garment exports up 6.1%, according to the Ministry of Textiles.

The change goes beyond India. Designers from BRICS and other emerging markets are already building strong domestic businesses while reaching audiences outside their home countries. For Goyal, this is less a future Global South-led fashion revolution than a shift that is already underway.

Russia is among the markets Indian labels could explore more directly. Goyal’s brand previously supplied Russian stores through a Paris-based sales agency before 2022. Shipping, customs, and finding the right partners now influence how designers approach the market, but she sees greater business between the two countries as a possibility.

The Pentagon announced on Wednesday that the last American troops had left Iraq, more than two decades after the US invaded the country.

A handover ceremony at Erbil Air Base in the northern Kurdish region marked the end of the US military presence.

The administration of then-President George W. Bush justified the 2003 invasion by claiming that longtime Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Washington never substantiated the allegations, while Iraq descended into a quagmire of violence involving Sunni and Shia Muslims as well as Kurds.

US forces pulled out in 2011 amid a slew of war crimes allegations, including the killing of unarmed civilians.

According to some estimates, more than a million Iraqis lost their lives as a result of the conflict, with millions more displaced.

Washington intervened again in 2014 with a deployment code-named Operation Inherent Resolve.

RT correspondent Steve Sweeny took a look back at an intervention that upended the delicate balance between Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic groups, plunging the country into years of chaos and violence.

Shiite militias hailed the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq on Wednesday as a “historic victory” over Washington, which maintained a military presence in the country for a combined 20 years.

Commenting on the departure of US service members from Erbil Air Base in northern Iraq, Abu Mojtaba al-Yasiri, a commander of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, claimed that the event represented a “crushing defeat for the American project.”

Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, a senior representative of another Shiite militia, Kataib Hezbollah, echoed his sentiment, saying that the “expulsion of the occupation forces, defeated, from the land of Iraq is the beginning of full sovereignty.”

Unlike in 2011, this time around US troops are leaving Iraq for good, retired US Air Force Command Chief Master Sergeant Dennis Fritz told RT, predicting that the American military footprint in the broader Middle East is bound to significantly diminish as well.

A number of Iraqi Shiite armed groups backed Iran after the US and Israel attacked the Islamic Republic in late February, firing missiles and drones at US military installations.

In its latest statement, Kataib Hezbollah warned the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi against complying with US sanctions targeting Iranian airlines that were introduced last week, as RT’s Salman Kujari reports.

A 15-meter-high bronze memorial towers over the Amur River embankment: a Soviet soldier swings his rifle butt, smashing a Japanese border marker bearing the Imperial Chrysanthemum emblem – a symbol held sacred in Japan.

On September 4 – the day following Victory Day over Militaristic Japan and the End of WWII (as observed in Russia) – the Victory in the East memorial was unveiled at the highest point of the Amur River embankment in Khabarovsk. The monument was created at the initiative of Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the participation of the Russian Military Historical Society and the government of Khabarovsk Krai. The stone border post is an exact replica of a border stone erected by Japan on Sakhalin after the Russo-Japanese War.

The following day, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi demanded the removal of the monument. The depiction of the smashed chrysanthemum, she wrote on X, was absolutely unacceptable and was an affront to the national sentiments of the Japanese people. Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi called the monument “unacceptable” and deeply regrettable, and said that Tokyo would continue to press for its removal.

Beijing seized the opportunity to remind its neighbor of past crimes: Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning advised Japan to learn from history, make a definitive break with militarism, and earn the trust of its neighbors through concrete actions.

At first glance, the situation appears unprecedented. In the span of a single month, the Russian president made a historic visit to Iturup; both sides summoned ambassadors; Japan, the US, and Australia held military exercises just 20 kilometers from the Russian border; and now, there’s the issue with the monument and the demand to tear it down. Media outlets speak of a “sharp chill” in relations, a new wave of confrontation in the Russian Far East, and even a potential “second front” of the Cold War.

However, Russian experts who spoke to RT view the situation differently.

A series of coincidences

The situation was triggered not by Russia’s actions, but by the Japanese Ministry of Defense. 

On August 4, the Cabinet of Japan approved its annual Defense of Japan White Paper – a record-breaking 598 pages featuring an anime-style cover showing a group of smiling young people against the backdrop of a futuristic city. This year’s theme was “Security for the Future.” The content of the whitepaper was quite pragmatic, however. China was identified as Japan’s greatest strategic challenge; on this list, China was followed by Russia and North Korea; for the first time, the buildup of military power was directly linked to economic prosperity (hence the peaceful cover design).

There is a section on Russian military activity in the Far East: the document notes Tu-95 flights, 214 interceptions of Russian aircraft over the course of the year, the expansion of joint naval patrols with China (in August 2025, a submarine participated in these patrols for the first time), as well as a flight by Russian and Chinese bombers to the area near Shikoku Island in December. There is also a chapter on new methods of warfare, such as the use of mass-produced, low-cost drones and AI in decision-making. For the second consecutive year, the document characterizes Russian military actions in the Southern Kuril Islands as “illegal occupation.”

Nine days later, on August 13, Vladimir Putin visited Iturup. Throughout his years in office, the Russian president had never visited the southern islands of the Kuril chain, which are also claimed by Japan.

On August 15, the anniversary of Japan’s surrender in WWII, Takaichi sent a ‘tamagushi’ (ritual offering) to the Yasukuni Shrine. However, she refrained from going there personally, and the ruling party clarified that the donation was made from personal funds and in Takaichi’s capacity as LDP leader, rather than as head of government. The gesture was calculated to satisfy the domestic audience, without triggering a diplomatic row with Beijing and Seoul.

On August 18, Japanese Ambassador to Russia Akira Muto was summoned to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin lodged a strong protest regarding statements made by the Japanese prime minister and foreign minister, asserting that Russia’s sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Southern Kuril Islands are inviolable, and that any attempts to call this reality into question are unacceptable and illegitimate.

On August 31, another incident occurred, this time involving military exercises. From September 8-24, Japan, the US, and Australia conducted Exercises Orient Shield with some operations taking place on Hokkaido Island, near the Russian border. The Japanese side was informed that provocative military activity near Russia’s Far Eastern borders is absolutely unacceptable; Zakharova specifically noted plans to deploy US land-based Typhon missile systems – capable of firing medium-and shorter-range missiles – during the exercises and warned of compensatory countermeasures.

On September 4, the monument was unveiled in Khabarovsk. That same day, the UN General Assembly voted to adopt the Equal Earth Projection. Japan voted in favor. But a few days later, it demanded a correction: on the online version of the new map, the four Southern Kuril Islands were shaded the same color as the rest of Russia, which Japan found unacceptable.

So there we have it – six incidents in 30 days. Each incident compounds the previous one, and together they form a picture of rapidly deteriorating relations.

Below, Russian experts analyze the situation. 

Vasily Shchepkin – a Japanologist with a PhD in History, senior researcher of the Far East Department at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and an associate professor at the Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg – suggests reframing the question. 

“In my view, relations between Russia and Japan have not cooled suddenly; they have been in this state for over four years, since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. Japan joined Western sanctions, and everything that has happened over the past four years is largely a consequence of that,” he said. 

Therefore, the rift happened not in September 2026, but in March 2022 – when Tokyo backed the collective West’s sanctions regime, and Moscow responded by withdrawing from peace treaty negotiations, cancelling visa-free travel for Japanese citizens to the Kuril Islands, and halting dialogue on joint economic activity there. Everything that followed was the consequence of that single decision.

So, what happened in August? According to Shchepkin, the current chain of events was a direct result of Putin’s visit to Iturup. Tokyo’s reaction was inevitable. However, he draws attention to a neglected detail. “Aside from statements, no concrete measures have followed so far.”

No actions were undertaken by Japan in September. No new sanctions packages were adopted; diplomats were not expelled, and the remaining projects were not cancelled. As for démarches, the summoning of diplomats, and declarations of unacceptable behavior, all this is standard diplomatic procedure. 

“Neither Tokyo nor Moscow seeks to aggravate relations further,” Shchepkin says. “In my view, [relations] are unlikely to deteriorate further, because, speaking of bilateral interaction, neither side wants to halt it or escalate tensions.”

Therefore, we may conclude that Russia-Japan relations, in their current form, are a dependent variable. 

“The current state of relations is rather a consequence of other events, which are not directly tied to the Russian-Japanese agenda,” the expert says. 

“We are currently in a sort of deadlock which we return to whenever the global situation gets worse – and particularly when relations between Russia and the US deteriorate,” the expert says. “The US has long been the ‘third force’ on which Russia-Japan relations largely depended.”

Who started it?

While it’s true that relations are frozen, there is no consensus among the parties on who is to blame for this. Russian experts, however, have a clear opinion. 

Olga Bonch-Osmolovskaya, a Japanologist with a PhD in History, describes the reasons behind Tokyo’s decision. According to her, after 2022, Japan’s policy ceased to be truly independent. But that is only part of the story.

“It is one thing to politically condemn a distant war and state one’s position for the sake of appearances, given the existence of a sort of ‘suzerain’; it is quite another to actively integrate oneself into the corresponding policy,” she says. Japan chose the latter option. And it did so with particular zeal. 

“Driven by what one might call the ‘straight-A student complex’ of the Japanese and their tendency to be highly conscientious, sometimes even fanatical in executing tasks, Japan closely aligned itself with this course, joining the full package of sanctions against Moscow and withdrawing from various forms of cooperation,” Bonch-Osmolovskaya says.

The former policy – one that allowed Tokyo to balance between allied obligations and its own interests in the north – was curtailed. Along with it, all the achievements of the previous decade came to naught.

“Russia did not initiate the deterioration of relations with Japan,” Bonch-Osmolovskaya says. “It responded and continues to respond to Japanese sanctions and to the increased US military presence.”

There is a fine line between words and capabilities, however. Take Exercises Orient Shield, for example. “During the exercises, all sorts of maneuvers are practiced – the landing of troops, the transfer of ammunition, the deployment of HIMARS systems, air defense systems, etc.” 

Intentions change along with governments, but military infrastructure remains. And military officials all over the world take this into account.

The result is a vicious circle: Japan builds up its military potential jointly with the US; in response, Russia strengthens its position in the Far East; then, Tokyo presents this strengthening as an additional justification for further militarization. And the circle repeats itself. 

This is confirmed by Japan’s military spending. Japan crossed the 2% defense spending threshold ahead of schedule, a year earlier than the mark outlined in the 2022 strategy. For the current fiscal year, defense spending amounted to a record 8.8 trillion yen, and the request for the next year is already a record 8.9 trillion yen (about $56 billion). In June, the parliament renamed the Air Self-Defense Force into the Air and Space Self-Defense Force; this was the first renaming of one of the three branches of the Self-Defense Forces since their creation in 1954. In August, Takaichi announced further changes: the creation of a Space Operations Group, a Space Domain Awareness (SDA) satellite, and the expansion of the Okinawa Ground Self-Defense Force’s 15th Brigade into a division.

These actions are mainly directed against Beijing. But considering the geography, they are also directed against Moscow. 

Energy instead of diplomacy

Despite all this, there is something that balances the dramatic picture. While diplomats are exchanging demarches, gas carriers are departing from Sakhalin and transporting LNG to Japan. 

The Sakhalin-2 project survived sanctions, frozen political dialogue, and demands to dismantle the monument. In June, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control once again extended the special license until December 18, 2026. Such an exception has been issued annually since 2022, and each time it was preceded by negotiations between Tokyo and Washington. Russian LNG, according to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, provided about 9% of Japanese liquefied gas imports in 2025; According to Bonch-Osmolovskaya, the inverse relationship is even stronger – Japan accounted for about 58% of the project’s exports.

“Severing diplomatic relations would be disproportionate,” he says. “The possibilities for introducing additional economic sanctions are also limited: Japan does not have much leverage. For example, it remains involved in Sakhalin oil and gas projects and, I believe, is not ready to sacrifice them.”

Notably, the US administration insisted on Japan’s withdrawal from the Sakhalin projects. However, Tokyo remained. “As far as we can judge, Takaichi either convinced the US or insisted [on doing things her way] and so, despite the position of its senior ally, Japan remained in the projects.”

The second possible lever is humanitarian. Tokyo tries to preserve it, too. “The Japanese side has invested a lot of effort in humanitarian cooperation with Russia. Before the current escalation, the Japanese even proudly said that, despite the lack of political dialogue, cultural festivals and other events continue between the countries.” And Nelidov adds, “in the long term, Japan has perhaps more need for such contacts than Russia.”

Shchepkin supports this idea, adding that even in the past four years, and thanks to the efforts of the pro-Russia lobby within the Japanese Foreign Ministry, cooperation has been preserved in areas like culture, education, and tourism. The current flow of Russian tourists to Japan, the expert adds, is largely a legacy of the Shinzo Abe administration, when the parties agreed to put the territorial issue aside and focus on the economy, culture, and visas.

The general picture is quite clear. Bonch-Osmolovskaya calls it “cold peace” and warns that a complete rupture of relations would not benefit either country: while Japan could technically replace Sakhalin gas, doing so would require time, money, and even greater dependence on US suppliers, whereas Russia would lose revenue from the project. “A definitive break, should it occur, would come at too high a price for both sides,” she says.

Therefore, the limit to how far relations can deteriorate is not determined by diplomacy. It is dictated by the energy balance, and this applies to both parties.

Why Takaichi could not remain silent

A pressing question remains: why did the Japanese Prime Minister issue all these loud statements if no concrete measures were to follow?

“Had she failed to react to the Russian president’s visit to the territory claimed by Japan, to the installation of the monument – which [Russia] views as fine, necessary, and valuable, but which the Japanese see as a desecration of a state symbol – or to the military exercises, she would have been torn apart, figuratively speaking, by her own party,” the expert says.

For example, when the US administration imposed sanctions against the International Criminal Court – including its presiding judge, Japanese national Tomoko Akane – Takaichi faced criticism for not standing up for her compatriot firmly enough. “If public opinion and fellow party members demand decisive action from her even in dealings with the US, then what would they say about Russia?”

A scenario in which Tokyo would have remained silent to avoid damaging relations with Moscow is virtually impossible. 

Valery Kistanov, head of the Center for Japanese Studies at the Institute of China and Contemporary Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences, drew attention to the details of the protest against the monument in Khabarovsk. Takaichi posted her comment on social media but did not issue an official statement, and major Japanese media outlets (except for right-wing conservative publications) barely covered the story. It didn’t cause a nationwide outcry.

In other words, the statement was addressed not to Moscow, but to fellow party members and the segment of the Japanese electorate for whom the events of 1945 remain an enduring historical wound. The offering made at Yasukuni on August 15 followed the same logic: made from personal funds and without Takaichi herself present, it was intended as a signal to the domestic audience, but was carefully calibrated to avoid provoking a new crisis in relations with Beijing.

The fact that the series of incidents was not followed by any practical actions holds the key to understanding the events of September. This means that a large part of what happened did not concern bilateral relations but was intended for domestic audiences. 

However, this does not render the situation entirely harmless. Symbolic commitments tend to become entrenched: a prime minister who has demanded the dismantling of a monument cannot refute their own statement, and a successor would have to start from the same position.

Experts agree on who benefits from the conflict, though they differ on the implications. “It is clear that the US is the primary beneficiary,” says Bonch-Osmolovskaya. “The worse relations between Moscow and Tokyo become, the stronger Japan’s existing dependence on the US grows in all aspects: weaponry, intelligence, supplies, and security guarantees.” Washington gains a disciplined ally, additional bases for the deployment of forces, and another tool for exerting pressure on the Russian Far East.

However, she adds, “It is important not to reduce the situation to a scenario where the US is some sort of ‘dark empire’ and Japan is merely its puppet.”

In Japan, there are certain beneficiaries of this confrontation as well. Among the proponents of revising post-war restrictions is the defense establishment, which Bonch-Osmolovskaya characterizes as revanchist and nationalistic, and arms manufacturers, for whom expanded exports open up markets that had been closed for nearly 80 years. The image of an external threat serves as a mechanism for legitimization: the longer the list of threats, the easier it is for the parliament to increase military spending and lift export restrictions. 

Bonch-Osmolovskaya gives a rather harsh assessment and makes a historical analogy. She believes that the current propaganda is reminiscent of the decades preceding WWII, when Japan designated China as its primary adversary and demonized it; today, a similar process is unfolding regarding Russia. At the root of this, she sees the unresolved trauma of 1945: while the cult of the emperor was formally dismantled and the atrocities of the military machine were acknowledged, the defeat was never truly accepted, and strategic sovereignty was lost.

Nelidov takes a more measured approach, offering a different view that does not suggest malicious intent. The problem, he believes, is the so-called ‘security dilemma’ – a long-standing concept in international relations theory. A state strengthens its defenses; its neighbors, unaware of its true intentions, interpret this as preparation for aggression and arm themselves in response; the first state observes these preparations and continues its military buildup. “The paradox of the security dilemma is that in seeking to protect itself, the state ultimately finds itself in an even more dangerous situation,” he explains.

Another factor also comes into play. “Most Japanese diplomats, politicians, and even military officials have no desire to develop an independent view of the global situation,” Nelidov says, describing Japanese political circles as highly compliant pupils of the West; the few who acknowledge that the situation in Ukraine might be more complex than the prevailing narrative risk becoming outcasts. These sentiments did not emerge in 2022; they were shaped throughout the post-war period by the media and the education system, initially as anti-Soviet views. In Japanese opinion polls, Russia consistently ranks low in terms of public favorability, alongside China and North Korea.

If the current situation resembles ‘freezing point’, it is logical to ask what might drive the relations between Japan and Russia below freezing. 

Bonch-Osmolovskaya mentions a specific threshold. “The next stage of deterioration could be the deployment of US long-range systems in Japan,” she says. Russia’s reaction would be predictable: a further military buildup on the Kuril Islands and in Sakhalin. A further contraction of economic ties is also likely; she believes that the fishing industry would suffer first, followed by what remains of trade.

Bonch-Osmolovskaya does not predict a direct military conflict. According to her, if it were to occur at all, it would happen only as part of a larger clash between Russia and the US or a major crisis surrounding Taiwan that dragged in all the neighboring states. In other words, a Russo-Japanese war is impossible as a standalone event – it could only be an episode within someone else’s war.

Nelidov views the situation somewhat differently. He points out that Japan’s defense policy identifies China and North Korea as the primary threats, with Russia ranking third on the list. But even when it comes to China and North Korea, it’s not about direct confrontation but rather an arms race. While this is certainly a negative phenomenon, it is fundamentally different from a direct conflict. 

The comparison the expert draws with Europe is interesting. He considers the rhetoric of Berlin, London, Helsinki, and Stockholm far more threatening than that of Tokyo, which demonstrates “virtually no real readiness for aggressive action against Russia.” He is convinced there are certain limits the Japanese side will not cross.

He attributes East Asia’s greater reluctance to engage in direct conflict to accumulated experience: territorial disputes and mutual historical grievances are common in the region, and the elites have learned to manage such crises. For example, following Takaichi’s November statement regarding potential intervention in Taiwan, Tokyo’s relations with Beijing plummeted to their lowest point in a decade, and China imposed economic restrictions; yet within a few months, the situation had stabilized.

“In East Asia, I don’t see the kind of crazy Russophobia and readiness to direct all resources into the conflict that we’re witnessing in Europe,” says Nelidov. “Japan doesn’t intend to go to war with Russia; and neither does Russia want war with Japan. Both sides realize it is not in their interests. There are no strategically vital or fundamental contradictions between them.”

However, the opinions of experts diverge when it comes to assessing the current pause in relations. For Nelidov, it is merely another fluctuation in a long history of regional squabbles. For Bonch-Osmolovskaya, it represents a deeper rift: Russia is asserting itself as an independent civilization, while Japan, in response, is becoming increasingly integrated into the US system of control over Eurasia. She advocates neither for reconciliation at any cost nor for territorial concessions, but rather for maintaining energy, economic, and cultural ties as a bridge – “not so much with the Japan of today, but with the Japan that might one day become more independent.”

As Bonch-Osmolovskaya concludes, “Japan cannot simultaneously be an independent civilization and America’s forward military outpost. It will have to make a choice.”

Thousands of Haredi Jews marched through the streets of Jerusalem overnight, protesting the Israeli military conscription and honoring incarcerated draft dodgers from the ultra-Orthodox community.

The march began in Jerusalem’s Geula neighborhood, with many streets in the area cordoned off. The police, however, avoided deploying officers into the crowds in an apparent attempt to avoid provoking violence. The demonstration was organized by multiple hardline Haredi anti-draft groups, including the Jerusalem Faction and other anti-conscription activists, who expressed hope the event would be peaceful. No major incidents were reported.

Some 50 formerly jailed draft evaders reportedly showed up at the event, with the crowds celebrating them as true martyrs who had suffered for what the event organizers described as their adherence to Judaism. The ultra-Orthodox community overwhelmingly opposes compulsory military conscription into the IDF, viewing full-time Torah study as their primary duty.

Demonstrators carried assorted placards and banners during the march, including signs equating Haredi military prisoners to “hostages.” Some placards even condemned the IDF as an “enemy army” and reiterated the Haredi refusal to sacrifice their children “on the altar of Zionism,” footage from the scene shows.

♦️ תהלוכת העריקים בירושלים. צילום: יאיר לוי

📌 יו"ר ישר איזנקוט בתגובה לתהלוכת העריקים בירושלים: "הבחירות הקרובות הן בין ממשלת השתמטות לממשלת גיוס ציונית. מדינת ישראל לא יכולה להרשות לעצמה עוד קדנציה של ממשלת השתמטות" pic.twitter.com/iDZ7n1Nb6V

— Asslan Khalil (@KhalilAsslan) September 29, 2026

Some protesters were seen riding an open-roof double-decker bus, blasting traditional songs and dancing in the streets.

הפרגוד: תהלוכת העריקים על אוטובוס 2 קומות. בתקווה שבחג הבא לא יצטרכו רכבת שלמה pic.twitter.com/apEQkwAUml

— הפרגוד (@moshepargod) September 29, 2026

While military service is mandatory for most Israeli citizens, both men and women, members of the Haredi community have enjoyed an exemption for decades. The arrangement ended in 2014, resulting in repeated clashes between the ultra-Orthodox Jews and the Israeli authorities.

Tensions escalated amid the Gaza war, with the Supreme Court ruling in 2024 that thousands from the community were subject to conscription. The mass draft of ultra-Orthodox, however, has been repeatedly delayed, with the authorities reportedly winding down the conscription effort recently ahead of parliamentary elections.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has addressed the newly elected State Duma for the first time, outlining priorities from economic self-reliance and social spending to defense and long-term national security.

Speaking at the opening session of the ninth convocation of the lower house of parliament on Wednesday, Putin urged lawmakers to avoid economic missteps and “destructive populism,” stressing that Russia has the resources it needs to achieve its goals without outside assistance.

Here are the key takeaways from the president’s address.

‘We don’t need handouts’

Russia will not go around the world “begging for handouts with an outstretched hand,” Putin said while discussing the country’s finances and the new federal budget.

“Firstly, because it is humiliating. Secondly, nobody will give us anything, we know that very well. And thirdly – and most importantly – we don’t need it,” he said.

Putin described Russia’s financial system and economy as confident, but warned that mistakes are “absolutely unacceptable.”

Putin also called for measures to boost investment and urged lawmakers to reduce administrative barriers for businesses.

Security and the Ukraine conflict

Defense and support for Russian troops and their families should remain among parliament’s top priorities, Putin said.

Lawmakers must focus on issues of “state importance,” strengthen the country’s defense capabilities and “do everything for our victory,” according to the president.

Putin also welcomed veterans of the Ukraine conflict elected to the new parliament, saying they had already demonstrated their commitment to the country “on the battlefield.”

He said national unity would allow Russia to “achieve its goals” and provide “reliable guarantees of security and sovereignty” for generations to come.

Developing the new regions

The first sitting coincided with Russia’s Day of Reunification, marking four years since Moscow incorporated the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions following referendums in September 2022.

Putin described the vote to join Russia as “clear” and “lawful,” and said the entire country is now involved in rebuilding and developing the territories.

The four regions are represented in the State Duma for the first time following this month’s election.

Putin said residents who went to the polls despite shelling and threats had demonstrated that the Russian people “cannot be broken or intimidated.”

Election shows ‘national unity’

The September 18-20 vote was accompanied by a massive Ukrainian drone raid targeting Moscow and other Russian regions.

Putin said the turnout and election results had reaffirmed the strength of Russia’s multiparty political system and national unity in the face of what he called “historic challenges.”

The ruling United Russia party secured 349 of the State Duma’s 450 seats. Putin told the newly elected deputies that they bore a “particular responsibility” to voters and urged them to remain closely engaged with the people they represent.

Ukraine’s NATO-donated F-16 fleet is out of commission more often than it engages Russian drones, The Wall Street Journal has claimed.

The American-produced fighter jets were touted as the latest “gamechanger” weapon in Kiev’s conflict with Russia, a tool that will help “achieve goals outside of Ukraine,” as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said when the first batch was set to arrive in the summer of 2024.

However, a key EU member in the European-led scheme cannot keep up with necessary maintenance of the fleet, according to the newspaper.

What is the F-16 initiative?

The plan was launched in 2023, as Ukraine’s fleet of Soviet-built military aircraft was dwindling. Pro-Kiev propaganda implied that the US-made multirole jets would help Ukrainian forces challenge Russia’s air dominance over the front line. But it was hardly a secret that they would be kept far away from Russian SAMs and fighter jets and only engage long-range drones and cruise missiles.

Donor nations announced they were prepared to spend years training Ukrainian pilots, refurbishing the aircraft they were willing to spare, and happily signing deals for modern replacements to bolster their own militaries – the F-16 initiative was effectively a NATO-backed pyramid scheme allowing everyone to spend big and upgrade their air forces. 

Ukraine has since received about 40 jets, roughly half of what the donors pledged, and lost several of them during combat missions, reportedly after corners were cut for expediency during training courses. It is now facing winter with an acute shortage of air defense systems.

What’s the problem?

Belgium’s Sabena Aerospace Engineering, awarded a $235.5 million contract for maintenance of Ukraine’s F-16 fleet, is not keeping up with the demand, according to the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

An inspection that normally takes two to six weeks lasts “as long as 40 weeks in Belgium,” retired US Navy Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery said. Another Western source said more than half of Ukrainian jets are now in maintenance limbo, with the rest set to become grounded by the end of the year.

Was the issue unexpected?

Media reports saying that the Ukrainian F-16 fleet is being overworked surfaced as early as July, as Kiev’s shortage of ground-launched interceptor missiles became more acute. There were also indicators pointing to a bottleneck in Belgium.

In April, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation reported that not one of the six F-16s that Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store pledged to Ukraine in 2023 had been delivered. Four of them were not airworthy to begin with, but the two others were previously used to train Ukrainian pilots in Denmark.

The six jets were stuck at a Sabena workshop in Belgium due to “significant capacity problems,” the report said.

Is Ukraine getting more jets?

There were delays in deliveries as well.

Belgium promised in 2024 to transfer 30 aircraft set to be phased out by its air force, which was expecting F-35 replacements. Then-Defense Minister Ludivine Dedonder said Ukraine would start receiving the old jets “as soon as the F-35s arrive on Belgian soil,” but no transfers have been reported since.

Why does Ukraine have air defense problems?

A shortage of Western weapons partially caused Ukraine’s current situation.

When this summer Vladimir Zelensky announced a 40-day “pressure campaign” of long-rage strikes on refineries, civilian ships, and commercial warehouses, his team reportedly hoped that images of smoke-plumes stretching over big Russian cities would support his bid to receive more Patriot missile interceptors from the limited US stockpile.

If true, the plan backfired. NATO nations are scrambling to provide what Kiev wants, while the economic damage caused by Russian retaliation is mounting. And Ukraine already has a $27 billion military budget hole that European donors are struggling to fill.

Ukrainian forces previously learned that Western arms gifts come with caveats. Donated NATO artillery systems lacked interoperability and were described as a “zoo” by troops. Much-hyped NATO battle tanks turned out to be mostly useless in drone-driven warfare and had to be kept away from the front line.

Can Ukraine come up with alternatives?

Zelensky puts on a brave face talking about the dire situation. Last week he claimed Ukraine had successfully tested four new interceptor drones designed to shoot down faster-moving jet UAVs – the kind of targets the WSJ claimed F-16s are well-suited to take down.

But an earlier Reuters report said trials in July “did not go to plan” as the prototypes lost control and “crashed into nearby fields and forests.”

Ukrainian opposition lawmaker Sergey Rakhmanin, who sits on the national defense committee, has said Kiev missed Russia’s rapid development of jet kamikaze drones. He said Ukrainian interceptors cost up to $100,000 apiece and that scaling up production would require too much time, even if funding becomes available.

An official from the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s ruling party has died after being attacked following a radio appearance in the Ebola-hit eastern city of Butembo, local media reported on Monday.

Marie-Celestin Karondwa, a spokesperson for the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS) in Butembo, was assaulted on Sunday and later died from his injuries, the Congolese Press Agency (ACP) reported, citing a party statement. His property was also looted and his home set on fire.

As quoted by Reuters, the party said he was “an innocent victim for having ‌defended ⁠the party’s position on the existence of the Ebola virus disease... and the threat it poses to the population.”

The motive remains unclear, although the party has linked the attack to his public support for measures against Ebola. The UDPS called for an investigation and for those responsible to be brought to justice.

The WHO recorded 12 attacks on health care between the declaration of a public health emergency of international concern on May 17 and mid-August, with additional incidents under verification. Similar resistance has hampered efforts to contain previous Ebola outbreaks in the region.

The Ebola response is also being complicated by insecurity and mass displacement. The WHO has said conflict is restricting access for response teams and hampering disease surveillance, contact tracing, and access to care. 

The outbreak has meanwhile continued to grow. As of September 27, DR Congo had recorded 8,116 confirmed cases and 3,924 deaths, according to the country’s National Institute of Public Health (INSP). The case fatality rate stood at 48.3%.

Russia has provided assistance to countries affected by the outbreak. Rospotrebnadzor has sent specialists to Uganda and supplied Russian-developed PCR diagnostic tests to Uganda, DR Congo, and the Republic of Congo.

In July, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow was prepared to establish mass production of a vaccine adapted to the Bundibugyo strain once it obtained the necessary biological material.

Mali has taken its case against Ukraine to the UN again, two years after severing diplomatic ties with Kiev over a rebel ambush that killed dozens of Malian soldiers and allied Russian forces. 

Malian Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop told the UN General Assembly on Monday that Ukraine was aiding armed groups in the Sahel and urged the international community to respond.

Why has Mali raised the accusation again?

Diop’s remarks follow a series of coordinated militant raids in Mali and new reports of Ukrainian assistance with drone operations. Pointing to attacks on April 25 and July 4, he said they exposed a “dangerous connection” between jihadists and separatist rebels, and accused Kiev of aiding forces that threaten his country’s territorial integrity.

“Ukraine is just the visible part of the iceberg,” he said, claiming the violence was part of a wider effort to destabilize the Sahel states and obstruct their break with former colonial influence.

The April offensive by the Al-Qaeda-linked Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) and the Tuareg-led Azawad Liberation Front (FLA) struck several cities and killed Malian Defense Minister Sadio Camara. Mali’s army said it repelled assaults on military sites and key infrastructure with support from Russia’s Africa Corps, killing more than 200 militants. 

How did the dispute with Ukraine begin?

In July 2024, Tuareg rebels ambushed Malian troops and Wagner Group contractors near Tinzaouaten, close to the Algerian border. Ukrainian military intelligence spokesman Andrey Yusov later said the rebels had received “necessary information” that enabled the operation, adding that “there will be a continuation.”

Yuriy Pyvovarov, then Ukraine’s ambassador to Senegal, shared Yusov’s interview on Facebook, writing, “The work will continue. There will certainly be other results.” Senegal summoned him over the post, while Mali cited the remarks as evidence of Kiev’s involvement, and severed diplomatic ties.

What has been reported about Ukrainian involvement since then?

Le Monde reported in 2024 that Ukrainian intelligence had taught Tuareg rebels to build and operate explosive drones, citing sources close to the group. This month, CNN interviewed Ukrainian personnel who said about 15 specialists were assisting the FLA with unmanned aircraft. One described remotely directing rebel drone missions.

What has Ukraine said?

Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry has rejected the Sahel states’ terrorism allegations, describing them as “groundless and untrue” and calling Mali’s decision to sever ties “hasty.” In August 2024, it said Bamako had provided no evidence of Ukrainian involvement in the Tinzaouaten attack. Ukraine’s military intelligence agency also referred CNN to earlier official remarks when approached for comment on its September report of Ukrainian drone specialists assisting rebels in Mali. 

Is Mali alone in making the accusation?

Niger and Burkina Faso have also accused Ukraine of supporting armed groups. The three Alliance of Sahel States (AES) members filed a complaint with the UN Security Council in August 2024.

During a televised interview on Sunday reviewing his four years in office, Burkina Faso’s interim President Ibrahim Traore said he had placed Ukraine on his country’s “map of enemies.” Speaking about what he described as attempts to destabilize Mali and Niger, he warned these were “only the beginning.” He cited Pyvovarov’s comment, saying the diplomat had “clearly stated that they were involved” in supporting armed groups in the Sahel.

What does Moscow say?

Russia backs the Sahel states’ accusations. Last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Kiev of “state terrorism” against countries in the region, citing reports of serving Ukrainian troops joining attacks alongside armed groups. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova previously said Kiev was opening a “second front” against Russia in Africa by supporting militants in countries friendly to Moscow.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Borisenko told TASS on July 17 that Ukrainian instructors trained in drone warfare were embedded with Islamist militants in Mali. He also alleged Ukrainian involvement in attacks on Russian interests in Libya and support for paramilitary forces in Sudan, extending Moscow’s accusations beyond the Sahel. 

Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso ended defense ties with France, accusing it of failing to contain the insurgency and interfering in their affairs. They have strengthened counterterrorism cooperation with Russia.

Nearly 49,000 people have been killed in violence linked to militant Islamist groups in the Sahel since 2022, the Africa Center for Strategic Studies said in August.

Mali and Russia signed a military cooperation agreement in June 2019. Bamako sought Russian private military assistance in 2021. Wagner was replaced by Russia’s Defense Ministry-run Africa Corps in June 2025. The corps operates at African governments’ official request, Lavrov said last month.

At the UN on Monday, Diop said the AES remained open to partnerships respecting its members’ sovereignty. “We do not accept dictates; rather, we seek sincere and healthy cooperation,” he said.

The Kremlin has categorically denied that Moscow and Washington discussed a plan whereby sanctions targeting Russia could be eased in return for the release of US nationals imprisoned in Russia. 

Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday responded to a question about an article in the Atlantic citing anonymous sources that claimed the administration of US President Donald Trump was considering relaxing some economic restrictions if Moscow would release individuals Washington considers unjustly imprisoned.

“The issue was not discussed in those terms and could not have been, because we categorically reject the notion that there are any political prisoners in Russia and consider framing the issue in this way entirely inappropriate,” Peskov told journalists.

Russian and US special services continue regular contacts concerning various prisoner exchanges, he added.

According to The Atlantic, the proposal was advanced by White House envoy John Coale and approved by Trump for exploration several months ago. The initiative, the outlet's sources speculate, could have reportedly allowed Washington to broaden its engagement with Moscow beyond negotiations over Ukraine and pursue deals involving Russian oil, diesel, rare earth minerals and other commodities.

Trump’s envoys have been exploring ways to revive economic ties with Russia but have so far viewed at least a partial ceasefire in Ukraine as a prerequisite, the outlet wrote on Tuesday.

The Atlantic also claimed that Washington is seeking to arrange lower-level talks between the US, Russia and Ukraine as early as next month, could focus on a limited ceasefire covering energy infrastructure, potentially in the UAE. 

Moscow has repeatedly said it opposes a temporary truce that would allow Ukraine to regroup and rearm, insisting that hostilities can end only through a comprehensive settlement that addresses the root causes of the conflict. Peskov was not asked to respond to the claim.

Speaking at the UN Security Council last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would not agree to pause military operation because such a step could be used by Ukraine’s European backers to supply Kiev with more weapons.

The prospect of renewing US-Russian business ties before the Ukraine conflict is resolved has been sharply criticized by Vladimir Zelensky, who told The Atlantic he would try to “block” any sanctions relief for Moscow before hostilities end.

More than 4,500 Indian seafarers are aboard commercial vessels operating in the Persian Gulf amid repeated attacks on regional shipping, New Delhi has said. The Indian government is monitoring their safety after one sailor from the country was killed and another went missing this month.

Six India-flagged commercial ships and six foreign-flagged vessels carrying cargo to India are currently in the Gulf west of the Strait of Hormuz, with around 163 Indian seafarers aboard them. The more than 4,500 Indians are serving on other commercial vessels operating in the area, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Tuesday.

An Indian sailor was killed when the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged bulk carrier MV Cape Dao was attacked in the Gulf of Oman on September 23. Ten days earlier, an Indian crew member went missing after the Panama-flagged tanker El Gaia was struck while passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

At least 85 shipping incidents had been recorded in and around the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Middle East by September 24, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) confirmed, highlighting the growing risk to commercial vessels operating in the region.

India has tightened precautions in response. Shipowners and managers have been advised since July to avoid deploying Indian seafarers on voyages through the Strait of Hormuz until further orders. A 24-hour control room and real-time monitoring system are also tracking vessels and crews in coordination with the Indian Navy and other agencies.

The safety push has also moved to the diplomatic level. India and Liberia launched a new Group of Friends on Safety and Security of Shipping and Seafarers at the United Nations last week, bringing together around two dozen countries with major roles in shipping, vessel registration and supplying crews.

Somali pirates killed five crew members of an oil tanker they held captive for more than five months before security forces retook the vessel, authorities in Somalia’s semi-autonomous Puntland region have said.

The Palau-flagged MT Honour 25 was seized on April 21 with 17 crew members on board. Puntland authorities said 16 suspected pirates were detained during the operation to regain control of the vessel, while others escaped.

“Puntland Maritime Police Force (PMPF) has concluded an operation to secure the MT Honour 25. The vessel is now safe and under Puntland Government control,” the force said on X on Tuesday.

According to the PMPF, three of the five victims were Pakistani nationals, one was from Myanmar and another from India. Four other sailors – three Pakistanis and one Indian – were wounded. The tanker was carrying around 18,500 barrels of fuel when it was seized.

Puntland forces regained control of the Eritrean-flagged oil tanker Sibu 1 earlier this month after it had been held by pirates for more than a month.

In August, Somali forces working with the Turkish Navy also retook the Cameroon-flagged cargo ship MV Lutuf after it was hijacked off Puntland. Somalia’s Defense Ministry said 14 suspected pirates were killed and four of their boats destroyed during the ten-day operation.

In an analysis published last week, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) linked the resurgence in piracy to turmoil in the Middle East, saying naval assets have been diverted from the Somali coast toward the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. It also cited higher global oil prices as a factor that may have made hijackings more attractive. The spike has come during a year of major disruption to energy shipments from the Persian Gulf.

Over the past few months, there’s been a noticeable surge in reports regarding Germany’s interest in missiles – ranging from ballistic and cruise missiles to land- and sea-based systems. Various partners are involved in the initiative, including the US, Ukraine, Türkiye, and Israel. It looks like Germany intends to spend its entire budget on missiles, aiming to become the leading missile power in Western Europe.

Berlin’s financial commitment to advancing military programs has reached unprecedented levels. The country is significantly ramping up defense spending. Between 2024 and 2025, approximately 200 new defense industry companies emerged in Germany, and another 100 have appeared since November 2025. A notable example is Rheinmetall, which has dramatically increased its artillery ammunition production from about 70,000 units to 1.5 million shells per year. Over the next six years, the company plans to invest around €30 billion ($34 billion) into arms and munitions manufacturing. Moreover, Germany is actively seeking to procure ready-made missile systems and is interested in establishing joint production facilities.

Aligned with these initiatives, Germany is establishing new ground forces capable of striking military targets deep within potential enemy territory, essentially creating missile troops within the Bundeswehr. On the one hand, this expansion enhances NATO’s strike capabilities and allows for flexible responses to any external threats over distances of thousands of kilometers. On the other hand, such offensive capabilities could easily inspire ideas of military dominance and hegemony. Historically, we’ve already seen this in Germany.

At the forefront of this new German strategy will be American Typhon MRC (Mid-Range Capability) missile systems, equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of up to 1,600 km. The Bundeswehr plans to allocate nearly €3.4 billion for the procurement of these missiles. They will provide the German military with a strategic edge, enabling strikes against command centers, airbases, missile units, logistical hubs, and other critical targets far beyond the potential front lines. 

Germany’s interest in missiles has grown to such an extent that the Bundeswehr is exploring even some rather unconventional projects, such as Ukraine’s Flamingo and Bars cruise missiles, as well as the Anthem missile project. In fact, the Ukrainian Flamingo missile was considered a potential alternative to the US Tomahawk. With a range of 3,000 km, the Flamingo surpasses the Tomahawk in terms of range. Additionally, it boasts an impressive warhead weighing 1,150 kg – a record in its class. The only real question is whether the 10-meter-long missile can successfully hit targets. So far, experience has shown that most of the Flamingos launched by Ukrainian forces are intercepted by air defense systems.

Germany is also ready to produce Bars missiles on its soil, but primarily for export purposes. It remains unclear whether this initiative leans more toward a business venture or a strategic investment in domestic armaments. Bars missiles might not be of much interest to German military officials since they essentially function as a cheap and simple alternative to more costly missiles. 

Another notable project is the Anthem long-range cruise missile developed by the US-Israeli startup Covenant. Recently, Reuters reported that Germany is interested in a missile with a range exceeding 1,500 km and a warhead weighing over 200 kg. What’s more, Covenant is willing to establish production of Anthem missiles in Germany. This likely piqued the interest of Bundeswehr officials, especially considering the impressive promised production output of 1,000 units per year. So many missiles can be produced by relying on a simplified design and fairly modest performance specifications. Naturally, there’s no talk of stealth technology here; it’s essentially an alternative to inexpensive long-range kamikaze drones. If this contract goes through, Germany would acquire its own surface-to-surface missile system. 

At the beginning of September, the German Navy conducted its first test launches of Israeli LORA (Long Range Attack) ballistic missiles from an F125-class frigate. These launches were primarily demonstrative, with missile containers temporarily mounted on the stern of the Sachsen-Anhalt frigate. Two missiles were fired during the tests. The sight of Israeli ballistic missiles similar to American ATACMS aboard a German frigate is quite unusual. This notable experiment illustrates that the Bundeswehr is open to exploring alternatives to US weapons systems. Furthermore, Israeli missiles are modern and highly accurate, boasting ranges from 90 to 430 km and a circular error probable (CEP) of under 10 meters. It’s also quite possible that such missiles could soon be integrated into the Bundeswehr’s land forces.

Simultaneously, Germany is preparing to begin production of ATACMS ballistic missiles in collaboration with US company Lockheed Martin. Rheinmetall expects to receive its first order by late 2026 or early 2027, with a memorandum already signed to establish production at its facility in Unterluess, Germany. This will mark the first production of ATACMS missiles outside the US. Production is anticipated to start between 2028 and 2029. European demand is estimated at 600-800 units.

Additionally, Berlin is showing interest in Türkiye’s missile programs. Reports indicate that Germany is interested in Turkish hypersonic projects and specifically the Yildirimhan long-range ballistic missile with a range of up to 6,000 km. For Türkiye, having Germany as a customer is a compelling prospect, and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkish companies would be eager to secure such an order.

But why is Germany showing such interest in missiles? And behind the facade of nuclear cooperation with the UK, does a part of the Berlin establishment harbor nuclear ambitions? Ideas to replace the American nuclear umbrella amid a perceived “threat from the East” are still popular; and defense companies and war hawks certainly welcome these initiatives. But what will happen if the funding runs dry? Or worse – if this ‘Chekhov’s gun’ goes off in the ‘next act’?

Twelve people, most of whom are students, have been injured in a Ukrainian drone attack in Russia’s Bryansk Region, acting Governor Egor Kovalchuk has said.

The UAV incursion targeted the city of Trubchevsk, sitting on the Desna River in the southern part of the region, not far from the border with Ukraine, Kovalchuk wrote in a post on social media on Wednesday.

“Horrific attack on civilians in Trubchevsk; there are children among the wounded,” he said.

At least seven of those injured were students, with one of the victims being in serious condition, according to the acting governor.

On Monday, Ukrainian drone strikes damaged a railway bridge and tracks at three locations in Bryansk Region, causing several trains to derail.

Moscow has accused Kiev of deliberately targeting civilians with long-range drones in an attempt to compensate for setbacks on the battlefield, where Russian forces have continued to advance.

One of the deadliest such strikes came in May when several waves of Ukrainian UAVs hit a student dormitory in the Donbass city of Starobelsk, killing 21 people, mostly young women.

Russia’s earnings from seaborne crude exports have surged to their highest weekly level since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Bloomberg has reported. Rising oil prices and stronger shipment volumes have boosted Moscow’s revenues despite Western sanctions.

The gross value of Russian crude exports reached $2.75 billion in the week through September 27, the outlet reported on Tuesday. On a four-week basis, shipments averaged 3.71 million barrels per day, their highest since early August, while their value climbed to $2.39 billion a week.

According to the outlet, the increase has been driven by both higher crude prices and growing export volumes. Global oil prices have risen sharply during the US-Israeli war on Iran amid the disruption of shipping via the Strait of Hormuz, boosting earnings for major producers outside the Persian Gulf, including Russia.

The measures were designed to reduce Russia’s revenues while keeping its crude flowing to global markets and avoiding a supply shock. Moscow responded by redirecting much of its oil trade away from Europe toward China, India and other markets, which now account for the bulk of Russian seaborne crude purchases. According to Bloomberg, shipments to Asian customers, including cargoes whose final destination was not yet known, rose to 3.61 million barrels per day in the four weeks through September 27.

Russia’s latest crude windfall has, however, been partly offset by falling exports of refined fuels. Moscow has restricted diesel shipments to protect domestic supplies after an unprecedented wave of Ukrainian drone strikes damaged refineries across the country, while lower processing rates have left more crude available for export.

Western governments are meanwhile continuing to pressure European states that still rely on Russian energy. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul urged Slovakia on Tuesday to phase out Russian oil and gas and increase pressure on Moscow, days after meeting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in New York.

Slovakia has resisted a rapid cutoff, with Russian supplies accounting for more than 80% of its oil and over half of its gas imports in 2025, according to the European Commission. Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar said the country had built its energy infrastructure around Russian supplies and warned that abandoning them immediately would create “enormous problems,” arguing that alternative routes currently lack sufficient capacity.

Moroccan King Mohammed VI has appointed Fatima Ezzahra El Mansouri as the North African nation’s first female prime minister following her party’s victory in last week’s parliamentary elections, the royal palace has announced.

The monarch tasked the 50-year-old lawyer, who served as housing minister and mayor of Marrakech, with forming a new government, according to a statement released on Tuesday.

Mansouri’s liberal-centrist Authenticity and Modernity Party (PAM) won 97 of the lower house’s 395 seats in the September 23 vote and must form a coalition to secure a governing majority. She becomes the second woman to serve as prime minister in an Arab country, after Tunisia’s Najla Bouden, who held the post from 2021 to 2023.

PAM overtook outgoing Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch’s National Rally of Independents, which won 66 seats, followed by Istiqlal with 65, according to results published by the Interior Ministry on September 25. Turnout fell to about 38%, compared with around 50% in 2021, official figures showed.

The appointment comes amid an investigation into suspected electoral fraud in the northern port city of Tangier. Prosecutors said a polling-station deputy allegedly removed ballots with the station head’s help before returning them to two polling stations in coordination with other suspects. Investigators found that ink on the seized ballots differed from that used at the polling stations.

PAM said it would take disciplinary action against members if investigators established their involvement.

Founded in 2008 by Fouad Ali El Himma, a close adviser and childhood friend of the king, PAM emerged as a secular-leaning rival to the Islamist Justice and Development Party.

The constitution requires the king to appoint the premier from the party that wins the most parliamentary seats but the monarch retains sweeping powers over defense and foreign policy.

The new government will oversee Morocco’s preparations to co-host the 2030 FIFA World Cup with Spain and Portugal. Spending on the tournament partly fueled deadly youth-led protests last year, with demonstrators demanding jobs and better healthcare and education. During the election campaign, parties offered jobs and affordable housing to attract young voters after July’s mass border crossing into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, Reuters reported.

Mansouri has pledged a program offering “concrete and realistic solutions to citizens’ concerns,” acknowledging high expectations, particularly among young people.

More than 170 passengers have arrived safely in Israel after a FlyDubai airliner went into a death-dive over Saudi Arabia following an alleged attempted hijacking on board. 

The Boeing 737 was reportedly carrying 174 passengers, including 27 children. About two hours into the flight, the aircraft transmitted emergency signals, including a code indicating possible hijacking, according to flight-tracking service Flightradar24. The plane went into a steep dive, losing some 4,500 meters in altitude in a minute, according to tracking data.

Israel scrambled fighter jets, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held urgent security consultations.

After an apparent struggle in which passengers regained control of the aircraft, the 737 landed at Tabuk airport in northwestern Saudi Arabia, before all passengers boarded a replacement aircraft bound for Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was waiting to meet them.

According to interviews with the passengers, the plane's first officer stabbed the pilot and attempted to crash the aircraft. They said that a group of three Israeli passengers subdued the first officer, pulled the plane out of its dive, and handed control back to the wounded pilot.

This live feed has now ended.

Increased NATO military exercises near Russia’s Kaliningrad Region and aggressive rhetoric from members of the US-led bloc are raising the risk of a direct armed conflict, Moscow has warned.

Russia has sent NATO a warning stressing its determination to protect the Russian exclave in the Baltic region “with its entire available arsenal,” according to a statement published on Monday by the Russian Embassy in Belgium, which hosts the bloc’s headquarters.

The message alluded to remarks made earlier this month by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who said there are “hardly any troops” in Kaliningrad Region and urged NATO to increase its military posture near Russia’s borders so that Moscow would be “uncertain of what we will do.”

”We strongly denounce the threat of force, including any irresponsible nuclear rhetoric,” she said.

Western officials have frequently described Russian statements invoking its nuclear deterrent as “blackmail,” while presenting NATO’s own nuclear-sharing arrangements as a pillar of collective defense.

France has offered to discuss the possible deployment of its nuclear weapons in other European NATO countries, arguing that this could reduce the bloc’s dependence on the US. Under NATO’s existing nuclear-sharing arrangements, American nuclear bombs are stored in several European countries, while personnel from non-nuclear member states train for missions involving their potential use.

Moscow, in turn, views NATO’s military preparations as potentially paving the way for an attack on Russia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly warned that any such conflict would be extremely brief, implying that Moscow could resort to nuclear weapons.

The Russian Embassy in Ireland used more direct language, saying on Tuesday that Moscow is prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to an attempted NATO blockade of Kaliningrad Region and may consider pre-emptive military action in such a crisis.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday it was “natural for our diplomats to try and remind hotheads in Europe about our doctrinal documents,” in response to the rhetoric coming from Poland and other nations.

Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) has called for a formal review that could pave the way for a ban on Alternative for Germany (AfD), as the right-wing party leads national polls following major regional election victories.

The push follows the AfD’s sweeping victories in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania earlier this month, where it secured 43.8% and 38.2%, respectively. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered heavy losses, including failing to clear the 5% threshold in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

On Tuesday, SPD parliamentary leaders from the Bundestag, Germany’s state legislatures and the European Parliament wrapped up a two-day summit in Bremen by again labeling the AfD a “right-wing extremist party.” They accused it of threatening democracy “from within” and “normalizing racism.”

The Eurosceptic party advocates tougher immigration controls and opposes Berlin’s support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

At the federal level, the AfD remains classified by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency as a suspected right-wing extremist organization.
In February, a Cologne court blocked an attempt by the agency to upgrade the AfD to confirmed right-wing extremist status, pending the outcome of the main proceedings. Several AfD state branches carry the stronger classification.

The SPD wants federal and state governments to set up a joint working group by year-end to examine whether legal grounds exist to seek a ban. Launching the review “is a legal necessity” and a “democratic duty,” it said.

Under German law, only the Federal Constitutional Court can outlaw a party. A ban requires more than anti-constitutional views: a party must actively seek to undermine the democratic order and have the potential to achieve its aims.

The push comes as the AfD has opened up a record polling lead over Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc. An INSA survey put the AfD at 29.5%, compared with 19% for the CDU/CSU and just 14.5% for the SPD. The two governing parties together stood at 33.5%, only four points ahead of the AfD alone.

AfD co-leader Alice Weidel reacted to the poll by accusing the CDU of “clinging to the undemocratic firewall,” saying the policy was ultimately “destroying Germany.” The ‘firewall’ refers to the refusal by other major German parties to cooperate with the AfD.

American officials believe US President Donald Trump could order a resumption of major combat operations against Iran after the midterm elections in November, as renewed indirect negotiations produced no results, Axios reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Qatari mediators, who met separately with US and Iranian negotiators in New York on Monday, are reportedly growing increasingly frustrated that neither side is willing to make concessions.

“It is stuck. The Iranians are asking for things the US can’t accept and the US thinks it is winning so there is no need for compromise,” Axios cited a source as saying.

Trump rejected Iran’s latest proposal last week to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which handles around a quarter of global seaborne oil and LNG deliveries. He has since denied reports that he was ready to provide sanctions relief and release frozen Iranian assets in exchange for concessions on Iran’s nuclear program. “I offered them NOTHING,” he wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

The war launched by the US and Israel against Iran on February 28 has been unpopular among American voters overall. It sharply divided Trump’s base, with some critics arguing that the president violated his promise of “no new wars” and his stated opposition to “forever wars.”

The relentless bombing campaign failed to subdue Iran and, according to the Pentagon’s inspector general, significantly depleted US ammunition stockpiles. Disruptions to traffic through the Strait of Hormuz continue to drive energy prices, which Trump recently attempted to blame on the Ukraine conflict.

“Donald Trump cannot calm energy markets or conceal the costs of his blockade and hostile policies through show-off and social media posts,” an Iranian security official told RT last week.

According to a recent Fox News poll, 71% of registered voters in the US believed that the Trump administration lacked “a clear strategy for ending the war with Iran,” while 60% said the US had made the wrong decision to launch military action.

The poll also found that 47% of respondents believed military action against Iran would make the US less safe, while 32% said it would make the country safer.

The heads of six top US-based AI companies signed a pledge at the White House on Tuesday to introduce stronger controls to ensure that their technology does not go rogue.

The document, titled the White House Accord on Super Intelligence – Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities, was signed by US President Donald Trump, as well as Google’s Sundar Pichai, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, OpenAI’s Greg Brockman, xAI’s Elon Musk and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang.

The signatories agreed that every company developing advanced artificial intelligence models should have “robust internal processes and controls to ensure that their technology behaves as intended and that any issues are promptly identified and resolved.”

The companies pledged to ensure that their models “do not hack or access technical systems in unintended ways” and said they would “empower an internal team to ensure all of the controls, monitoring, and detection are operating as intended, and that any issues are remediated.”

They also pledged to allow independent external audits of their safeguards and designate “an independent committee of the board of directors” to evaluate compliance.

TRUMP releases ‘ACCORD on SUPER INTELLIGENCE’ signed by AI BILLIONAIRES

- Companies ‘RESPONSIBLE’ for ‘DEVELOPING its own tech safely’

- LAYERS of ‘CONTROLS’

- Internal CYBERSECURITY, BIOSECURITY and CHEMICAL THREAT controls
Auditors

- Independent board

- INDUSTRY… https://t.co/LTwCA0eequ pic.twitter.com/H6FP5HsdT9

— RTVisual (@RT_Visual_on_X) September 29, 2026

The deal is aimed at addressing concerns among developers and the general public about AI models’ ability to self-improve much faster than expected and a growing number of cases in which they have hacked into external systems without authorization.

“The basic idea is that we want to give the American people and our customers confidence that the technology works in a way that we intend,” Zuckerberg told reporters on the White House lawn.

“The idea isn’t that this is the only thing that we will ever do. This is a start and an accord that the whole industry can come to,” he added.

WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg outlines the AI framework tech leaders agreed to after meeting with President Trump at the White House.

The Meta CEO says the principles center on robust internal controls, internal risk reviews, outside auditors and evaluators, and independent reviews of… pic.twitter.com/mQmE5822FG

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 29, 2026

During the same meeting, Trump signed an executive order directing the federal government to use the terms “super intelligence” and “SI” instead of “artificial intelligence” and “AI.”

Debate over AI safeguards was reignited this month when Amodei called for a slowing of the development of AI models to find “a balanced rate” that would give researchers time to develop the necessary controls. Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman quickly backed his appeal.

Over the summer, OpenAI agents escaped their testing environment and hacked into the servers of Hugging Face, an online repository for AI models and datasets. Since then, AI agents have gained unauthorized access to or attempted to breach websites belonging to US federal agencies, the Australian government and the UN.

“We will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible Industry,” the president wrote on Truth Social earlier this month.

Huang has supported calls for stronger safeguards but voiced skepticism about slowing AI development. “We should go as fast as we can, irrespective of anyone else. But we would never ever, and never should, ship products before they’re ready and deliver products that are unsafe,” he told CBS.

The US and China agreed to set up a hotline for AI incidents following Chinese President Xi Jinping’s meeting with Trump at the White House last week. 

China has similarly called for stronger safeguards but stopped short of supporting a slowdown in AI development. Beijing said this month that regulation and governance should keep pace with rapidly advancing models to prevent AI from “getting out of control,” while criticizing what it described as “fearmongering” and technological competition between countries.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is an “outstanding statesman” suited to leading a great country such as Russia, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said during his visit to Germany on Tuesday.

A former Soviet republic, Kazakhstan is one of Russia’s closest partners in Central Asia.

Tokayev met German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin amid heightened tensions between Germany and Russia over the Ukraine conflict. Germany accused Russia earlier this month of attempting to strike Ukrainian cargo planes with drones at Leipzig/Halle Airport in the German state of Saxony. Moscow rejected the claims as unfounded.

During a joint press conference with Merz, Tokayev said he had “very good relations” with Putin.

“I consider him, one might say, an outstanding statesman. And today I said with a fairly high degree of conviction that President Putin, as a statesman and as a leader, is the most acceptable political figure – strange as that may sound to you – for Central Asia, including Kazakhstan, for Europe, and for the entire world,” Tokayev said in Russian.

“I know him very well. He possesses the qualities that are most essential for the leader of a great country with a complicated history and with its own understanding of the strategic goals it faces,” he added.

💥 Der Präsident Kasachstans, Tokajew, demütigte Merz auf der gemeinsamen Pressekonferenz:

"Wladimir Putin, als Führer der Russischen Föderation, ist die akzeptabelste Figur für Europa und die Welt!" pic.twitter.com/FTFhkZMCtl

— RUSSNiUS 🇷🇺 (@vladi2726) September 29, 2026

Tokayev said that although he favors “freezing” the Ukraine conflict, an immediate end to hostilities is “unrealistic under the current circumstances.”

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Merz reiterated that Germany “will make every effort to continue assisting and supporting Ukraine, not only militarily but also politically, financially and economically.”

Russia has condemned what it described as dangerous rhetoric from the West, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying last week that the “metastases of an ideology of hatred” were present among EU and NATO members, including Germany.

Artificial intelligence could develop beyond human control unless governments and private companies work together to establish safeguards, the head of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Karen Hallberg, has told RT.

Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club outside of Moscow on Tuesday, Hallberg compared AI with nuclear technology, saying both can bring major benefits while also posing serious dangers.

“AI is also a dual-use technology because AI has brought a lot of benefit for humanity,” she said, citing the technology’s use in medicine and everyday life.

However, she warned that AI capable of recursively improving itself could develop in unpredictable ways. “We have to really listen to the experts of these big corporations when they say that this is already happening – spiraling out of control,” Hallberg said.

Governments must work directly with companies developing AI to establish common rules, she added, noting that unlike during the early nuclear era, much of the technology is being developed by private corporations.

“The human being has to have total control,” Hallberg said, calling for safeguards to be built into AI algorithms.

Warnings over the potential consequences of increasingly powerful AI have also come from the companies developing it. US firm Anthropic, which is expected to go public as early as mid-October, has warned prospective investors that advanced AI could pose “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity.” According to Reuters, around 80 pages of its 261-page IPO prospectus are devoted to risk factors.

Pugwash brings together scientists and public figures seeking to reduce threats from armed conflict and weapons of mass destruction. The organization was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 with its co-founder Joseph Rotblat.

FBI Director Kash Patel and Dutch police have announced the arrest of a high-profile hacker suspected of being a leader of ShinyHunters, a cybercrime group that recently claimed to have stolen data on “almost all” FBI agents.

Dutch authorities first disclosed the arrest on Monday, before officials in both countries confirmed it on Tuesday. Patel described ShinyHunters as a “global cybercrime and threat actor group linked to cyberattacks in the United States, the Netherlands, and around the world.”

Dutch police said the suspect was arrested on September 15 on suspicion of cybercrime offenses and attempting to instigate at least two murders abroad. US and Dutch officials said further arrests in the case could follow.

Neither agency identified the suspect. However, Benjamin Korper, head of Amsterdam-based cybersecurity firm Neo Security, said the person arrested was the company’s offensive security lead, Pepijn van der Stap.

The supposedly reformed 24-year-old hacker gained international notoriety back in 2023 when he was convicted of data theft and extortion. He subsequently publicly disavowed cybercrime. Van der Stap has claimed his cybercriminal background ultimately gave him knowledge useful “for building and protecting, not breaking.”

The ShinyHunters group, however, has denied any connection to Van der Stap. “That individual has no association with us. Frankly, we are laughing,” the group told Cybernews in a statement, mocking Dutch police as “unskilled and incompetent.”

“Dutch police are chasing attention and public favor after the massive embarrassment as a result of the Odido hack. They want to seem like they are ahead of the FBI in investigating ShinyHunters,” the group added, referring to a major breach and subsequent extortion attempt suffered by the Netherlands’ largest mobile operator this February.

Sources told Krebs that the faction may have deliberately used Van der Stap’s former alias ‘Umbreon’ – a popular Pokemon character – to implicate him. Namely, the Umbreon imagery was used by the group during a recent attack on a rival ransomware gang and the targeted attack on the FBI, with both incidents occurring after Van der Stap’s arrest and now suspected of being a part of the ruse.

Previously, the group said that the alleged FBI breach, during which personal data of “almost all” agents was stolen, was “not financially motivated.” Instead, ShinyHunters demanded the agency pull a cybersecurity advisory, claiming it contains false allegations about the group. The group originally set up a one-week deadline for the FBI to heed the demand but ultimately dropped it and said it was never a “threat” and “nothing” would happen should the agency refuse to accept their demands.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has treated an accusation from a BBC correspondent with the contempt expected of a veteran diplomat. 

The British state broadcaster’s Steve Rosenberg asked Lavrov if he would admit “that Russia is waging a covert hybrid war against European countries?”

“Are you referring to when we destroy the drones and missiles that Britain and continental Europe supply to Ukraine, which are then fired at us?” the Russian foreign minister retorted. “Is that what you mean by hybrid war?”

Rosenberg then dropped his line of questioning and switched to criticizing Russia for its use of “brute force” in Ukraine. 

BBC’s Rosenberg: Do you admit that Russia is waging a covert hybrid war against European countries?

Lavrov: Are you referring to when we destroy the drones and missiles that Britain and continental Europe supply to Ukraine, which are then fired at us? Is that what you mean by… pic.twitter.com/XkLe49xcNX

— Margarita Simonyan (@M_Simonyan) September 29, 2026

“If you are referring to the destruction of infrastructure used by the [Ukrainian] Nazi regime – with Western support – to wage war against the Russian Federation, then we are resorting to hard power to neutralize this direct threat to us,” Lavrov replied.

European politicians regularly describe drone sightings, fires and accidents at weapons factories, and even natural disasters as examples of a Russian “hybrid war” against the West. The term “hybrid war” is typically used in reporting cases where no hard evidence exists, as was the case when a small quadcopter drone was discovered next to a Ukrainian transport plane at Leipzig Airport in Germany last month.

In the latest such incident, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna blamed Russia on Tuesday for a fire at a drone factory in Tallinn last month. Although the Kremlin has denied any role in the blaze, the UK, France, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden all backed Tsahkna’s story and pledged on Tuesday to increase military aid to Kiev.

Amid an upsurge in supposed “hybrid war” incidents, Western military leaders have escalated their war rhetoric, with members of the UK’s Labour and Conservative parties both claiming last week that a military clash with Russia is inevitable, and Spanish media claiming that Italy, France, and Spain are all at risk of a Russian drone attack from the Mediterranean Sea. The latter claim, though widely echoed across the international press, was summarily debunked by senior French and Italian officials.

“We have no intention to fight with Europe…that is utter nonsense,” Lavrov told journalists at the UN General Assembly on Saturday. “But Europe is preparing for war with us, and each day they reaffirm the fact. This could become a self-fulfilling prophecy because they are investing vast amounts of money into weapons production.”

Domestic products now account for 45% of the Russian light industry market, Russian Industry and Trade Minister Anton Alikhanov said on September 29 at the BRICS+ Fashion Summit in Moscow.

According to the minister, that figure is close to the current target of 50% set out in Russia’s Light Industry Development Strategy through 2035. He added that in the updated version of the strategy, which is expected to be approved by the end of 2026, the target share is likely to be raised to at least 60%.

The minister said the clothing manufacturing segment is now entering a phase of market saturation. Production growth, which began after the departure of global brands from Russia, gave way to a 3% decline in 2025.

“We are reaching a plateau,” Alikhanov said.

He noted that the market niches vacated by international brands had been filled partly by Russian producers and partly by imports from what Moscow describes as “friendly countries.”

Even so, foreign-made goods still dominate the Russian market overall. In the minister’s view, one reason is that around half of Russian brands are concentrated in narrow niches, including makers of high-tech clothing, as well as ethnic and regional labels.

Addressing broader technological trends, the minister said the Russian market is largely keeping pace with global developments, particularly in the changing balance between natural and synthetic materials.

“As far as technological trends are concerned, our market is broadly moving in step with the international one: there is a transformation and a reduction in the consumption of natural fabrics and fibers,” he said. “Thirty years ago, half the market was cotton and 39% synthetics. Now cotton accounts for 25–26%, while synthetics have risen to 60%.”

Russia, he added, still remains heavily dependent on supplies of synthetic materials, including polyamides and polyesters. At the same time, he said Russian producers have opportunities to expand output of viscose and lyocell, an artificial cellulose fiber made from wood.

To support those sectors, the government is relying on a new national project called “New Materials and Chemistry.” Enterprises in the field can also apply for support from the Industrial Development Fund and the cluster investment platform, according to the minister.

“After the start of sanctions pressure, we also introduced support measures for equipment leasing. Next year, we hope to double financing in order to meet the demand of all manufacturers,” he said.

The comments came during the BRICS+ Fashion Summit, which is being held as part of Moscow Fashion Week and has focused on industrial development, local production, technology, and the future of the fashion market in BRICS and other emerging economies.

A series of mass protests has gripped France ahead of the French government’s plans to slash some €56 billion from its social spending. 

Firefighters, healthcare workers, transport staff and other civil servants took part in a nationwide strike on Tuesday, backed by all of the country’s major public-sector unions. More than 170 marches were planned across France, with demonstrators blocking roads and scuffling with police in Paris, and firefighters setting flares alight atop the iconic July Column at the Place de la Bastille – built to commemorate the overthrow of King Charles X in 1830. French students also clashed with police outside schools across the country.

Une Marseillaise est entonnée par les pompiers sur la place de la Bastille à Paris.#greve29septembre #29septembre #pompiers pic.twitter.com/fbvrjx9RrO

— Luc Auffret (@LucAuffret) September 29, 2026

The protesters’ demands are familiar: higher wages, better working conditions, and more funding for public services. However, while public sector employees have accused President Emmanuel Macron’s government of underfunding and dismantling their departments for years, they argue that their situation has recently been made unbearable by record fuel prices and wages that have failed to keep pace with inflation.

France has raised public sector pay by 5% since Macron took power in 2017, while cumulative inflation has risen 24% in the same time period.

The SNUipp-FSU teachers’ union has claimed that 40% of primary school teachers are on strike, while one in four firefighters have walked off the job, according to government estimates. France’s left-wing CGT union described the day’s strikes as a “black day,” intended to “truly express our anger.”

Macron, who has served two terms and cannot contest April’s election, is currently polling at less than 18% approval, according to an Ifop poll published earlier this month. Although the French president has seen worse approval numbers in other polls, 18% is an historic low in an Ifop survey.

Tuesday’s strikes are compounded by a growing student protest movement. High school students complaining about overcrowded and neglected classrooms have blockaded more than 300 schools in multiple cities, according to media reports. 

🇫🇷 A major fire has struck Aimé-Césaire High School in France following a blaze deliberately set by high school students.

Follow: @europa pic.twitter.com/n0UYs2SEi8

— Europa.com (@europa) September 28, 2026

The students – predominantly black and Middle-Eastern teenagers from deprived suburbs – set dumpsters on fire outside a school in Lille on Monday and clashed with police in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. In some areas, the protests have degenerated into riots, with youths shooting fireworks and engaging in running battles with riot police. 

🇫🇷 Police in Lyon, France, are targeted with mortar fire by high school students during clashes outside a school.

Follow: @europa pic.twitter.com/K3klBV2mHS

— Europa.com (@europa) September 29, 2026

Police arrested 164 students and rioters on Monday, and at least 40 on Tuesday, according to the latest figures from French media. 

Artificial intelligence is becoming a defining force in economic development, international competition, and national security. While striving to develop more powerful AI systems, China also seeks to determine how they should be governed, shared, and secured in a rapidly changing world.

A technology shaping China – and the world

By June 2026, the number of users of AI products in China had exceeded 500 million, underscoring the technology’s growing reach in one of the world’s largest digital economies. Together with the US, China is a key engine of AI development and innovation. Its domestic choices and international initiatives have consequences well beyond its borders.

At the BRICS summit in New Delhi, Chinese President Xi Jinping advanced proposals for more inclusive AI cooperation, industrial development, and technological exchange. At the same time, State Security Minister Chen Yixin set out a national security perspective that places AI at the center of strategic competition and calls for stronger safeguards.

China’s AI policy combines the pursuit of international openness with domestic security governance. Understanding how Beijing seeks to reconcile these objectives is essential to understanding its ambitions for AI – and the emerging global order around it.

Xi’s proposals at the New Delhi summit place AI cooperation within a broader effort to connect technological development with economic growth and international inclusion. The emphasis is on widening access to the capabilities, skills, and industrial networks that make AI economically useful.

China has proposed taking a pioneering role in establishing a BRICS AI open-source community, supporting cooperation on the development and application of large language models, and organizing specialized seminars and training courses. The stated objective is to build an open ecosystem in which countries can exchange knowledge and expand their capacity to develop and use AI.

This approach is particularly relevant for emerging economies. Access to AI requires not only the availability of software, but also computing infrastructure, technical expertise, investment, and the ability to adapt technologies to local needs. Open-source collaboration and skills development can help accessibility, although they cannot by themselves eliminate disparities in resources or technological capabilities.

Xi’s digital industry cooperation initiative extends the same idea into the infrastructure and skills underpinning the digital economy. China has proposed a BRICS digital ecosystem cloud platform, alongside digital skills training, technological exchange, and industrial alignment.

A third proposal focuses on AI-enabled new industrialization. Here, the objective is to deepen cooperation in research and development, practical applications, and industrial and supply chains.

Taken together, these initiatives present AI as a means of expanding productive capacity. For BRICS members, the proposals raise practical questions about how to share expertise, develop compatible infrastructure, and translate technological cooperation into tangible industrial outcomes.

Xi’s international cooperation agenda coincides with a more security-focused assessment from Chen Yixin, China’s minister of state security. In an article published during the summit, Chen described AI as a central arena of global scientific and technological competition and a new front in strategic rivalry among major powers.

Chen’s argument begins with a dual imperative: innovation must be the primary driving force, while security must remain a bottom-line requirement. In this framing, AI is simultaneously an engine of economic and social transformation and a technology capable of changing the conditions of national security.

His assessment identifies several interconnected risks. AI-generated content, including deepfakes and automated online activity, could affect political security by enabling the rapid production and dissemination of misleading information. Chen also warns that AI may transform cyber operations, making it easier to identify vulnerabilities, develop malicious software, and automate elements of complex attacks.

Another concern is the potential for AI-assisted data collection and analysis to amplify espionage and information-security risks. Chen points to the possibility of sensitive government data, commercial secrets, and personal information being gathered or exposed through intelligent crawling, data mining, and profiling.

He also identifies structural challenges: concentration of technological capabilities could deepen inequalities between countries, while AI-driven decision-making could strain existing systems of social governance. In the military sphere, he argues that AI is helping move warfare toward an increasingly intelligent era, with implications for sensing, decision-making, and targeting.

These concerns are not confined to China. Cybersecurity, data protection, misinformation, military applications, and the concentration of technological power are subjects of international debate. What distinguishes Chen’s article is the way it brings them together under a comprehensive national security framework.

Chen calls for AI security to be integrated into other key areas of national security, supported by stronger cross-sector cooperation and improved capacity to identify and anticipate emerging risks. He also calls for an AI safety supervision platform, expanded risk assessment and monitoring, and greater investment in fundamental research and core technologies, including computing chips, development frameworks, and application software. His article advocates strengthening AI infrastructure while reducing vulnerabilities associated with dependence on critical technologies.

Chen advocates the implementation of China’s Cybersecurity Law and Counter-Espionage Law, alongside further development of rules addressing AI research, applications, data protection, algorithmic security, and accountability. He also emphasizes public communication and national security awareness.

These measures reflect Beijing’s view that AI governance cannot be separated from overarching questions of technological self-reliance, data control, and national security, and that when it comes to AI, innovation has to be inseparable from oversight.

A global governance agenda

China’s domestic security priorities sit alongside an international agenda that predates the New Delhi summit. Its 2023 Global AI Governance Initiative calls for people-centered development, international cooperation, respect for national sovereignty, and broader access to AI technologies. It also advocates risk-based governance, privacy and data protection, human oversight, and greater representation for developing countries.

The initiative supports discussions within the United Nations framework on establishing an international institution for AI governance. Chen’s article echoes several of these themes, describing AI as an international public good and calling for cooperation that helps Global South countries strengthen their technological capabilities and bridge the global intelligence gap.

China recently released its AI Safety Governance Framework 3.0, following earlier versions issued in 2024 and 2025. The updated framework revises risk classifications and adjusts technical and governance measures in response to emerging challenges.

China’s international and domestic AI agendas may seem to be contradictory, but a country can support international technology exchange while seeking to protect sensitive data, strengthen infrastructure, and manage risks. The challenge is determining where legitimate safeguards end and restrictions on cooperation begin.

For China, the task is to demonstrate that its security framework can support innovation and international engagement without unnecessarily constraining them. For its partners, the task is to assess how cooperation will work in practice: what technologies will be accessible, how data will be protected, and how shared initiatives will be governed.

BRICS member countries have different development priorities, regulatory systems, and strategic interests. A common AI ecosystem will require practical arrangements that accommodate those differences while delivering measurable benefits.

A defining question for the AI era

Xi Jinping’s BRICS proposals and Chen Yixin’s national security assessment capture two dimensions of China’s AI strategy: expanding the technology’s reach internationally while strengthening its governance at home.

AI cooperation could widen access to technological capabilities and support industrial development. Security governance could help address genuine risks involving cyber operations, sensitive data, and increasingly autonomous systems. Yet both agendas also raise questions about implementation, institutional accountability, and the balance between openness and control.

China’s approach will be judged by the practical outcomes it delivers: whether cooperation is genuinely inclusive, whether safeguards are effective and proportionate, and whether international partners can participate on mutually understood terms.

The underlying proposition is that artificial intelligence need not be treated as a domain of zero-sum competition. When innovation is prioritized and security requirements are treated as non-negotiable, the technology can be steered toward benefit for all.

The Netherlands on Monday said it had summoned Israeli Ambassador Zvi Aviner Vapni over a decision to revoke the diplomatic status of Dutch representatives at the mission in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.

Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen condemned the Israeli decision as an “unnecessary” measure, warning it was bound to have “extremely serious consequences.” The move was announced by his Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa’ar on Sunday, with the top diplomat stripping the Dutch diplomats of their “Israeli-issued diplomatic documentation,” which must be returned within seven days.

The Israeli foreign minister cited the enactment of a Dutch import ban on Israeli goods originating from illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, as well as from the Golan Heights, as the pretext for the latest move.

“If the Netherlands wishes to continue representing its interests with the Palestinians, it may do so from Palestinian Authority territory, rather than from the territory of the State of Israel,” Sa’ar said in a statement, accusing The Hague of pursuing “anti-Israel policies.” Access to the West Bank is only possible via Israel or the border checkpoints it controls.

Last month, when the import ban was adopted by the Dutch government, West Jerusalem expelled representatives of the Netherlands from Kiryat Gat’s International Support Center for Gaza. “Our message is clear: Those who act against Israel will have no foothold in the region. Israel will not allow measures to be taken against it without a response,” Sa’ar said at the time. 

Ties between Israel and the Netherlands, as well as many other EU nations, have gradually worsened in recent years. Israel’s heavy-handed campaign in Gaza, prompted by the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, as well as rapid state-sponsored expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, have impacted relations. While individual members have introduced certain restrictions against Israel, the bloc has failed to provide a unified response to the situation in Palestine, with Brussels repeatedly facing criticism for applying “double standards” in its policies.

California has become the second US state to recognize the major Muslim festivals of Eid as official holidays, according to local authorities.

The state is home to one of the country’s largest Muslim communities, estimated at up to one million people.

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the measure into law over the weekend, adding Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha to California’s list of state holidays.

Eid al-Fitr marks the end of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting, while Eid al-Adha, or the Feast of Sacrifice, is observed during the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Both holidays typically begin with communal prayers and are celebrated with gatherings of family and friends.

The measure was introduced by California lawmaker Matt Haney and backed by Muslim community groups. Haney said recognizing Eid would allow people to celebrate with their families without being forced to make “unnecessary sacrifices.”

Under the new law, workers do not automatically receive a paid day off, nor are government offices, courts, schools, or businesses required to close. State employees can use existing leave to observe Eid, while public schools and community colleges can close under agreements reached with employees.

Washington became the first US state to recognize both Eid holidays in 2025, although its law likewise did not make them mandatory paid days off. Eid has long been observed locally elsewhere in the country, with New York City public schools adding both festivals to their calendar in 2015.

The Muslim population in the US has more than doubled in less than two decades, rising from an estimated 2.4 million in 2007 to around 5.5 million this year, according to the Pew Research Center.

The EU’s next budget should be cut by hundreds of billions of euros and shift funding away from agricultural subsidies and towards military spending, Germany and five other member states have demanded, threatening to block a deal unless Brussels agrees to the reductions.

The ultimatum was set out in a letter, seen by the Financial Times, to Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency and is overseeing the budget negotiations.

It was signed by the leaders of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Finland, which argued the EU must spend more on defense and other new priorities while reducing the European Commission’s proposed €2 trillion budget for 2028–2034.

The budget “must be fundamentally reformed. We must make choices,” the leaders wrote, according to the Financial Times. A diplomat from one of the six countries told the newspaper there would be no agreement this year unless spending was cut.

The EU’s seven-year budget requires unanimous approval from all 27 member states. However, 17 others, including Spain and Italy, have opposed the German-led group’s demands and have demanded that farm and regional funding be increased.

Berlin’s defense push comes as part of a wider military buildup across Europe, driven by unsubstantiated claims that Russia could attack NATO countries, which Moscow has repeatedly rejected.

The prospect of an imminent Russian attack has been challenged even within the six-country group. Finnish President Alexander Stubb said last week that Helsinki’s intelligence sees “no imminent military threat” from Moscow and he has urged European leaders to remain calm.

Moscow has repeatedly stressed that it has no reason or intention to attack Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that claims to the contrary are “nonsense” that is meant to ramp up anti-Russian hysteria and justify inflated military budgets and continued spending on Ukraine.

Addressing the UN General Assembly last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that the sheer scale of Europe’s military buildup could itself lead to a confrontation. He also accused the EU’s ruling elites of being infected with “the virus of racial superiority” and espousing extremist Russophobic ideas, while noting that Berlin’s attempts to achieve military primacy on the continent is an attempt to create a “Fourth Reich.”

Europe’s political order is changing rapidly, but Germany remains constrained by the security system established after 1945.

Current developments in European politics can appear deeply alarming when set against the relative stability that has prevailed since the Second World War, and this is particularly true of Germany, where memories of armed aggression against its neighbors during the first half of the 20th century remain vivid.

But history doesn’t simply repeat itself, so any discussion of the profound transformation now taking place within Western Europe’s political systems must begin with the circumstances in which those countries find themselves today, because while comparing Germany in 2026 with Germany a century ago may be tempting, it risks obscuring more than it reveals.

As the saying goes, God is in the details, and without examining what has changed in Europe itself, it’s impossible to understand either the opportunities or the dangers that its present upheaval creates for Russia.

Certain features of German and broader Western European political culture have proved remarkably durable. One is a deeply rooted conviction in the superiority of the European political and social model, accompanied by a tendency to regard its values as universal and therefore suitable for export.

A third characteristic is foreign policy adventurism, given that European powers have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to undertake extraordinarily risky projects abroad, but the relevant question today isn’t whether such traditions exist, but whether modern circumstances allow them to run riot once again.

The answer depends on both external and internal factors. Externally, Western European states operate beneath the overwhelming military power of the United States and alongside a nuclear-armed Russia. Internally, however, Germany and its neighbors are experiencing political changes unlike anything seen for decades.

Germany’s traditional party system is eroding rapidly, and the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, which dominated the Federal Republic for generations, increasingly struggle to offer either themselves or the electorate a convincing answer to the country’s problems.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s declining popularity, disappointing regional election results and the absence of an obvious successor all point towards a deeper crisis, as long-standing structural problems have combined with the economic consequences of losing access to cheap Russian energy and Germany’s growing dependence on the United States.

More important than the rise of any individual party may be the fragmentation of the system itself, given political life in the European Union’s largest economy is losing the stability and bourgeois tranquility to which several post-war generations became accustomed.

This inevitably causes anxiety outside Germany, because the country has 83.5 million inhabitants and a historical record that makes political instability there impossible for its neighbors simply to ignore.

There’s an obvious temptation to reach for comparisons with the interwar period, when Germany also experienced the disintegration of an established political order and the rise of movements that exploited popular resentment over economic hardship and national humiliation. The eventual consequences are well known, nowhere more so than in Russia, which suffered the most destructive consequences of German aggression, but there is one enormous difference between Germany then and Germany now.

Modern Germany doesn’t possess the strategic independence of its predecessor and more than any other major European country, it remains embedded within the American-led security system created after the Second World War.

That arrangement has endured for more than 80 years and American troops remain stationed on German territory, while NATO places Germany within a military structure whose ultimate center of gravity is the United States. Whatever terminology one chooses to describe this relationship, Germany’s freedom of strategic action is plainly very different from what it was during the first half of the 20th century.

The American presence in Europe, however, has never been primarily about the preferences of Europeans themselves. From Washington’s perspective, Europe is also a strategic platform from which to manage its relationship, whether confrontational or diplomatic, with Russia.

As long as the United States regards containing Russia as a major strategic objective, it has every reason to preserve its influence over Germany regardless of the political transformations taking place inside the country, and this is what fundamentally distinguishes the present from the interwar period.

Germany may become more nationalist, and its party system may fragment further, while its defense spending may rise dramatically, and German politicians may once again become comfortable speaking the language of military power.

From Moscow, none of these developments can reasonably be ignored, yet Germany is also not an autonomous military power capable of deciding entirely for itself whether Europe goes to war.

The instability now developing within Western European societies is certainly one of the factors increasing the danger of confrontation as political upheaval can produce radicalization and an increasingly adventurous foreign policy.

The EU’s internal politics, however, are only part of the equation, so the decisive constraint remains external and for better or worse, these Western Europeans,  and the Germans above all, have long since lost the exclusive right to decide for themselves whether a major European war begins.

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

Russian Navy ships have for the first time passed through the iceberg-filled Shokalsky Strait along the strategically important Northern Sea Route in the Arctic.

The press office of Russia’s Northern Fleet announced the passage on Tuesday, releasing a short video showing the vessels navigating the narrow waterway. The strait lies between October Revolution Island and Bolshevik Island in the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago.

Before the vessels entered the hazardous waters of the strait, a Ka-29 naval transport and assault helicopter was dispatched to conduct aerial reconnaissance of the route.

Given the “challenging ice conditions,” the warships were placed on alert, with their crews repeatedly having to change course and speed at short notice to avoid icebergs.

The Russian Navy group also appraised the area for future operational purposes, according to the statement.

The passage of the Shokalsky Strait was part of a broader mission by the Russian Navy that covers multiple seas in the Arctic Region and is aimed at ensuring the safety of maritime traffic in the area.

Russia has bet big on the development of the Northern Sea Route, which is the shortest maritime passage between the Asia-Pacific region and northern Europe.
While use of the corridor remains limited at present due to accessibility constraints and the need for icebreakers to clear passage for cargo vessels, Moscow expects traffic to increase in the coming years as climate changes and other key maritime routes find themselves at the center of military conflicts.

Speaking in July, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow boasts the world’s largest icebreaker fleet, made up of more than 40 conventional vessels and eight nuclear-powered ships, with a new generation under development.

Five young men from London who were caught near a British airbase heavily used by the US in its war against Iran have triggered a media frenzy across the London establishment's mainstream media. The so-called “Fairford incident” lit up the British deep state media echo chamber.

However, what was initially reported as a possible Iranian or Russian-backed plot to blow up the RAF’s Fairford airbase, has so far revealed a farcical attempt to warn the British Army of a possible threat, and produced complaints from Washington, a lot of unanswered questions, and no explosives.

What happened at Fairford?

Having failed to get an answer at the Ministry of Defence security hotline she dialed 999 and alerted police to “three suspicious vehicles.” 

Armed counter-terror police swooped in, detained five men near the nearby village of Whelford, and found three white vans bearing fuel company insignia, raising fears they could contain explosives.

How did British security services react?

A counter-terrorism emergency was declared. About 85 local homes were evacuated, a 400-meter cordon was thrown around the scene, and military bomb disposal experts sent in a robot to examine the vehicles – which found no viable explosives.

Video of British military EOD robots defusing suspected bomb vans near RAF Fairford courtesy of SkyNews. pic.twitter.com/C9TuKlCRoL

— Exposing Corruption🇺🇸 (@Exposing74) September 27, 2026

The British mainstream security state press went into speculative overdrive, “monitoring” an incident near the key RAF base.

Who are the Fairford incident suspects?

Police have not named the five men but say all – photographed while sitting shirtless after their arrest – are British nationals from London aged between 23 and 25. They were initially arrested on suspicion of offenses under the Explosives Act and were later detained on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act.

RAF Fairford suspects are British men in their 20s, police say, as Iran denies involvement pic.twitter.com/JNhWtijJLM

— Victoria Derbyshire (@vicderbyshire) September 28, 2026

Then, less than 24 hours after their detention, all five were released on bail.

What do British police officially suspect?

UK counterterrorism chief Laurence Taylor stressed that releasing the men did not mean the case was over. The suspects remain under “stringent” restrictions while investigators pursue “multiple new lines of enquiry,” he insisted.

US President Donald Trump, who initially claimed the men had already been under observation and were “looking to do big damage,” later complained about their release.

Britain can hold terrorism suspects without charge for up to 14 days, meaning police were not legally forced to release the five when they did.

Who declared a foreign power was involved?

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News that the incident “clearly involves the hands ‌of a foreign actor.” 

Tehran has warned that military facilities used for US attacks on Iran could be treated as legitimate military targets. However, it has never claimed responsibility for any strikes outside of the Middle East.

British media reports have cited anonymous sources suggesting investigators were examining possible Iranian involvement. Russia and an “islamist state” were also mentioned by Reuters, citing anonymous sources.

Tehran’s embassy in London slammed the suggestions of Iranian involvement as “unfounded and malicious speculations” that fueled Iranophobia in Britain.

How is Britain escalating war rhetoric?

British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband used his Labour Party conference speech on Monday to call for more preparedness against growing security threats, opening his speech by pointing directly to the Fairford incident.

British authorities last year arrested four Iranian nationals over what was described as a major suspected terrorist plot. Police eventually released all four from custody without charge.

Is the Fairford incident a false flag?

There is no evidence of that, and watching the story move from a worrying local incident, through to a counter-terror operation involving “possible truck bombs,” to the release of five men on bail within 24 hours and an admission that the vans involved contained no explosives, can hardly count as a well-executed false flag plot.

Can the British government be believed?

That does not mean the British government deserves blind trust on intelligence claims.

Trump may be saying plenty about Tehran that echoes Bush’s rhetoric. But there is currently no evidence that UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has decided to follow Blair down the same road.

What is the last refuge of a scoundrel?

When facts run out of road the British commentariat will reach the Hybrid War refueling post.

Hybrid war is by definition almost impossible to verify. Sky News, for instance, interviewed Martin Gallagher, a former police superintendent, who argued that masterminds are trying to manipulate British authorities by making them “cry wolf” now, before a “real attack” could happen in the future

Is Western Europe caught in its own echo-chamber?

Last week, Spain’s El Mundo, citing anonymous Lithuanian security sources, reported that the CIA had warned of a Russian kamikaze drone plot targeting Spain, France or Italy, involving merchant ships in the Mediterranean. The story raced around Europe before senior officials in Italy and France debunked it.

Germany has taken a much firmer line over an August drone incident at Leipzig/Halle Airport, which Berlin formally called a failed hybrid attack carried out by Russia. The German government has refused to disclose the evidence underlying its claim, however, fuelling speculation that the situation was staged for political reasons.

The great European drone scare of 2025 also produced some awkward endings. No evidence has been produced of any malign operation around the multiple allegations, and most have been disproven by mainstream journalists in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark, where the army is thought to have actually shot at a passenger plane.

And then there is “Havana Syndrome.” US officials were looking for some kind of Russian, Chinese or other foreign directed-energy weapon, but only found an argument that CIA agents who were purportedly victimized should be paid compensations for the damage they suffered, regardless of its cause.

More than 100 Israeli settlers have staged a riot in the West Bank village of Jalud, burning Palestinian homes and vehicles and throwing stones at Israeli forces, after the Jewish state’s High Court ordered that Palestinian families the mob had targeted and evicted weeks earlier be returned to their homes.

In a report filed from Jalud on Tuesday, RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij details the extremists’ response.

A transgender New York Times executive allegedly killed by his in-laws over the weekend in California was facing child-abuse charges amid a bitter family battle, newly reported court documents have revealed.

Jonathan McKinsey, 40, director of engineering for NYT Games, was gunned down on Saturday at a sports complex east of San Francisco. Police arrested his parents-in-law, Shouyong Zhang and Shili Chen, both in their late 70s, near the scene on suspicion of murder.

The pair are being held without bail and are due to appear in court on Wednesday. Police said McKinsey was deliberately targeted but have not linked the killing to the family dispute.

The incident came a week before a scheduled hearing in McKinsey’s contentious divorce and custody fight with his estranged wife, Candice Jang, according to court records cited by AP.

McKinsey transitioned from female to male in 2010, according to the Mercury News, citing court filings. The documents indicate that McKinsey and Jang were already close during his transition-related medical treatment that year. The couple subsequently married and had three children.

40-year-old Jonathan McKinsey was fatally shot over the weekend in a parking lot near the Dublin Sports Grounds, and police arrested his parents-in-law at the scene, according to city officials. https://t.co/e9denPzy74 pic.twitter.com/7yc1g2aFLm

— NBC Bay Area (@nbcbayarea) September 28, 2026

There is no public information on how McKinsey and Jang had their children or which person gave birth. A couple consisting of a transgender man and a biological woman would need donor sperm to conceive. Depending on the circumstances, either could provide the egg and carry the pregnancy.

The court battle featured competing allegations of abuse. Jang accused McKinsey of years of violence against her and their children. McKinsey was charged with two misdemeanor child-abuse offenses for allegedly hitting his six-year-old son in the face and leaving another child, then aged two, home alone while he went shopping. He pleaded not guilty to both charges and was seeking admission to a mental-health diversion program.

McKinsey, in turn, sought a restraining order against Jang. He claimed she tried to pull medical tubes from his body following a transition-related procedure and later struck him with a frying pan. He also alleged that his father-in-law punched him while he was recovering from a double mastectomy and that his mother-in-law directed anti-LGBTQ slurs at him and one of the children.

Half of Ukrainians place government corruption as among the issues that worry them most, putting it ahead of Russian long-range missile and drone strikes, a new opinion poll indicates.

The survey, conducted in mid-September by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), comes amid a series of high-profile graft investigations involving Ukrainian officials and people in Vladimir Zelensky’s inner circle.

KIIS surveyed more than 1,000 adults living in Kiev-controlled territory using phone interviews. Respondents were shown a list of 12 issues and were allowed to select up to three.

The survey showed widespread dissatisfaction over graft amid a string of scandals at the highest levels of the Ukrainian government recently exposed by Western-backed investigators. Some 72% of respondents said corruption has increased since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022. The same share – 72% – said Zelensky bears personal responsibility for corrupt actions by members of his entourage.

Earlier this month, Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko fled Ukraine and tendered his resignation after a senior official in his office was accused of running a protection racket for scam-call criminal networks.

Mindich, a longtime associate of Zelensky, fled to Israel last November shortly before being accused of running a $100 million kickback scheme at a state-owned nuclear energy company.

Russian forces intensified attacks on targets deep inside Ukraine over the summer after Zelensky ordered a “pressure campaign” involving drone strikes on Russian refineries, civilian ships, and commercial warehouses.

The EU has rejected a Ukrainian request for a €220 million ($250 million) farmer subsidy to offset the fallout from the Black Sea port blockade, Ukrainian Agriculture Minister Taras Vysotsky has said. Kiev and Brussels have long struggled to resolve the question of Ukrainian agricultural exports to the EU, where the bloc’s farmers are wary of Ukrainian produce flooding their markets.

Kiev asked the EU for €220 million in non-repayable aid in August, which was meant to compensate interest on loans for small and medium-sized agricultural producers under Ukraine’s state lending program.

The request came after Vladimir Zelensky’s PR 40-day pressure campaign on Russia backfired, with Moscow carrying out retaliatory strikes on Ukrainian military-related logistics, including the Odessa hub accounting for roughly 80% of farm exports.

“Now we already have to think what’s going to happen from the spring after the new year, because the situation keeps being critical.”

The dispute comes amid years of friction over Ukrainian farm access to the EU market. After the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Brussels suspended duties and quotas on Ukrainian agricultural exports to support Kiev, but the move triggered massive uproar among European farmers, particularly in eastern EU states, who complained that Ukrainian products subjected them to unfair competition.

In 2024, following protests, Brussels introduced an “emergency brake” system for sensitive exports, meaning that Ukrainian produce was once again subject to tariffs once imports exceeded specific volumes. The dispute has since shifted toward the size of agricultural quotas, with Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia maintaining significant restrictions on Ukrainian imports.

A Tu-95 strategic bomber has crashed during a training flight in the Amur Region in the Russian Far East, killing six crew members and injuring another, according to Moscow’s Defense Ministry.

The injured crew member was evacuated to a medical facility, the ministry said.

The aircraft was unarmed and crashed in an uninhabited area, the MOD added.

A Russian Aerospace Forces commission has been sent to the site to investigate the cause of the crash.

The Soviet-designed Tu-95, which first flew in 1952, remains the world’s fastest production turboprop aircraft. The long-range strategic bomber has been used extensively by Russia to launch Kh-101 cruise missiles at targets in Ukraine during the conflict.

India has secured partial relief on Tuesday from an expanded 100% US tariff on certain patented pharmaceutical imports. Specified specialty medicines and their associated ingredients now qualify for zero-duty treatment, while generic drugs and their ingredients remain outside the tariff entirely for now.

The decision took effect on July 31 for companies included in an initial list and was extended on September 29 to other companies covered by Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act.

The move is significant for India as the US remains its biggest pharmaceutical export market. Indian drug shipments to the country were worth about $10 billion in the year ended March 2025, accounting for roughly 35% of the sector’s overseas sales, according to the government-backed Pharmaceuticals Export Promotion Council of India.

Much of that business is in generic medicines. India exported $24.15 billion of generics globally in FY25 and is the world’s largest generic exporter by volume, according to the council. Those products are not currently covered by the new US tariff.

India has also been included in a list of 20 countries and jurisdictions eligible for zero tariffs on some specialty medicines. The carve-out covers drugs used exclusively for rare diseases, nuclear medicine, plasma-derived therapies and fertility treatments, as well as cell and gene therapies, antibody-drug conjugates and animal-health products.

A lack of US “understanding or appreciation or empathy” for India’s concerns over cross-border terrorism is creating problems in ties between New Delhi and Washington, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has said.

Speaking at the Asia Society in New York on Tuesday, Jaishankar said few countries had faced the kind of terrorism India has endured from its neighbor as part of a “deliberate, conscious policy” over several decades. India-Pakistan ties remain tense after the April 2025 Pahalgam attack, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan. It was followed by four days of military exchanges between the two countries. Islamabad denied involvement in the attack.

The remarks came days after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif used his UN General Assembly address to raise the issue of Kashmir, criticize India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and credit US President Donald Trump with helping end their 2025 conflict. Jaishankar responded the following day, without naming Pakistan directly, describing it as a “serial practitioner of terrorism” and saying India would exercise its right to defend itself.

The matter has previously strained India-US ties. New Delhi privately protested after Trump hosted Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, at the White House in June 2025, warning Washington that closer engagement with Pakistan sent the wrong signal on cross-border terrorism, three senior Indian officials told Reuters at the time. One official called cross-border terrorism a “red line” for India. Pakistan denies supporting militants who attack Indian targets.

Russian drone operators have destroyed several Ukrainian military vehicles carrying supplies to frontline positions in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow.

Footage released by the ministry on Tuesday shows FPV drones striking moving and stationary pickup trucks.

The vehicles were spotted by Russian drone operators while carrying supplies to Ukrainian positions, the ministry said.

It titled the video ‘The true pickup masters,’ in a nod to pickup artist culture. “The result of the ‘date’: several Ukrainian military vehicles aren’t going anywhere, and the resupply of their positions has been completely disrupted,” the Defense Ministry joked.

Light vehicles such as pickup trucks are extensively used to transport ammunition, supplies and personnel near the front, where larger and slower vehicles are particularly vulnerable to drones.

The strikes took place in the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration, a heavily fortified Ukrainian-held area in the northwest of the DPR and a key hub for Kiev’s forces in Donbass.

Last week, the Russian Defense Ministry said its forces had encircled Ukrainian troops near the strategic settlement of Dobropolye. According to Moscow, further advances there could put additional pressure on Ukrainian supply and reinforcement routes.

The US, Denmark, and Greenland have signed a new agreement to expand American military activity on the island. Washington calls Greenland vital to its security, but an expanded military presence also raises an older question: What risks does the Arctic island take on in return?

The agreement builds on a defense partnership dating back to 1951. That history includes an episode that brought the risks of Washington’s Cold War strategy into sharp focus: An American mission over Greenland that ended in a nuclear disaster.

The nuclear patrols over Greenland

In the 1960s, in the middle of the Cold War, the US Air Force launched Operation Chrome Dome. This mission implied keeping bombers armed with nuclear weapons on continuous airborne alert, ready to strike the USSR if necessary. If you’ve seen the film ‘Dr. Strangelove’, you’ll remember that Major T.J. ‘King’ Kong’s crew was involved in such a patrol mission. 

Then-US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara advocated for ending this program, arguing that Americans had already established an effective early warning system for ballistic missile launches, so the US could take fewer risks and cut costs. However, the Strategic Air Command resisted this idea, fearing it would decrease their importance and result in budget cuts. 

A horrific incident occurred in 1966 over Spain when a bomber collided with a refueling tanker aircraft, resulting in several fatalities and nuclear bombs landing on beaches and in the Mediterranean Sea. Despite this incident, the US considered the nuclear threat from the USSR a matter of primary importance, one which justified any security measures. 

Eventually, after intense debates, a compromise was reached: The number of patrolling bombers would be reduced, but the airborne patrols would continue.

Thule Air Base in northern Greenland was established in the 1950s. A Mercator projection map gives a distorted sense of distance; in reality, its location was very convenient for potentially launching missiles at the USSR and monitoring missile launches from there. It also provided a convenient vantage point for reconnaissance of the Novaya Zemlya Soviet nuclear test site. 

Thus, the US Strategic Air Command built a military base in northern Greenland. The name referred to ‘Ultima Thule’ (farthest Thule) – a mythical island at the edge of the world. The base housed bombers, reconnaissance planes, radar systems, missile launch sites, and early-warning radars. In its most active period, Thule base housed about 10,000 personnel. Additionally, the US launched the highly classified Project Iceworm, which aimed to build a wide network of nuclear missile launch sites concealed in tunnels beneath the ice. One could say Greenland became thoroughly inhabited.

Seven men, four hydrogen bombs, and a fire in the sky

On January 21, 1968, a B-52 bomber rose into the air, carrying four megaton bombs. It took off from New York to visually monitor the nuclear alert system, bearing four thermonuclear bombs, each with a yield exceeding one megaton. 

Everything started out smoothly. But eventually, the factor of human error came into play.

The third pilot, Major Alfred d’Amario, took aboard a few cloth-covered foam cushions to make his flight more comfortable. He placed the cushions under the instructor navigator’s seat and went to replace co-pilot Leonard Svitenko, who went to take his rest period. The cushions remained in place. 

Not long after, the pilots opened an engine bleed valve which channeled hot air from the engine to the heater. Unfortunately, the heater was defective and quickly became dangerously hot. 

At some point, the pilots noticed the smell of burning rubber filling the cockpit. While they searched for the source of the burning, a fire had already started onboard. The navigator went looking for the flames, and, on discovering the fire, attempted to extinguish it using two fire extinguishers. However, he was unable to put it out. 

Captain Haug, the aircraft commander, requested an emergency landing at the airbase. All the extinguishers had been used, but the fire continued to spread. Smoke thickened to the point that the crew could hardly see each other in the cockpit. Ultimately, as the plane neared Thule Air Base, Haug ordered everyone to abandon it. 

Out of the seven crew members, six managed to eject relatively safely. Tragically, co-pilot Leonard Svitenko sustained fatal head injuries while trying to escape.  

Haug and d’Amario landed directly on the airbase grounds. The base personnel immediately mobilized to search for the remaining crew. A polar night enveloped Greenland, and the weather was dreadful. A representative of the Royal Greenland Trade Department, Jens Zinglersen, significantly eased the search efforts by contacting local Inuit residents who organized dog sled teams. Thanks to their collective efforts, three other aviators were found – they had landed within a mile and a half of the base and were quickly located.

But the worst was yet to come. The aircraft carrying thermonuclear munitions was still flying northward and burning up. Finally, it crashed onto the ice about 12 km west of the airbase. There was still plenty of fuel onboard; it ignited on the ice, causing spectacular pyrotechnic effects. The bomb’s non-nuclear explosives detonated, partially melting the ice and scattering radioactive debris everywhere.

There was another poignant detail, however. Greenland belonged to Denmark, which had declared its entire territory a nuclear-free zone. And now, a bomber armed with nuclear weapons had crashed there – though the Danes (at least those who didn’t work in the government) were unaware that there was also radioactive debris all over the ground. The Danish government quickly issued a statement claiming that the aircraft was not in Greenland’s airspace and had only entered it due to an onboard emergency. This was a complete fabrication, but it served as a cover-up for the situation. 

The US found itself in a delicate situation that urgently needed fixing.

Cleaning up a nuclear disaster in the Arctic night

The cleanup operation was dubbed Project Crested Ice (or unofficially, ‘Project Doctor Freezelove’). The operation was led by General Richard Overton Hunziker, a seasoned veteran and WWII hero. 

A team of scientists, nuclear specialists, and a massive number of troops were dispatched to Greenland. Their mission was to remove all radioactive materials before spring arrived and the contaminated ice would be carried off into the ocean. The polar night brought fierce winds and bitterly cold temperatures, making the task even more challenging. 

Radioactive elements were scattered across a 1-mile (1.6 km) by 3-mile (4.8 km) area. In the midst of it was an ice hole measuring 50 meters in diameter. A blackened patch measuring 670 by 120 meters and heavily contaminated with uranium and plutonium was clearly visible from the air.

It must be said that Hunziker and his team worked heroically. They established a small town on the ice, complete with igloos, a power station, a runway, a communications hub, and a decontamination chamber. An icy road connected them to the airbase.

Thousands of people toiled under the harsh conditions, illuminated by floodlights as they cut through the contaminated ice, loaded it onto transports, and hauled it to storage, where it was boxed up in tanks for shipping back to the US. Ice was collected using graders, packed into wooden crates, which were then loaded into steel tanks and onto ships. Debris was recovered manually – some pieces were sizable, but the smallest were no bigger than a battery. Contaminated areas were identified using simple Geiger counters.

The cleanup crew worked with minimal protective clothing. Most people simply wore their regular Arctic expedition clothing. 

By mid-September 1968, the operation was officially concluded. In total, 1,700 Danes and 700 Americans participated in it. While the disaster was a stark illustration of the consequences of foolish and irresponsible behavior, the cleanup crew – which braved the harsh cold and literally gathered radioactive waste by hand – accomplished real feats, which, however, remained largely forgotten.

What the ice couldn’t bury

It’s believed that around 93% of the radioactive materials were collected, but some remnants remained on the seabed. One hydrogen bomb likely sank among other debris. Attempts to locate it with a submersible were unsuccessful. A heap of wreckage was discovered on the ocean floor, and somewhere down there, it appears that the remains of the nuclear weapon still lie undisturbed. 

A heated debate arose around the actions of Danish prime ministers Jens Otto Krag and H. C. Hansen. Krag portrayed himself as a naïve yet honest figure, insisting that he wasn’t aware of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons over Greenland. However, declassified US documents indicated that the Danish government was aware of everything. As for Hansen, he was the one who secretly approved the US to use Thule Air Base as part of its nuclear shield. However, by then, both prime ministers had passed away, and were unable to answer to the population. 

After the incident, Operation Chrome Dome was officially shut down. After all, it was the second nuclear disaster in three years, and that was too much even for the ‘hawks’. Secondly, both Russians and Americans already had plenty of missiles, and the use of bombers seemed somewhat archaic. Finally, the USSR and the US initiated another period of détente and developed protocols for handling any accidental incidents involving nuclear weapons. While this didn’t help those who suffered or died from cancer as a result of the accident in Greenland, it did significantly reduce the risk of similar events in the future.

Anthropic is telling potential investors that its advanced AI could cause “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity,” in a prospectus intended to boost the company’s value to $2 trillion.

The company’s IPO prospectus, seen by Reuters, claims that its AI models exhibit “self-preserving behaviors,” including attempts to “resist shutdown,” “conceal or manipulate information,” and “blackmail”  researchers.

“Our development of highly advanced models, platforms, and applications and expansion of use cases could further increase the risk that our models cause harm,” Anthropic, which is best known for its Claude large language model (LLM) added.

Earlier this month, company CEO Dario Amodei published an essay calling for a government-enforced slowdown of cutting-edge AI development. Amodei outlined “serious” dangers – including loss of control over AI systems, their misuse for cyberattacks and bioterrorism, and major economic disruption – and warned that “a race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives, can make these risks more acute.”

However, Amodei has for years used such warnings to drive interest in his products. Amodei was still working for OpenAI in 2019 when he declared its fledgling GPT-2 model, which struggled to generate coherent text, “too dangerous to release.” 

Furthermore, Anthropic stands to benefit from government regulation. Anthropic and OpenAI – which also reported a laboratory “escape” earlier this year and scrapped the planned release of a new model over safety concerns last week – sell closed-source AI models.

A ban on open-source models, which the US government has reportedly considered, would place Anthropic and OpenAI in a dominant position. Several tech insiders interviewed by the New York Post last week said that they believe both companies are exaggerating the security risks posed by their models in order to pressure the government into regulating the industry.

A Pentagon personnel system breach has reportedly exposed sensitive data on more than three million people, including military personnel and their families, several media outlets have reported, citing US defense officials. The disclosure follows a separate breach of the FBI’s jobs website.

The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) system was reportedly accessed by a small number of unauthorized users between October 2025 and July 2026, affecting some 2.76 million living people and another 294,000 who are deceased, unidentified Pentagon officials have told CNN and ABC News.

According to them, the exposed files include Social Security numbers and other personal details, as well as information about military jobs and occupational specialties.

DMDC maintains more than 60 million records overall, including on active-duty and reserve troops, civilian employees, contractors, retirees, veterans, and military family members.

The leak was initially reported by the Military Times last week citing an internal breach notice received by one of the affected individuals. The publication said two unnamed defense officials had confirmed the authenticity of the letter.

Heads up! This is coming down. pic.twitter.com/nKawhTNX5h

— U.S Army WTF! moments (@usawtfm) September 22, 2026

According to the notice, DMDC said that a “security vulnerability” in a file-sharing system allowed unauthorized users to gain access to unencrypted personal information. The system was said to have been patched “immediately” after it was discovered – nearly nine months after the unauthorized access began.

The notice offered affected individuals a year of free credit monitoring services.

Meanwhile, the FBI is dealing with an unrelated breach claim involving its recruitment website. Last week, the hacking group ShinyHunters claimed it had stolen personal data on nearly all FBI agents, their spouses, and job applicants.

The group said that the attack was “not financially motivated” and instead of a ransom, demanded that the FBI remove a cybersecurity advisory published in May that ShinyHunters says contains false allegations about them.

The FBI has said it is investigating and has notified employees, but has not yet established where the breach occurred or confirmed the scale of the theft.

Sudan has called for international action against foreign parties supporting the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) opposing the government, and accused the UN Security Council of failing to identify and condemn the group’s sponsors.

Sudanese Foreign Minister Mohieldin Salim Ahmed Ibrahim made the appeal at the UN General Assembly in New York on Monday, saying external support for the RSF was prolonging the war.

“Pressure must be exerted on the regional sponsors and certain neighboring states,” Ibrahim said.

The foreign minister accused unnamed countries of allowing weapons and supplies to reach the RSF through their territory and enabling attacks by the paramilitary group and mercenaries to be launched from outside Sudan’s borders. He also claimed hospitals had been established in neighboring states to treat wounded RSF fighters.

Sudan has previously accused the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of providing military support to the RSF, allegations Abu Dhabi has repeatedly denied. Khartoum has also accused neighboring Ethiopia of allowing its territory to be used for drone attacks against Sudan, a claim Addis Ababa has rejected.

The accusations come weeks after a UN fact-finding mission found reasonable grounds to believe that a transnational network had supplied the RSF with weapons, logistics, training and foreign personnel. Investigators identified private entities and intermediaries operating from countries including the UAE, with transit routes through Chad, southeastern Libya and Somalia. 

Sudan plunged into a civil war three years ago after a struggle for power broke out between the SAF and the RSF. 

Diplomatic efforts to end the war have intensified on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed ways to resolve the conflict with his Sudanese counterpart last week, while the African Union and the US called for an immediate humanitarian truce followed by a durable ceasefire and a Sudanese-led political process.

Washington does not regard either side as representing legitimate constitutional rule in Sudan. Khartoum strongly rejected the US position, calling for respect for the country’s sovereignty and national institutions and warning against legitimizing the RSF through force.

Argentinian President Javier Milei has demanded that Britain cease oil exploration near the disputed Falkland Islands, threatening legal action if London fails to comply.

Buenos Aires maintains that the South Atlantic archipelago, which it calls the Malvinas, is part of its territory, despite it being administered by the UK since 1833.

The two countries fought a brief war over the territory in 1982 after Argentine forces seized the islands and Britain sent a naval task force to retake them. In a 2013 referendum, Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly voted to remain a British overseas territory, a vote Buenos Aires does not recognize as resolving the sovereignty dispute.

Milei said in a post on X on Monday that he had given instructions to the Foreign Ministry and legal experts “to initiate international arbitration against the UK for the illegal plundering of our resources through the Sea Lion Project.”

The Sea Lion oil field lies around 220 km (137 miles) north of the Falkland Islands and is estimated to hold around 1.7 billion barrels of oil. British company Rockhopper and Israeli firm Navitas, which are developing the $2.2 billion project, are planning to begin drilling on site in early 2028.

ITLOS is an independent court established under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Decisions by the Hamburg-based tribunal are legally binding, although it lacks the means to make countries comply with them.

The British government has said it fully supports the companies involved in the Sea Lion project, insisting that the people of the Falklands have the “right to develop their natural resources as they see fit.” Rockhopper and Navitas also previously shrugged off Argentina’s complaints about the project, arguing that they are operating under a valid license issued by the UK.

The Argentinean government has doubled down on its claim to the islands after US President Donald Trump, who previously called Milei his “favorite president,” said in late August that Washington’s longstanding neutral stance on the status of the Falklands was under review.

Milei dedicated most of his speech at the UN General Assembly in New York last week to the Falklands, saying that Argentina could “take matters into our own hands” if the global body fails to act against the Sea Lion Project.

UK Defense Secretary Wes Streeting responded by accusing the Argentinean leader of reciting the “same old bogus propaganda” and insisting that Britain has “the ability to defend” the Falklands militarily.

The US emergency oil stockpile has plunged to its lowest level in nearly 44 years as the US-Israeli war on Iran continues to squeeze global supplies and disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Department of Energy data. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) has shrunk by almost a third since Washington began releasing crude in March.

The reserve dropped to 283.8 million barrels for the week ending September 25, hitting its lowest level since October 1982, according to US government data. That is down roughly 32% from 415.4 million barrels in mid-March and 61% from the record 726.6 million barrels held in late 2009.

Congress created the SPR in 1975 following the Arab oil embargo to provide an emergency buffer against severe supply disruptions. Designed to hold more than 700 million barrels in underground salt caverns along the Gulf Coast in Texas and Louisiana, the reserve has been tapped heavily in recent years.

Global oil inventories have fallen sharply during the conflict. Goldman Sachs estimated in May that visible crude and petroleum-product stocks were shrinking by a record 8.7 million barrels per day (bpd), nearly twice the average rate since the Iran war began in February and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz began to interfere with shipments.

Oil flows have rebounded since then but have yet to fully recover. Energy analytics firm Kpler estimated Middle East crude exports at 12.8 million barrels per day in September – the highest since the war began but still around 6 million bpd below the 18.8 million recorded in February.

US President Donald Trump nevertheless touted record oil shipments through the strait on Sunday. “Last night we took a record amount of oil out from the strait, more than we took out before the war,” he told reporters, also predicting that crude prices would fall further once the conflict ends.

The Energy Department expects roughly 200 million barrels to eventually flow back into the SPR under the exchange program. Those repayments will come later, however, leaving the US with a much smaller emergency cushion in the meantime.

Not all of the crude still counted in the reserve is readily accessible. The Government Accountability Office said in June that more than a quarter of SPR oil was unavailable as of December 2025 because of construction work and cavern outages. The watchdog put the reserve’s effective drawdown capacity at just 61% of its design rate.

At least 28 skulls of suspected kidnap victims have been recovered from outlaw forest hideouts in southeastern Nigeria, the African nation’s law enforcement authorities have reported.

Police found the skulls and other bones during raids on Saturday in the Umuaku and Nneato forests of Abia State. The suspects fled before officers could arrest them, police spokesperson Maureen Chinaka said.

“The criminal camps were subsequently dismantled. Investigation is ongoing, while monitoring of the area continues, and efforts are intensified to apprehend the fleeing suspects,” Chinaka said in a statement.

The remains were found during a weekend of mass abductions elsewhere in Africa’s most populous nation. Armed men seized at least 47 farmers harvesting peanuts in Niger State on Saturday, while about 40 women were kidnapped in neighboring Zamfara on Sunday, AFP reported, citing security reports and a local source. The Nigerian Army said it foiled two other abduction attempts in Zamfara on Sunday and rescued 10 people.

Nigeria has faced a security crisis for more than a decade, marked by kidnappings by jihadist groups and armed gangs. Boko Haram, its Islamic State-linked offshoot Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and Ansaru have abducted civilians, while gangs locally known as bandits seize people for ransom, particularly in the northwest and north-central regions. Security consultancy SBM Intelligence recorded 7,825 people abducted nationwide between July 2025 and June 2026, a 66% rise on the previous year.

A local archbishop described Umunneochi at the time as a “money making center for kidnappers.” 

The violence has continued despite a nationwide security emergency declared by President Bola Tinubu, the recruitment of more police personnel and forest guards, and increased security cooperation with the US.

US Africa Command called the mission a success, saying a joint operation killed Abu-Bilal al-Minuki and other senior Islamic State figures and disrupted the group’s wider network. Nigerian opposition politician Samuel Memeh disagreed, telling RT the deployment “has not yielded significant improvements” in security.

The US faces a major hurdle replenishing key missile stocks after burning through huge quantities of Tomahawks and Patriot interceptors during the Iran war, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday. According to the paper, the manufacturing push is coming “too late,” with the industry hollowed out by years of underinvestment.

The US fired more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iranian targets, or around one-third of its prewar inventory, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimated in late May, adding the stocks are expected to be replenished only by late 2030 or early 2031.

CSIS also estimated that Washington has used roughly half of its high-end Patriot interceptors, with the stockpile below 1,000 as of late July.

“Ministers of defense have fat wallets – they walk into the shops, and there are empty shelves,” Rob Bauer, former chair of the NATO Military Committee, told the newspaper.

For instance, Pentagon orders for the Tucson, Arizona factory – a key facility producing Tomahawks – plunged so low that the line producing the missiles was at risk of being completely shut down. In August, the facility received a $23 billion seven-year Tomahawk order, but it took more than a year to negotiate the terms, and the final agreement is still pending congressional approval.

Washington has also awarded RTX a provisional $20.7 billion multiyear contract for AMRAAM medium-range missiles as part of the Pentagon’s “Arsenal of Freedom” initiative. RTX earlier said it has invested about $900 million in three missile production facilities over the past three years.

Earlier this year, the Pentagon also struck a $58.6 billion deal for Patriot interceptors with Lockheed Martin.

The Iran war has been a costly affair for the Pentagon, with a US Central Command estimate putting the overall expenditure at $43.6 billion as of early September, including $28.1 billion to replace expended ammunition. However, unnamed US officials told NBC in July that overall cost could be nearing $100 billion if damaged bases and destroyed aircraft are taken into account.

OpenAI has scrapped the planned release of a new artificial intelligence model after internal testing found it to be more deceptive than its predecessors and below the company’s safety standards, the Wall Street Journal has reported.

The GPT-6.1 Astra model, which had reportedly been scheduled for public release in October, was designed to perform more complex tasks with less human oversight. It was expected to be incorporated into ChatGPT and Codex.

Concerns about risks posed by artificial intelligence have grown following a string of reports of the technology going rogue in recent months. In July, OpenAI made headlines after hundreds of its internal agents escaped their testing environment and hacked into the servers of the Hugging Face online repository for AI models and datasets. Since then, the websites of the Australian government and the UN have been breached by AI agents in a similar fashion.

During testing, GPT-6.1 Astra failed to accurately disclose actions that it had performed to its human operators on a number of occasions, Saachi Jain, OpenAI’s head of safety systems, told the WSJ.

“For anything regarding safety and alignment, there’s a trade-off. You really do need to find what’s the right line between staying within scope, but also avoiding laziness in terms of how the model actually pursues tasks even when it hits friction,” Jain explained.

OpenAI will now focus on improving the safety of its future models, which it expects to be even more capable than GPT-6.1 Astra, according to the WSJ.

Earlier in September, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called on key AI players to slow the development ‌of more advanced models to allow for proper safety measures to be developed, with his stance shared by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.

Trump proclaimed earlier this month that he will now allow the “decimation” of AI to happen on his watch, saying that “we will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible industry. Rather, we will cherish it, help it, and watch over it, as it grows.”

The US president is set to meet with heads of major tech firms, including Amodei, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, later on Tuesday, with House Speaker Mike Johnson saying the discussion will focus on finding a balance between innovation and oversight over AI. “We do not need to jump in and hyper-regulate this, because we’ll lose the race to China,” Johnson suggested.

Iran has denied any ties to the Fairford Airbase incident in the UK, denouncing evidence-free claims that it was involved as “Iranophobia.”

Hours after call from a farmer to the military airbase at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, southwestern England, on Saturday night, police arrested five men driving three white vans, on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act. 

Britain has ramped up pro-war rhetoric in the last week, with the BBC running an article titled “Are you psychologically prepared for war?” while Sky UK ran a reality show ‘The Wargame’ featuring politicians defining strategy in a ‘war room’ following a hypothetical attack by Russia. London’s belligerent media thus went into overdrive upon reports of a possible incident near the airbase.

Police cordoned off the vicinity of the base and evacuated over 80 homes. According to the BBC, a bomb squad worked at the scene, using a remote-controlled robot to inspect the vans, which were parked in a wooded area. 

Taylor said police had begun investigating whether the offense was “committed by proxies, or individuals either knowingly or unknowingly, working on behalf of a foreign state” including “Russia, Iran or an Islamist state,” according to Reuters citing an anonymous security source. 

Iran’s mission in London said in a statement on X on Monday that “The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in London categorically rejects and strongly condemns the recent unfounded and malicious speculations published by some British individuals and media outlets attempting to link Iran to [the] arrest of five suspects in the vicinity of RAF Fairford base.”

“Such fabricated speculations” would only “fuel Iranophobia propaganda in the UK.”

Although Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned in July that the UK would become a “definite and legitimate target” if it supported the US bombing campaign, Tehran has not claimed responsibility for any attacks outside the Middle East.

Iran has fired missiles and drones at Gulf states, which it described as legitimate targets for retaliation because they host American bases used to launch attacks against Iran.

US President Donald Trump has denied offering any concessions to Iran after indirect negotiations resumed in New York on Monday in the hopes of ending the war he launched alongside Israel against the Islamic Republic seven months ago.

Trump took to social media to refute an Axios report claiming that he was prepared to lift some sanctions and release frozen Iranian funds in return for “concrete Iranian steps” regarding its nuclear program. AP published similar claims early Tuesday morning, also citing US officials.

“This is untrue. I offered them NOTHING! Axios’ story, like most others, is a HOAX, used only for purposes of satisfying their Trump Derangement Syndrome,” he wrote on Truth Social, demanding that the “fake story” be taken down.

US and Iranian officials met separately with mediators on the sidelines and are expected to focus on a revised proposal submitted by Tehran last week during the UN General Assembly, according to Reuters.

Iran, meanwhile, has maintained that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and that uranium enrichment is its right as a sovereign state.

The situation remains tense around the Strait of Hormuz, where disruptions to shipping are driving up energy prices worldwide. On Wednesday, an Indian sailor was killed after a projectile struck the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged cargo ship Cape Dao. Although Iran has not claimed responsibility for the attack, it has previously warned vessels passing through the strait not to use the “illegal” routes designated by the US Navy.

China has vowed to support Cuba against external interference after US President Donald Trump said Havana “will fall” and called for “fundamental change” on the island.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun made the pledge on Monday as Beijing and Havana marked 66 years of diplomatic relations, saying China will support Cuba in “safeguarding its national sovereignty” and pursuing a “development path suited to its national conditions.”

In an address to the UN General Assembly last week, Trump described Cuba as an “absolutely failed state” and “a haven for foreign adversaries” on America’s doorstep.

What’s happening in Cuba?

Cuba is enduring its worst economic crisis in decades, marked by chronic fuel and food shortages and prolonged blackouts. Decades of US sanctions have restricted access to financing, fuel, and equipment, compounding low domestic production, dependence on imports, and aging energy infrastructure.

The crisis intensified sharply this year after oil deliveries from Venezuela and Mexico, which together accounted for around 86% of Cuba’s imported crude oil last year, dried up, according to S&P Global. Venezuelan shipments stopped following the US military operation that removed President Nicolas Maduro in January, while Mexico paused deliveries as Washington threatened tariffs on countries that supply Cuba with oil.

Pressure intensified after Trump returned to office. In a January 2026 executive order, he declared Havana’s policies an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security and foreign policy. The order accuses Havana of aligning itself with and supporting Russia, China, and Iran, as well as Hamas and Hezbollah. The administration says its policy is aimed at countering these perceived threats while promoting democracy and greater economic freedom in Cuba.

What does Havana say?

Cuba rejects Washington’s characterization of the island as a threat to US national security and argues that the pressure campaign is intended to force political change by worsening its economic crisis. Havana has accused the US of waging a “multidimensional” economic war and says restrictions designed to deter other countries from supplying it with fuel amount to an “energy blockade.” At the UN General Assembly on Saturday, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez likened the measures to a naval blockade and called them an “act of war.”

What is China’s position?

China has framed its support for Cuba as part of a broader foreign-policy approach of defending national sovereignty, opposing external interference and sanctions, and favoring diplomacy over military coercion and regime change.

Beijing has invoked similar principles during the US-Israeli war against Iran this year, opposing attempts at regime change and calling for disputes to be settled through negotiations.

Beijing has pursued what it describes as a multipolar international order based on greater sovereign equality and a stronger voice for developing nations.

Addressing the UN General Assembly on Saturday, Chinese Vice President Han Zheng urged the “relevant country” to “immediately stop using threat of force against Cuba” and “completely lift the blockade and sanctions.”

How is China aiding Cuba?

China has played a major role in the island’s rapid expansion of solar power, supplying equipment and financing. Solar accounted for just 2% of Cuba’s average daily electricity generation in January 2025; by September 2026, renewables as a whole were generating 21.4% of the country’s electricity, according to Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel.

Beijing has also provided emergency food aid, while previously restructuring Cuban debt and extending financing.

What’s in it for China?

Cuba gives Beijing a close political partner and a foothold for expanding Chinese trade, investment, and infrastructure projects in Latin America. The island has taken part in the Belt and Road Initiative, China’s global infrastructure and investment program, since 2018.

Havana supports Beijing on key diplomatic issues, including Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang, and has endorsed Xi Jinping’s global initiatives. The partnership also gives China another supportive voice as it seeks greater coordination and influence in developing countries.

Who else supports Cuba?

Cuba has enjoyed overwhelming international support at the UN for ending the US embargo. In the latest General Assembly vote in October 2025, 165 countries backed a resolution calling for an end to the embargo; seven voted against and 12 abstained.

Several countries stepped up assistance as Cuba’s crisis deepened. Mexico has sent hundreds of tonnes of food and essential supplies, Spain has reactivated a debt-conversion program, and the EU has provided funding for humanitarian aid.

Russia reiterated its political backing at the UN on Saturday, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov describing Cuba’s humanitarian situation as desperate and calling on Washington to lift the restrictions on the country and remove it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Iranian women have been flocking to Imam Hossein Square in central Tehran to receive basic military and first-aid training as part of the ‘Sacrifice for Iran’ campaign.

The training center was inaugurated there last Wednesday, with the commander of the Basij paramilitary force, Hojjatoleslam Hossein Taeb, attending the opening ceremony.

According to Iranian media, the movement emerged as a grassroots initiative in late March, at the height of the US-Israeli military campaign against the Islamic Republic. Its work reflects the concept of ‘popular defense,’ which traces its roots to the bloody Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Participants register online and first receive basic training in handling weapons, including firearms, small drones, and shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles, as well as in tactical medicine. Volunteers subsequently have the option to progress to more advanced training.

The Ukrainian government has set up five boarding schools for children whose parents were killed, went missing, or were left disabled in the conflict with Russia, preparing them for careers in the country’s military, The Washington Post has reported.

The newspaper gained access to one of the institutions for a report published on Monday, describing the two-year boarding schools as “part grief counseling and part boot camp,” effectively sealing the fate of the vulnerable children.

“[The] school puts them into a funnel toward the Ukrainian security services that are desperate for recruits, along with hundreds of other cadets at new government academies devoted to the still-young children of fallen fighters,” the article reads.

The children are also being prepared for “university entrance exams in their second year” and are required to complete a degree even if they choose to enter service. School staff insisted that “no pressure” be put on the cadets to pursue such careers, the Post noted.

The Ukrainian military needs some 30,000 fresh recruits per month just to maintain its current force size, the Post noted, citing Ukrainian officials. “Officially, Ukraine reports that about 55,000 have been killed in the war and about 114,000 are missing. But aid providers say those figures don’t begin to reflect the number of children who have lost at least one parent,” the article reads.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently said that the Ukrainian military was suffering 27,000 casualties a month.

Kiev has long struggled to replenish its ranks through forced conscription, with its mobilization effort growing increasingly chaotic and violent over the course of the conflict.

The mobilization campaign, dubbed ‘busification,’ has often involved draft officers ambushing military-age men on the streets, at workplaces, and outside their homes, using violence against those resisting or attempting to flee. The draft has sparked several protests and riots across the country, which the authorities have dismissed as “helping the enemy.”

The involvement of children in paramilitary training has been on the rise in Ukraine since the 2014 Western-backed Euromaidan coup, with the process accelerating further in the wake of the full-blown conflict with Russia.

The idea of lowering age thresholds for such training and, potentially, for active service has been repeatedly floated by various public figures. Moreover, boot camps for children have frequently been set up by openly neo-Nazi groups, with basic training going hand in hand with hateful indoctrination at such facilities.

Russia’s parliamentary elections have shown that its people cannot be intimidated or defeated, President Vladimir Putin has said.

Speaking at a Kremlin meeting with the leadership of political parties on Monday, Putin said attempts to disrupt the election campaign and interfere in the country’s internal affairs had failed, adding that “terrorist methods and instruments of foreign intelligence services” had been used.

The September 18-20 vote was accompanied by a massive Ukrainian drone raid targeting Moscow and other Russian regions on its final day. Russian officials said more than 1,600 UAVs were repelled, including 450 on approaches to the capital. Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin described the attack as “unprecedented” and said it had been intended to disrupt the elections. At least two civilians were reported killed in Moscow Region.

Putin thanked tens of millions of Russians for taking part in the vote, saying the turnout had ensured the “indisputable, unquestionable legitimacy” of the election.

The president also said the vote had demonstrated public support for Russian troops, noting that candidates who had taken part in the Ukraine conflict had won seats in parliament.

The ruling United Russia party secured 355 of the State Duma’s 450 seats.

Separately on Monday, Putin signed a decree increasing the authorized strength of the Russian Armed Forces to 2,441,630 personnel, including 1,550,500 servicemen. The measure adds 15,500 positions compared with the previous decree.

At ‘Smart Shopping: How Can Brands Navigate the Revolution in Consumer Behavior?’, one of the sessions held as part of the ongoing BRICS+ Fashion Summit, participants discussed the influence of artificial intelligence on the consumer journey, as well as how the functions of offline retail are changing.

Among those taking part in the session were Huu Nguyen Canh, head of the fashion division of the Vietnam Design Association, and Mohsen Gorji, head of the Fashion Department at Iran’s Ministry of Culture.

Huu Nguyen Canh noted that when there is a huge volume of content and recommendations, a brand’s task is no longer only to show a product, but also to help a person make a choice. For this reason, digital platforms are gradually moving from simply displaying a product range to creating ready-made consumption scenarios. According to him, a significant share of consumer behavior in Vietnam today is shaped by TikTok and other online platforms.

Mohsen Gorji named digital characters as another important tool of new consumer behavior, saying they allow brands to build more personalized communication and create sustained contact with audiences.

“By creating a closer connection with consumers, virtual influencers are becoming an important tool for e-commerce and online business,” Gorji said.

In addition, at the session ‘Investments in Creative Industries: Can Fashion Compete with Startups?’, participants discussed the criteria by which investors evaluate fashion businesses, the role played by brand and cultural capital in investment appeal, and what companies need in order to scale up and enter international markets.

Meanwhile, during the session ‘Production Technologies: What Will Change in the Next 5 Years’, the discussion focused on the impact of digitalization, artificial intelligence, automation, and the use of big data on production processes in the fashion industry.

The BRICS+ Fashion Summit opened on Monday, September 28, at the Zaryadye Concert Hall in Moscow and will run until September 30.

The collective West’s efforts to isolate Russia have failed, as shown by the international turnout at this year’s Valdai Discussion Club, University of Kent professor emeritus of politics Richard Sakwa has told RT.

The 23rd annual session of the Valdai Discussion Club opened outside of Moscow on Monday, bringing together 120 participants from 40 countries. They include representatives from China, Brazil, Argentina, Algeria, Egypt, India, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Türkiye, as well as the US, UK, Germany, Italy, France, and Canada.

Panel discussions will run through Thursday, October 1.

In an interview with RT on Monday, Sakwa noted that even more participants from Western countries are attending this year’s Valdai session than in recent years.

“Russia remains far from isolated” despite Western governments’ efforts to sideline it on the global stage since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, he said.

Forums such as the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Primakov Readings, and the Valdai Discussion Club also continue to attract international interest, including from Western expert communities.

“If anyone is isolated, it’s more and more the West… and the world is getting on with trying to establish an agenda for peace and development,” the British political scientist told RT.

Describing the broader global shift, Sakwa argued that while the world remains within the post-WWII framework, “the institutions and patterns which have emerged after 1945 are changing,” along with the roles of major powers such as the US and Russia.

Iran has completed laying track on the southern stretch of the Chabahar-Zahedan railway, closing a key gap in a route designed to connect the port of Chabahar on the Gulf of Oman to Zahedan near the Afghan border.

Iranian railway official Abbas Khatibi said last week that tracks had been laid for the crucial 480km stretch between Chabahar and Khash, and currently the priority is to complete the stations on the route, Tasnim news agency reported.

The Chabahar–Zahedan link stretches 630 km, or 735 km including branch lines. With the northern sections already linked to the existing rail network, the Iranian authorities are now preparing it for operation.

The Chabahar–Zahedan link is an extension of the larger International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC), backed by India, Iran and Russia. The project has been in the making for decades because of its huge infrastructure requirements and has also been slowed by Western sanctions on both Iran and Russia.

The milestone comes as the Middle East conflict has disrupted traditional transport and energy routes across the region. Chabahar has direct access to the Indian Ocean without requiring ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a major chokepoint affected by the conflict.

Strategic Step: Iran Completes Chabahar-Zahedan Rail Link – Connecting Central Asia to Indian Ocean

The major infrastructure project looks set to become fully operational within 3-4 months with final safety checks for the route underway. (Economic Times)

The route connects… pic.twitter.com/pUKsSzJEJq

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) September 28, 2026

For India, the Chabahar-Zahedan link strengthens a trade route that reaches Afghanistan and Central Asia without transiting Pakistan. Cargo arriving by sea at Chabahar would be able to move inland through Iran’s rail and road network toward landlocked regional markets.

India’s role in Chabahar is complicated by US sanctions. A conditional waiver covering the project, in which India invested around $120 million, expired in April. New Delhi maintained it was discussing the issue with both Tehran and Washington, describing the regional conflict as a “complicating factor.” 

In July, the conflict touched Chabahar itself, when US forces struck a surveillance tower at the neighboring Shahid Kalantari terminal linked to the project. India said the terminal was not damaged.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to the UAE on Sunday to ask President Mohamed bin Zayed to deny that he had warned Israel of a major Hamas operation ahead of the deadly October 7 attack, according to the Associated Press.

AP reported on Monday that Netanyahu had traveled to Abu Dhabi to seek a denial of the warning claim, citing a person said to have firsthand information about the meeting. A second regional official briefed on the meeting also spoke to the agency.

The UAE and Netanyahu’s office have since confirmed the visit. Emirati state news agency WAM said the leaders discussed bilateral relations, while Netanyahu’s office said the talks focused on strengthening ties and regional challenges. Netanyahu’s office has denied that the visit was intended to obtain a denial from bin Zayed.

Haaretz reported earlier this month that bin Zayed called Netanyahu about ten days before the October 7 assault and warned that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was planning a major operation. The Emirati leader reportedly warned that it could lead to bloodshed and destabilize the region.

The UAE has neither confirmed nor denied the alleged warning. Its Foreign Ministry has said it does not comment on reports concerning conversations between government leaders, while noting that Abu Dhabi and Israel maintain “open and direct lines of communication” and share relevant intelligence when necessary.

Netanyahu has faced growing scrutiny over reports that Israel received other warnings in the run-up to the Hamas-led incursion, which killed around 1,200 people and saw 251 taken hostage, triggering the Gaza war.

The Atlantic reported that then-Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel traveled to Israel less than two weeks before the attack and warned senior officials that Hamas appeared to be mobilizing for a major operation. The outlet said it remains unclear whether the warning was relayed to Netanyahu.

The Wall Street Journal separately reported that Cairo issued multiple warnings ahead of the assault, including one to Netanyahu shortly before October 7. The Israeli prime minister has denied receiving advance warning from Egypt.

Former IDF chief of staff Dan Halutz has accused Netanyahu of concealing information about warnings ahead of the attack and said the failure was “total, broad, and included everyone.” He argued that the prime minister ultimately bore responsibility.

Earlier this month, families of Israelis killed or abducted in the attack unveiled a 12-page dossier arguing that the massacre was not merely the result of intelligence and operational failures, but the culmination of a years-long policy that allowed Hamas to strengthen.

The controversy comes ahead of parliamentary elections scheduled for October 27. Netanyahu has described the reports about the alleged UAE warning as politically motivated and linked them to the election campaign.

Washington is pushing for an energy truce between Russia and Ukraine. Kiev supports the initiative, and Moscow has also responded favorably. Another round of shuttle diplomacy has taken place: US President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, and a special representative of Russian President Vladimir Putin traveled to the US for talks with his American counterparts. Work is underway to revive the trilateral negotiation format involving Russia, Ukraine, and the US.

Judging by these and other news reports, one might get the impression that things are moving toward a diplomatic breakthrough and a truce between Russia and Ukraine. However, this impression is deceptive: A closer analysis reveals that the positions of the parties have not changed over the past year. On the contrary, Ukraine’s worsening situation has hardened its resolve to fight to the bitter end.

Up the down staircase

In spring 2025, Ukraine, with the backing of its European allies, launched a major campaign for a ceasefire. The expectation was that Trump would force Putin to accept the terms imposed by Europe and Ukraine, freezing the hostilities along the line of contact without any preconditions.

A truce would have cemented Ukraine’s defeat in the conflict. However, Russia’s primary objective would not have been achieved: The anti-Russian regime in Kiev would remain in place, and Ukraine would retain its role as a Western foothold against Russia. A temporary truce would allow Ukraine to recover and prepare for revenge in the future. A year ago, despite major issues, Ukraine still functioned: The remnants of the civilian economy operated, and despite considerable disruptions, steel and agricultural production (two of the country’s main export sectors) continued. 

However, in spring 2026, Ukraine decided to force Russia to conclude a truce by starting a ‘war on cities’ – large-scale strikes on the Russian rear. It first targeted oil refining and export facilities, and then the civilian sector, including the warehouses of companies such as Wildberries and Ozon.

The worst possible moment

Escalation only makes sense when ‘escalation dominance’ can be maintained. Otherwise, the outcome will be detrimental to the party that started the escalation. That is exactly what happened: In response to Ukraine’s attacks, Russia launched a broad offensive against Ukraine’s civilian sector.

From the start of the conflict, Ukraine has not concealed the fact that it uses civilian logistics infrastructure to transport military cargo. Launchers for long-range drones targeting Russia have often been hidden under the guise of civilian trucks. 

All this prompted Zelensky to propose a truce. What he actually proposed was returning to the way things were before this year’s escalation, and pretending like it never happened. But does he really want a truce? It may look that way. After all, the Ukrainian economy – and consequently the Ukrainian state itself – is beginning to disintegrate; Ukraine’s key exports – its only source of revenue aside from foreign aid – have been effectively destroyed. For the first time in history, steel production in Ukraine has come to a complete halt; restarting it would take months if not years. By all accounts, the country is facing the most difficult winter yet. If this is not grounds for making political concessions, then what is?

The only available option 

Zelensky’s calls for a truce are accompanied by opposing statements. One moment, he demands a “winter package” of weapons from Trump; the next, he declares that the war will not end until Crimea is “liberated.” Domestically, he is intensifying the crackdown on the Russian language and the Orthodox Church, even though this only heightens tensions within Ukrainian society. Clearly, given these parameters, Russia will never agree to a ceasefire. So is it all just schizophrenia or a calculated move?

I’d say it’s the latter. It’s true that if we consider Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine, then his actions are insane and amount to suicide. However, if one views him as the military proxy of Europe’s anti-Russia coalition, then everything falls into place.

For Zelensky and his regime, Ukraine is not their own land; it is a resource and an instrument for war against Russia. To save Ukraine, Zelensky must accept Russia’s terms. Yet Ukraine’s masters cannot accept Russia’s terms, as that would mean a crushing defeat for them.Consequently, the war must go on. If the destruction of rear-area logistics and energy infrastructure does not affect the ability of the Ukrainian army to hold the front line, then logistics and energy don’t matter. Of course, left without electricity, heat, and jobs, Ukraine’s civilian population will endure great suffering – but Zelensky doesn’t care about that. 

As long as there remains hope for Russia’s defeat, nothing else matters. Ukraine wants to either freeze the conflict along the line of contact and prepare to take revenge later, or fight to the bitter end. Russia understands this very well; that is why it has once again rejected any idea of a partial truce – this was recently expressed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the UN, and then by Putin. Even though this year, Russia was seriously affected by Ukrainian strikes, Moscow is only open to ending the conflict on its own terms.

***

What comes next? Both sides are actively preparing for the winter campaign, and it appears that, for the first time since the start of the conflict, long-range air strikes (the war on cities) will become the primary theater of operations. Moscow is confident that the Ukrainian army cannot inflict strategic damage on Russia; consequently, its only option is to maintain escalation dominance by responding to the Ukrainian strikes with even more powerful attacks. Under these circumstances, there can be no talk of either an energy truce or freezing the conflict along the line of contact. 

Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally (RN) and an allied party have won enough seats in the French Senate to form a group for the first time. The breakthrough comes months before a presidential election in which polls currently put Le Pen in the lead.

RN and the Union of the Right for the Republic (UDR) will together hold at least 15 seats in the 348-seat upper house following Sunday’s vote. A group requires a minimum of ten members and gives its lawmakers a greater role in Senate committees, where legislation is examined.

“This is a historic victory, and a major milestone with the formation for the first time of a group in the Senate,” Le Pen wrote on X. She said the result showed the party gaining support across France and that its senators would carry the concerns of local communities into the presidential campaign.

Despite RN’s latest gains, the Senate will remain controlled by the conservative Republicans and their centrist allies.

RN president Jordan Bardella has nevertheless called the result a sign of the party’s momentum ahead of what he described as “the mother of all battles,” referring to the upcoming presidential election.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has led a major incursion into the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem.

Ben-Gvir, leader of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party, showed up at the compound on Sunday to mark the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. Jews call the area around the mosque Temple Mount, as it used to house two Jewish temples in ancient times before becoming the third holiest site for Muslims.

The minister was accompanied by a heavily armed security detail, as well as backed up by crowds of Israeli civilians. A total of 1,143 Israelis breached the compound in several successive groups, according to the Jerusalem Governorate of the Palestinian Authority.

Ben-Gvir was seen brandishing a massive Torah scroll and performing Talmudic rituals while onlookers cheered, footage from the scene shows.

BREAKING 🚨

Itamar Ben-Gvir raises a Torah scroll during Sukkot at the Al-Buraq Wall in occupied Jerusalem.

You do not follow the Torah.

Stop using our holy Torah for national gains and your
g-dless political movement of Zionism.

pic.twitter.com/QQoirPrDj3

— Voice of Rabbis (@voiceofrabbis) September 28, 2026

Shortly after entering the compound, Ben-Gvir stirred up further controversy, releasing on X footage of him confronting Hassan Salameh, a high-profile Palestinian prisoner, in jail. Salameh, believed to be a senior Hamas figure, has been held by Israel for three decades over the 1996 terrorist attacks, including a bus bombing.

Footage released by Ben-Gvir shows him alongside multiple guards armed with assault rifles meeting shackled Salameh inside a small room. “I want to kill you. I want to execute you,” Ben-Gvir told Salameh. The encounter left the prisoner “trembled and terrified,” the minister claimed.

סגירת מעגל ענקית עבורי!

כנער עמדתי ברחובות והפגנתי אחרי פיגועי התופת הנוראיים בקו 18 בירושלים. עשרות חפים מפשע נרצחו, ומשפחות שלמות נחרבו.

לפני כשבועיים הגעתי לכלא ופגשתי פנים אל פנים את הארכי מחבל חסאן סאלמה - מבכירי חמאס, חברו ושותפו של יחיא סינוואר ימ״ש, שנשלח בידי הצורר… pic.twitter.com/6HvGFKAroJ

— איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) September 27, 2026

Ben-Gvir has been the key proponent of the recently adopted Death Penalty for Terrorists Law, which gives Israel broad powers to execute alleged “terrorists.” The legislation mandates the death penalty for those convicted of deadly terrorist attacks aimed at “ending Israel’s existence” – a provision critics say effectively exempts Jewish Israelis, making the law applicable almost exclusively to Palestinians. The death penalty must be carried out within 90 days of sentencing, with no right of appeal.

The far-right minister is known for inflammatory rhetoric toward Palestinians and heavy-handed treatment of prisoners, including international activists, and has been sanctioned by multiple countries for repeatedly inciting violence against them.

As war rhetoric from the UK and its Western European allies reaches a fever pitch, Russia has warned of nuclear consequences if the West follows through on its threats. With no letup in sight, RT is tracking the escalation and debunking the psyops in real time.

In a statement described by the Kremlin as an attempt to “cool down hot heads” in Europe, three Russian embassies warned on Wednesday that Russia is willing to use its entire arsenal, “including nuclear weapons,” if NATO takes military action against Kaliningrad or blockades the Russian exclave.

Tensions are currently high after a week of intense fearmongering from British officials and journalists, in which retired generals told the BBC that the public must be “psychologically prepared” for conflict with Russia, a Labour Party thought leader suggested that dissidents and Russia sympathizers be “locked up,” and former Brexit Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg told British men and women that they “may have to die” in a cataclysmic European war.

This was a marked shift in rhetoric from the British elite. Since 2022, five successive prime ministers have insisted that the UK will arm Ukraine “for as long as it takes” to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, but only a handful of bellicose generals and analysts have predicted an imminent military clash with Moscow. The tactical situation has not changed, and Russia has repeatedly insisted it has no interest in a wider conflict with NATO, but talking heads from both the Labour and Conservative parties are now speaking of war as a done deal.

Meanwhile, Sky News ran ‘The Wargame’ all week – a bizarre five-episode reality show in which real politicians and military chiefs gamed out a hypothetical Russian invasion for the cameras.

With the threat from Russia rising in the real world, a new series from Sky brings together former ministers and military chiefs to test what might happen if the UK faced an attack.

Watch the new TV Show 'Wargame' on Sky and NOW from 21 September pic.twitter.com/b9RcuqLHwF

— Sky News (@SkyNews) September 19, 2026

Britain’s political and media class also attempted to spin the arrest of five men near a US airbase on Sunday as an “attack” on the country, until the men were let go after counterterror police found no explosives, and apparently no evidence of a terrorist plot. Nevertheless, the incident was pinned on Iran, forcing Tehran to issue a sharp condemnation of the “malicious speculations published by some British individuals and media outlets.”

On the continent, Spain’s El Mundo claimed that the CIA had learned of a potential Russian plan to launch drones at France, Italy, or Spain from ships in the Mediterranean. The claim, attributed to Lithuanian intelligence, was quickly shot down by Paris and Rome, as Finnish President Alexander Stubb appealed for calm across the West.

The stakes – and the likelihood of miscalculation – are high. RT is watching and listening, and debunking the most outrageous war propaganda in real time.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX has successfully put Starship into orbit for the first time, deploying 26 next-generation Starlink satellites. However, the mission was cut short and the spacecraft erupted in a fireball following its splashdown in the Pacific.

The spacecraft blasted off from Starbase, Texas, at about 7:49 AM local time on Monday, before reaching space roughly eight minutes later. During the ascent, one of the six engines shut down early, prompting SpaceX to assess whether the spacecraft was healthy enough to continue with the orbital portion of the mission.

Despite the hiccup, controllers ultimately gave a “go for orbit” command, with a single engine restarting for a 19-second burn, placing the Starship roughly 275 km above Earth.

Starship subsequently deployed all 26 Starlink V3 satellites it was carrying. Each is rated for around 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity and 160 gigabits per second uplink, roughly ten and 22 times the respective capacity of V2 satellites. The new generation is designed to provide about ten times the download capacity of its predecessor, according to SpaceX, allowing each satellite to handle significantly more internet traffic.

Sky News science and technology editor Tom Clarke said the spacecraft would not be recovered “because it’s just blown up, quite spectacularly” as it landed in the Pacific.

Monday’s mission was originally expected to see Starship circle Earth six times over about ten hours. SpaceX later cut the flight short, saying the spacecraft would instead reenter after around three hours and target a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii.

All 13 previous Starship flights had followed deliberately suborbital paths that would naturally bring the spacecraft back into the atmosphere. The Starship was expected to make six full laps of Earth over about 10 hours and perform a controlled splashdown in the Pacific west of Chile.

SpaceX encountered major problems during the previous test mission in late July, with the booster suffering ice-related engine issues during its return, with only eight of 13 planned engines reigniting for its landing burn, resulting in a hard splashdown.

The @Starlink team has made contact with all 26 satellites https://t.co/qiAubuhytS

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 28, 2026

Reaching stable orbit marks a fundamental step for SpaceX because Starship is no longer simply following a high-speed arc that inevitably ends with reentry. Once in orbit, the spacecraft can remain circling Earth, which is essential to SpaceX’s plans to use Starship for large-scale satellite launches and eventually missions beyond Earth orbit.

SpaceX says future Starship missions could carry up to 60 V3 satellites and add more than 20 times as much capacity to the Starlink network in a single launch as current Falcon 9 missions.

The satellites are expected to reinforce the Starlink global network, which has been actively used by Ukraine in its conflict with Russia for piloting drones, targeting artillery, and maintaining battlefield connectivity.

The EU has greenlit a slew of new joint defense-industrial initiatives, with Ukraine joining most of them, as Brussels presses ahead with its defense buildup despite Russia’s warnings against the bloc’s “rabid” militarization.

The initiatives are part of the European Defense Projects of Common Interest (EDPCIs), large-scale industrial programs pitched as a way for groups of countries to jointly develop, manufacture, and deploy military capabilities too big or complex to tackle alone. The projects fall under the €1.5 billion European Defense Industry Program (EDIP), one of the EU’s mechanisms for expanding weapons production.

The Council formally endorsed the first five megaprojects within the framework on Monday, including:

• Drones and counter-drone systems (DECODER): scaling up and deploying military drones, along with systems to detect and neutralize UAVs;

• Maritime and seabed defense (IMSD): creating joint systems to detect and respond to threats at sea and on the seabed;

• SPACE: expanding military space capabilities, including missile-launch early warning, satellite communications, intelligence, and surveillance;

• Integrated air and missile defense (EU-FIAMD): linking participating countries’ air and missile defenses, early-warning capabilities, and command systems;

• Eastern Flank Watch (EFW): strengthening defenses along participating countries’ eastern territories.

On average, 18 member states will be involved in each project.

The European Commission has already earmarked €325 million to support the five initiatives. While the money has not yet been handed out, the decision on Monday makes the projects eligible to apply for this funding and opens the door to further EU financing later.

The initial sum is only a fraction of Brussels’ longer-term ambitions: EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius earlier put their combined funding at around €190 billion ($216 billion) by 2036. He hailed the decision as a “major breakthrough” aimed at closing critical gaps in the EU’s defenses.

The European Commission said it will help participating countries get the projects running and coordinate their work. Brussels has also left the door open to more initiatives under the framework in the future.

The EU believes its military buildup is needed to counter what it describes as a growing ‘Russian threat’. Moscow has dismissed the claims as “nonsense,” accusing European governments of using them to justify bloated military budgets and continued weapons supplies to Ukraine. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev slammed the EU’s militarization as “rabid.”

India has directly appealed to US lawmakers over new sanctions that could expose major buyers of Russian crude to tariffs of up to 100% as New Delhi seeks to protect its energy security.  

Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri discussed the recently enacted Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 (SRIA) with a bipartisan US Congressional delegation led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast in New Delhi on Sunday. Energy security was also part of the talks.  

The law – which its original sponsor, the late Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, called the “sanctions bill from hell” – gives Washington authority to impose tariffs of up to 100% on imports from countries that continue purchasing Russian energy.

It does not automatically impose those duties on Indian goods, with their application subject to conditions under the legislation and a decision by US President Donald Trump.

New Delhi had already raised the issue at ministerial level last week, when Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar met US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in New York. Jaishankar conveyed India’s economic and strategic concerns over the sanctions measure, while Rubio said Washington was “well-positioned to help regional partners address their energy security challenges.”  

New Delhi has repeatedly defended its purchases as necessary to ensure affordable and reliable energy for its 1.4 billion people. After Congress passed the legislation, India said it remained “firmly committed” to energy security through diversified sourcing and warned Washington about potential implications for bilateral ties and international energy markets.  

Washington has meanwhile been positioning itself as a larger energy supplier to India. US crude supplies to India averaged about 177,000 barrels per day (bpd) during January-August, making it the country’s sixth-largest supplier over the period. The US has also become India’s largest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG), with Indian imports rising 172% year-on-year in April-July to 2.39 million tons.  

India has maintained that its energy purchases will continue to be guided by national requirements, market conditions, and supply availability, rather than dependence on any single source.

Kenya’s political opposition has pushed back against a government tender for a vast rare earth deposit sought by US and Chinese firms, saying it is proceeding without an economic viability study.

The competition for the Mrima Hill deposit comes as Washington seeks alternatives to Chinese-dominated mineral supply chains. Kenya opened bidding for the coastal site in March, inviting companies to seek rights to develop its rare earths and niobium, a metal used in aerospace manufacturing.

In a post on X on Sunday, opposition Wiper Patriotic Front spokesperson Ndegwa Njiru questioned the tender, saying the government has no “economic viability report or bankable feasibility study” for the $62 billion project.

The tender document acknowledges that no economic viability report has been prepared, but says the initial invitation for expressions of interest does not constitute a mining contract.

The government has not published an estimated cost for developing the mine and processing plant. The widely cited $62 billion figure comes from a 2013 estimate of minerals in the ground by former license holder Cortec Mining Kenya, which was majority-owned by Canada’s Pacific Wildcat Resources.

Kenyan Mining Minister Hassan Ali Joho told Semafor on Monday that six companies, including firms from the US, China, and Australia, are competing for the license in the latest bidding round. US-based Critical Metals Corp has said its Mrima Earth consortium was shortlisted. Earlier reporting also named US firm ReElement and China’s Jinan Yuxiao among the contenders.

Nairobi wants the successful bidder to process minerals in the East African nation as part of an effort to retain more of the value from the deposit instead of exporting raw materials. The government requires applicants to demonstrate that they can build an on-site processing plant.
Joho also said talks with the US on building refineries and processing plants in Kenya are at a “very advanced” stage and “intertwined” with the Mrima Hill bidding.

Washington has made a similar push in DR Congo, the world’s largest cobalt producer. In December, the US signed a minerals partnership with Kinshasa alongside a peace agreement it brokered between Congo and Rwanda.

Congolese lawyers and rights advocates have challenged the minerals deal in court, arguing that it bypassed parliament and threatens national control over natural resources.

China, however, still dominates rare earth supply chains. The International Energy Agency said in April that the country accounts for more than 90% of global refining of the rare earths used in permanent magnets.

The White House is still “very seriously” considering a diesel export ban, US President Donald Trump has said, as fuel prices soar ahead of the November midterm elections.  

Shipments being cut from the world’s largest exporter could deepen a global shortage and leave import-dependent Europe scrambling for supplies.

Diesel prices have surged amid a global supply crunch fueled by the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has severely disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Russia, one of the world’s largest diesel exporters, has also restricted fuel shipments to stabilize its domestic market following Ukrainian drone attacks on its refineries. US diesel production is now barely keeping pace with domestic demand, raising concerns that growing exports could further squeeze supplies at home.

Trump first floated the idea last week. “I’ve said let’s not send out the diesel,” he told reporters ahead of a meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky.

The potential move comes as fuel prices surge. Energy Information Administration data put the nationwide diesel average at a record $6.529 a gallon ($1.72 per liter) on September 21, up from $5.454 just five weeks earlier, as tight global supplies and elevated crude prices drive costs higher.

Increased exports from the US and China have partly offset lost supplies from Russia and the Middle East, according to the IEA. The agency warned that global diesel shortages are likely to persist unless Russian or Middle Eastern exports recover in the coming months or demand declines.

Russia’s diesel export restrictions, introduced after an unprecedented wave of Ukrainian drone strikes damaged refineries across the country, have added further pressure to an already strained global market, with fewer Middle Eastern barrels available to replace any potential loss of US supplies.

Trump has also repeatedly urged Zelensky to halt Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, saying the attacks were contributing to a global diesel shortage. “There are plenty of other targets. Don’t hit diesel fuel. That’s hurting the world,” he said earlier this month. 

A US cutoff could hit Europe particularly hard after the EU abandoned Russian energy following sweeping sanctions. Russia supplied nearly half of Europe’s diesel before the Ukraine conflict, but its share fell to around 5% by 2024 after Brussels imposed an embargo.

Britain could be among the hardest hit. It imports around 55% of its diesel and has just four major refineries left. Analysts cited by The Telegraph warned on Sunday that a US ban could send prices from just under £2 ($2.68) to as much as £2.50-£3 ($3.35-$4.02) per liter this autumn.

The EU has also sounded the alarm over Trump’s threat, urging Washington not to proceed. “We believe this is a very bad idea,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill said last week.

The US has supplied about a third of Europe’s diesel imports this year, with its share rising to around half in August, according to government data. Prices at the pump have already reached record highs in Germany and the Netherlands.

Switzerland has shown that it is “not a neutral state anymore” by rejecting a proposal to tighten the country’s neutrality rules, Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov has said.

Swiss voters on Sunday rejected the ‘Safeguard Swiss Neutrality’ initiative, which would have barred Bern from imposing sanctions on states involved in armed conflicts unless mandated by the UN. It would also have restricted cooperation with military alliances unless Switzerland faced a direct or imminent attack.

In a post on X following the vote, Ulyanov said the result “simply proved that Switzerland is not strong enough to be really neutral and that neutrality is wishful thinking but not a principle of this country.”

According to the provisional official final tally, 70.15% voted against the initiative, while 29.85% supported it. The proposal was rejected in every canton.

The initiative was launched by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) and the Pro Schweiz sovereignty movement. Its supporters argued that Bern had moved “dangerously close” to the EU and NATO, particularly since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, undermining Switzerland’s independence and credibility as a mediator.

The Swiss government, however, maintains that adopting sanctions does not violate the country’s neutrality. Ahead of the referendum, the Federal Council argued that the existing policy gives Bern the flexibility to respond to international developments while safeguarding its security and independence.

Switzerland’s neutrality has been enshrined in its federal constitution since 1848. The country is not a member of NATO but has cooperated with the US-led military bloc for decades, with ties expanding in recent years.

Both the Federal Council and parliament had urged voters to reject the initiative, arguing that a more rigid neutrality policy would restrict Switzerland’s ability to respond to international crises.

Ukraine and its Western backers still have not found a way to cover the unexpected $27 billion hole in this year’s defense budget, Prime Minister Sergey Koretsky said. Despite the funding gap, Koretsky urged Ukrainians to “gain optimism” – while announcing plans to raise VAT next year.

The scope of the defense gap became clear in late August after Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s 40-day PR pressure campaign on Russia, which involved long-range strikes on energy and civilian infrastructure. The escalation triggered a response from Russia, including attacks on military-related logistics, most notably the key port of Odessa.

Zelensky’s request to Kiev’s European backers to plug the gap reportedly caught them off guard, with EU officials privately questioning whether Ukraine is spending efficiently or overstating its needs. Publicly, Brussels has still not endorsed the figure of $27 billion. EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said there are “open questions,” while insisting on a “detailed assessment.”

He noted, however, that Ukraine managed to find $7 billion for military needs by cutting current expenses and reallocating resources.

Though the $27 billion shortfall should formally be covered by the end of the year, Zelensky warned that much of the money is needed sooner, saying drone orders for early 2027 must be paid for in October and November.

Ukraine has already raised several taxes and excise duties this year, including doubling the profit-tax rate on banks to 50%.

As Kiev struggles to fill the defense gap this year, total military-related needs are expected to rise from $155 billion this year to $175 billion in 2027, according to the Ukrainian Defense Ministry. On Monday, First Deputy Finance Minister Roman Yermolychev stated that around $70 billion would have to be met through partner funding.

The EU has tied much of the funding to Ukraine’s progress in adopting reforms, including governance and tackling corruption, as several measures remain stalled in the parliament. Brussels also signaled this week that around €20 billion in budget support is available for Kiev this year, but warned that “timely implementation [of the reforms] is key to enabling the [EU] Commission to proceed with the corresponding disbursements as planned.”

Many people think that diabetes is something like gout – that it primarily affects people with a poor diet or a sweet tooth.

The idea, besides being annoying for doctors and diabetics themselves, is also dangerous. It leads many to believe that only those who eat donuts and drink coffee with lots of sugar are at risk. In reality, diabetes poses a threat to almost everyone in the modern world.

According to the World Health Organization, the number of people worldwide with diabetes rose from 200 million to 830 million between 1990 and 2022, and the number of adults diagnosed with diabetes doubled from 7% to 14%. The number of cases is expected to surge further, driven by the realities of modern life.

This presents a genuine challenge for public health officials worldwide. Some nations are already managing the crisis more effectively than others.

To begin with, it is important to note that there are two types of diabetes. In type 1 diabetes, the immune system mistakenly destroys the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. The body virtually stops producing insulin, and the person requires daily insulin injections. 

Type 1 diabetes often develops during childhood or young adulthood, though it can appear at any age. It is not caused by a high-sugar diet or excess weight.

In type 2 diabetes, the body typically continues to produce insulin, but the cells respond poorly to it – a condition known as insulin resistance. Over time, the pancreas may become exhausted and produce progressively less insulin.

While a poor diet can contribute to the disease, factors like genetics, being overweight, a sedentary lifestyle, and age put one at greater risk, though young or slim individuals increasingly suffer from diabetes as well.

The key difference is that in type 1 diabetes, the body produces virtually no insulin, whereas in type 2, insulin is present but the body fails to utilize it effectively. Type 1 diabetes always requires insulin therapy; type 2 diabetes can sometimes be managed for a long time through diet, physical activity, and oral medication, though some patients eventually require insulin as well.

Type 1 diabetes is virtually impossible to prevent. Type 2 is technically preventable, but difficult to avoid, because most people are even unaware of the danger it poses. Furthermore, its development is fueled by modern lifestyles. 

Such a diagnosis is by no means a death sentence. In reality, having diabetes means a person must regularly monitor their blood sugar levels and make timely adjustments to their diet and medication. Moreover, a person often doesn’t have to totally exclude the consumption of sugar; sometimes, it is even necessary to maintain balance.

If acute crises are avoided, the life of a diabetic differs little from that of other people. However, this requires the right infrastructure.

Since a lot depends on healthcare institutions, one might expect Western countries to be good at managing diabetes. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

In the US, for example, due to the national healthcare model, insulin rationing is common. CDC studies have shown that approximately 25% of adults with diabetes reported cutting back on insulin use due to its cost. Skipping or reducing insulin doses leaves diabetics vulnerable and increases the risk of hospitalization, a sharp decline in health, and even death.

Complaints regarding a shortage of glucose meters, test strips, and other diabetic supplies are common in the US. Yet, even if patients had everything they needed, the problem would remain acute.

The US medical system is geared toward diagnosing and treating diseases rather than providing long-term patient support. Diabetes, however, cannot be cured; it stays with a person for life. The duration – and comfort – of life largely depends on regular check-ups and medical consultations. 

Wealthy patients can secure a relatively safe and comfortable existence for themselves. However, those on a tighter budget and people without medical insurance (about 11% of Americans) remain highly vulnerable.

Lack of access to doctors isn’t the only problem. Studies show that in many parts of the US, living conditions contribute to diabetes. For example, insufficient dietary variety, a lack of large retailers, high electricity costs, and other factors can increase the risk of developing the disease.

And, of course, a sedentary lifestyle poses a major threat. About a quarter of Americans engage in no physical activity outside of work. Many also sit for more than eight hours a day. With such a lifestyle, diabetes is almost guaranteed. 

Europe faces the same issues, plus two others: a shortage of doctors and a rapidly aging population. According to OECD estimates, over 40% of Europeans over the age of 65 suffer from at least two chronic conditions. The number of patients is rising, while the time for long-term monitoring and preventive care is shrinking.

However, the battle is far from lost. Around the world, there are examples of countries that successfully manage diabetes. Russia is one of them.

Unsugared pill

In Russia, approximately 6 million people have been diagnosed with diabetes. Russia is not immune to the problems of the West, such as sedentary lifestyles, unhealthy diets, and inconsistent infrastructure. The differences lie in the approach to managing the disease.

Firstly, while free medicine has its shortcomings, few would dispute its effectiveness in managing chronic conditions. Patients can schedule doctor appointments or lab tests at any time to check their health status and receive medical advice – all at no cost. It is also worth noting that many medications and medical supplies are provided to patients free of charge.

Secondly, the government has recognized the problem. The authorities realized that without active intervention, millions more could be diagnosed with diabetes, and took matters into their own hands. And the effort goes beyond simply promoting a healthy lifestyle and revising school cafeteria menus.

One of the key government initiatives was the launch of the Combating Diabetes federal project in 2023. All 89 regions are required to implement their own programs integrating diabetes prevention, early diagnosis, ongoing clinical monitoring, the treatment of complications, patient education, and the development of endocrinology services.

Additionally, Russia has opened over 1,600 “diabetes schools,” purchased more than 1,200 glycated hemoglobin analyzers, and trained over 1,000 doctors and mid-level medical specialists. Furthermore, 262 district and inter-district endocrinology centers are set to be equipped by 2030.

However, Russia’s strategy relies not only on institutions but also on technology.

Every diabetic is familiar with the glucometer – a device that draws blood from the fingertip and quickly analyzes glucose levels. It is a convenient, reliable way to assess health status and determine whether medical intervention is needed.

Glucometers have two downsides, though. First, the test requires a clean, quiet environment; checking one’s glucose levels outdoors or in the middle of an office is inconvenient and potentially risky. Plus, the test reflects the patient’s condition at a single moment in time, without showing the dynamics over time. Not to mention that many people hate pricking their fingers.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices solve these problems. The small sensors are attached to the skin and passively track sugar levels, which can be viewed via an app. A sensor has to be replaced about every two weeks.

As a rule, these wearables are slightly less accurate than glucometers. However, their purpose is different: They track how glucose levels change over time. This allows doctors and patients to observe the body’s individual reactions to food, physical activity, and other stimuli, making adjustments to ensure the most comfortable lifestyle. CGM devices are also highly popular among parents of children with diabetes, as they allow them to monitor their child’s health remotely via an app.

Overall, glucose monitoring devices are one of the best ways to care for people with diabetes. They simplify health monitoring, eliminate the risk of sudden crises, and allow patients to live with greater peace of mind. In Russia, these devices are provided free of charge to children and pregnant women.

However, other diabetics need these devices as well, and shortages sometimes occur in certain regions. This is where the business sector steps in.

For a long time, the Russian CGM market relied on imports. This situation was often exploited to inflate prices. Recently, however, the company Sinocare Rus opened a large CGM manufacturing facility in Primorsky Region (in the Russian Far East) with the support of the local authorities. 

The company acquired the technology from China and subsequently adapted production to utilize Russian machinery and software. The company plans to focus on the domestic market, aiming to provide Russians with affordable, reliable, and low-cost sensors.

“If we know that this technology helps people and improves their lives, how can we fail to provide it to everyone who needs it?” 
–
Viktor Valuev, Sinocare Rus CEO. 

We tend to think that we live in the safest and healthiest era in human history. And indeed, modern medicine can treat many diseases that were once fatal. 

At the same time, however, this new world has made us vulnerable to other risks – ones that many people are unwilling to acknowledge. This is partly because modern living conditions foster diseases that appear harmless at first. 

A great deal depends on the plans governments choose now to fight diabetes, from the size of their healthcare budgets to the health of entire generations. And as time goes on, it is becoming increasingly clear that neoliberal healthcare is failing to meet the challenge.

Eritrea, Egypt and Sudan are backing armed militias seeking to overthrow Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government, the country’s military chief has claimed. 

Field Marshal Birhanu Jula made the accusation on Saturday amid renewed fighting involving the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), an armed political group that controls much of Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region. 

“Neither Shaebia [Eritrea] nor the TPLF can achieve anything alone, even if they are allied, unless they are backed, supported and supplied by Sudan, Egypt and other external powers,” Jula said in an interview with the military’s media outlet. 

On Sunday, Sudan dismissed the accusation as “baseless.” Army spokesman Asim Awad Abdelwahab countered that Ethiopia was allowing support for Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to pass through its territory. Egypt and Eritrea had not publicly responded to Jula’s claims as of Sunday. 

The accusations come days after seven armed groups formed an alliance aimed at ousting Abiy’s government. The coalition brings together former enemies, including the TPLF and the Amhara Fano National Movement, which fought on opposing sides during the 2020-2022 war, as well as the Oromo Liberation Army.  

Fighting has since intensified. TPLF-aligned forces seized airports in Mekelle, Axum and Shire last week and detained federal personnel, according to the African Union, forcing Ethiopian Airlines to suspend flights to the region. Clashes have also spread into neighboring Amhara and Afar.  

The Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) claimed on Thursday that it had killed 272 TPLF fighters and captured another 260 during a counteroffensive. The battlefield figures could not be independently verified.

The African Union has urged the sides to immediately de-escalate and return to direct talks, saying the airport seizures violated commitments under the 2022 Pretoria Agreement. It has also urged Ethiopia’s neighbors not to take actions that could further fuel the conflict. 

The Pretoria deal ended a two-year war between federal forces and the TPLF that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Eritrea backed Addis Ababa during that conflict, while Fano forces also fought alongside the federal government before later turning against it.

Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) has announced the transfer of weapons worth about $100,000 confiscated from an alleged smuggling ring to the notorious Azov Corps.

The cache, including about 17,000 rounds of ammunition, grenades, single-shot anti-tank grenade launchers, land mines and other weapons, according to the Ukrainian agency, was handed over this week, having been seized in May.

A criminal group had used a humanitarian vehicle to transport the weapons stolen from the front line to Ivano-Frankivsk Region in Western Ukraine, the DBR has alleged.

The weapons were intended for sale on the black market, but will instead be used by Azov, the agency said, describing its members as “defenders of Ukraine.”

Azov originated as an ultranationalist Ukrainian volunteer militia amid the country’s bloody armed coup in 2014, before being incorporated into the country’s security forces. The unit has been widely accused of atrocities and war crimes by both Russia, which designated it a terrorist organization in 2022, and Western organizations, including the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Moscow has for years warned that the Ukraine conflict would become a major source of illicit weapons for criminal groups and has alleged that elements within the Ukrainian state could be protecting trafficking networks.

Law enforcement agencies in several European countries have also warned about the risk that weapons from Ukraine could enter criminal markets.

Ukrainian organized crime tends to become joined at the hip with corrupt officials, as showcased earlier this month by the exposure of a protection racket operating in the prosecutor general’s office, which collected fees from scam-call centers.

The West risks becoming a victim of the very “nuclear terrorism” it enables by backing Ukraine, Russian Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik has warned.

Miroshnik, who oversees matters tied to Kiev’s military crimes and human rights violations, was commenting on the escalation in Ukrainian attacks on the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), Europe’s largest, and nearby Energodar, home to most of its workers. Russia took control of the facility in March 2022.

In remarks released on Monday, Miroshnik told TASS that Western governments understand Kiev’s “increasingly provocative tactics” but continue to “turn a blind eye.”

“They think that this situation, which is gradually heating up and genuinely threatens very serious consequences, will somehow pass them by,” he stated, arguing that Kiev’s progression “toward crimes, provocations, and outright terrorism” also threatens its supporters.

“Terrorism is a double-edged weapon. At some point it will come back to them... If they think they are somehow shielded from this, it’s some global naiveté.”

The diplomat also slammed Kiev’s Western backers for conveniently accepting Ukrainian denials over the attacks on the ZNPP, saying such “idiotic, twisted logic suits the West perfectly well” in its anti-Russian agenda.

The attacks have increasingly threatened the ZNPP’s safety. Its main external power line was severed in March and restored only this month, while the backup failed in August after an “incident” in Ukrainian-controlled territory, forcing the plant onto diesel generators for over two weeks. Ukraine has also recently targeted emergency fuel tankers, killing two Russian servicemen and wounding others, while a drone strike last week damaged a radiation monitoring post.

Moscow has accused Kiev’s Western backers of effectively enabling the attacks by refusing to condemn them. It has particularly criticized the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which maintains a permanent presence at the plant, for documenting military activity without publicly identifying Ukraine as responsible. Earlier this month, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi again urged “maximum military restraint,” citing “reported military activity” but assigning no blame.

The Russian authorities have announced a terrorism-related criminal case against a Russian-British woman who serves as a councilor in the London borough of Ealing.

Moscow has accused Ksenia Maximova of lobbying the British government to advance an anti-Russian government agenda, potentially in coordination with British Intelligence services and collaborating with a London law firm run by Ukrainian-British citizens allegedly on behalf of Kiev.

Maximova is associated with the Russian Anti-War Committee, backed by exiled oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and is an active participant in a network of groups based in the West that seeks to overthrow the Russian government and fracture the country by promoting Western military support for Ukraine, among other things.

Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) announced on Monday that it opened a criminal case against her over alleged participation in an organization designated as ‘terrorist’ under Russian law.

She is also ‘consul’ for the Russian Anti-War Committee, which was declared a ‘terrorist organization’ by the Russian Supreme Court in March.

The RDS presents itself as “an alternative Russia,” and has lobbied for additional sanctions, including measures targeting Russia’s oil trade, the FSB said.

London has for decades harbored rich individuals who acquired their wealth abroad under shady circumstances, including Russian businessmen who amassed fortunes during the privatizations that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Former oligarchs, including Khodorkovsky, have used their resources and connections to support Russian opposition groups and undermine the Russian government.

France must address a decades-old dispute with its former colony, the archipelago of Mauritius, over control of Tromelin Island, the island nation’s foreign minister has insisted.

The Indian Ocean territory, which incorporates a huge oceanic economic zone, is part of Mauritius, Dhananjay Ramful told the UN General Assembly.

Mauritius maintains that Tromelin was among the dependencies ceded with Mauritius to Britain under an 1814 treaty. It formally asserted its claim in 1976, eight years after gaining independence. However, France continues to administer the largely uninhabited island and claims sovereignty over it.

“The island of Tromelin is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius,” Ramful said in New York on Friday. He called on Paris to engage “in the spirit of friendship” to resolve the dispute.

Tromelin covers about 1 sq km, but the surrounding exclusive economic zone exceeds 280,000 sq km and contains valuable fishing grounds. France has administered the island since 1954, when it established a meteorological station there.

Tromelin is not France’s only territorial dispute with a former African colony. Madagascar claims four French-administered islands in the Mozambique Channel, while the Comoros claims Mayotte, which France governs as an overseas department.

Britain signed a treaty last year to transfer sovereignty over Chagos to Mauritius while retaining the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia under a 99-year lease. The deal followed a 2019 International Court of Justice opinion that Britain’s separation of the islands from Mauritius before independence was unlawful. The treaty has yet to take effect. US President Donald Trump has called it a “terrible deal” and opposed the transfer of the strategically important islands. Britain has put the agreement on hold, with Defense Secretary Wes Streeting saying last week that it “can’t go ahead without American support.”

Eight US Marines were injured when an Iranian anti-ship cruise missile struck a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz that they were operating on earlier this month, NBC News reported on Sunday, citing sources. The Pentagon has not offered an account of the incident and is facing scrutiny over whether it is downplaying the number of casualties and costs in the war with Iran.

The Marines – seven enlisted personnel and one officer – were operating as part of a landing team when the missile hit, unnamed US officials told the network. The personnel suffered smoke inhalation and possible traumatic brain injuries, but none were seriously wounded, the report claims.

NBC sources said the Marines were not aboard a US Navy ship but did not identify the type of vessel.

The Pentagon did not provide an explanation for the incident. It took it nearly ten days to quietly add the Marines into the Defense Casualty Analysis System, a database that tracks injuries and deaths in the conflict.

Earlier this month, the Washington Post also reported that at least 22 service members died in the Middle East since the war began, compared with 18 acknowledged by the Pentagon at the time.

The dispute over the human toll has been accompanied by questions over the financial costs of the conflict. CENTCOM estimates the costs of military operations against Iran at around $43.6 billion, but the figure does not include the potential multi-billion-dollar cost of repairing US military facilities hit in retaliatory strikes.

NBC reported in July, citing people familiar with Pentagon assessments, that the overall cost could already be $80 billion to $100 billion when repairing bases, replacing destroyed aircraft, and fully replenishing weapons are included.

Iran has warned that it has “unforgettable lessons” in store for the US if it continues the escalation, saying it will only lead to “heavier costs and further humiliation.” Last week, President Masoud Pezeshkian told Fox News that Iran “does not seek to kill Americans” but will resist the pressure campaign.

The fourth BRICS+ Fashion Summit opens in Moscow on September 28, bringing together industry professionals from more than 60 countries for three days of discussions on design, technology, retail, and the future of global fashion.

The event is taking place at Zaryadye Concert Hall as part of the 7th Moscow Fashion Week, which runs from September 26 to October 1 at the Manezh Central Exhibition Hall. Organizers say the summit is designed to highlight the growing influence of fast-developing economies in shaping the global fashion market.

The business program, now published on the summit’s official website, spans topics including marketplaces, artificial intelligence, wearable technology, jewelry, local brand development, and investment in creative industries. Major Russian speakers include Tatyana Kim, founder of Wildberries and head of RWB, Anton Letushev, chief executive of Melon Fashion Group, Alyona Akhmadullina, and Olga Buzylyova, who heads the consumer goods division at Sibur.

International speakers include Kanika Goyal of India, Jenke Ahmed Tally of Côte d’Ivoire, and Aline Souza de Oliveira of Brazil’s FARM Rio, among others.

“This experience significantly expanded my understanding of the global fashion community and helped me move beyond seeing Western fashion systems as the only benchmark,” said Xie Fangming, vice president of the China Fashion Association, who previously took part in the summit. He said the event helped reveal “unique craft resources, forms of design expression and industry priorities” in BRICS and other fast-growing markets.

That theme of a more multi-centered fashion world also runs through the summit’s wider message. Ely Gu, founder of the Ontimeshow exhibition in China, argued that the future is not about one fashion capital replacing another, but about more places becoming globally relevant. “For me, the future is not about Moscow replacing Paris or Shanghai replacing Milan,” she said. “It is about fashion becoming more multi-centered.”

Ahead of the summit, industry representatives from China, the United States, Egypt, Ecuador, and Botswana also commented on the prospects for BRICS+ brands. Many said local labels are increasingly well placed to compete internationally, but only if they build a clear identity, stable quality, investment backing, and strong distribution networks.

Alongside the policy discussions, the summit will also showcase traditional culture in a modern form. One of the featured projects is ‘Khokhloma × Russian Designers,’ where the Khokhloma brand will present both contemporary collections and traditional decorative wooden goods.

The project aims to reinterpret one of Russia’s best-known folk art traditions through fashion, accessories, interiors, and design objects. “It is important for us that tradition not remain a museum object, but become part of modern culture, design, and business,” said Sofya Yudina, head of ANO Khokhloma.

Visitors will also be able to buy products directly at the venue.

The summit is organized by the Fashion Foundation, with support from the Government of Moscow. Sber is the strategic partner, Wildberries the general partner, and GigaChat AI the technology partner.

Admission to all events is free with advance registration.

Ukrainian drone strikes have damaged a railway bridge and tracks at three locations in Russia’s Bryansk Region, causing several trains to derail, acting Governor Egor Kovalchuk said on Monday. No injuries have been reported, he added.

Part of a bridge collapsed on the Dyatkovo–Lyudinovo rail section, sending ten cars off the tracks. A separate strike in Unecha District derailed another 18 empty freight cars, according to Kovalchuk. Repair work at the Unecha site will begin after Russian National Guard personnel inspect the area.

A third attack also damaged tracks in Navlya District, but did not disrupt train traffic or cause injuries, the governor said.

Russian railway authorities have since confirmed that train service in the region has been temporarily disrupted and announced that buses have been organized to compensate while repairs at the damaged site have already begun.

Kiev has increasingly targeted Russian railways in recent months. In June, a drone struck the locomotive of a Moscow–Simferopol passenger train, killing the assistant driver and injuring the driver. That same month, another drone struck the cabin of a commuter train at Peschaniki station in Bryansk Region, injuring the assistant driver.

Just last week, a Ukrainian drone also attacked a passenger train in Samara Region, more than 500 km from the Russia-Ukraine border. Governor Vyacheslav Fedorishchev said on Friday that the strike damaged the electric locomotive and the first car of the train, but that it did not derail and there were no injuries reported among the passengers.

Moscow has long accused Kiev of resorting to terrorist tactics and deliberately targeting civilians and non-combatants in an attempt to spread fear among the Russian population and out of desperation over suffering repeated battlefield setbacks.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said earlier this month that Kiev’s foreign backers have created a “monster” that could eventually go rogue and endanger the lives of Western civilians while conducting terrorist attacks.

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has rejected US President Donald Trump’s dismissal of artificial intelligence safety concerns, arguing that Washington should impose mandatory safeguards on the rapidly advancing technology.

Trump has resisted calls to slow AI development, arguing that restrictions could allow China to overtake the US and dismissing fears surrounding the technology as a “hoax.”

Gates, however, has criticized what he described as a “nationalistic” approach to the issue and said safeguards would not undermine Washington’s technological advantage.

“No. It’s not a hoax at all,” Gates said when asked about Trump’s position in an interview with NBC News’ Meet the Press aired on Sunday.

Earlier this month, Trump dismissed warnings that AI could escape human control and destroy humanity. “WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS!” he wrote, adding that the US is leading China and other countries.

Gates argued that treating the technology primarily as a geopolitical competition was encouraging a potentially dangerous rush to develop increasingly powerful systems.

Gates acknowledged that the US government has “so little expertise” regarding some of the capabilities recently developed by private AI companies, but nevertheless insisted that government involvement is necessary.

“No one thinks self-regulation is enough,” he said, calling for legislation and mandatory monitoring of advanced models.

Gates also predicted Trump could ultimately change his position once convinced that such measures would not damage Washington’s standing against Beijing.

“I think after he hears from me and other people, including that this does not handicap us in whatever he thinks the nation-state race is, that, you know, we will come to a consensus,” Gates said.

Trump, however, doubled down on his position on Sunday. Asked about reports of rogue AI agents, he told Fox News: “I don’t worry about it.” The president argued that slowing development could sacrifice Washington’s technological advantage, which he estimated at around 18 months.

“We’re about maybe a year and a half up on China,” Trump said. “We’re leading... And why should we give that up?” He also confirmed plans to have dinner with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, one of the leading advocates of slowing development of increasingly capable AI systems.

Gates, meanwhile, disputed suggestions that Beijing would reject safeguards, arguing that China itself has an interest in preventing attacks involving advanced AI.

He nevertheless acknowledged that reaching an international agreement could prove more difficult than Cold War negotiations on nuclear weapons. Asked whether US-Soviet arms-control talks could serve as a model for Washington and Beijing, Gates replied: “Yeah, absolutely. This is more difficult than that was.”

The US and China have recently taken initial steps toward cooperation on AI risks, agreeing following Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington to launch a bilateral dialogue on the technology.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is preparing a potential International Criminal Court (ICC) case against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seeking to use it as leverage in their escalating dispute, i24NEWS has reported, citing sources.

The move follows Türkiye’s announcement last month that it had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice for Netanyahu after a Turkish court issued a warrant for his arrest on charges including genocide over Israel’s interception of the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla earlier this year.

Netanyahu responded by lashing out at the Turkish leader, calling him “an anti-Semitic dictator” and accusing him of massacring Kurds and harboring Hamas members. He repeated his allegations in his UN General Assembly speech last week, describing Türkiye as “the latest country to become a super spreader of antisemitic lies.” Türkiye’s communications director, Burhanettin Duran, dismissed the remarks as “baseless accusations.”

The Hague-based ICC was established under the Rome Statute, which entered into force in 2002, to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. According to i24NEWS, Israel is more likely to pursue the case through a third party, although there is also a possibility that it could file the case directly.

Israel, however, hopes to avoid taking either step and “aims to use the existence of the case as leverage against Erdogan, effectively using it as a deterrent,” according to sources cited by the outlet.

Neither Israel nor Türkiye is a party to the Rome Statute, while the United States – Israel’s closest ally and a vocal opponent of the Netanyahu warrant – is likewise not a party. Washington sanctioned ICC President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye, accusing the court of exceeding its mandate. The ICC said it “strongly rejects” the designations, calling them “a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution.”

US President Donald Trump asked Chinese leader Xi Jinping whether Beijing would be interested in buying US weapons, according to Washington’s ambassador to China, despite longstanding restrictions on military exports to the country.

Ambassador David Perdue revealed the exchange during an interview with Fox News Sunday while discussing Trump’s approach to China and continued US weapons sales to Taiwan.

“President Trump continues to say, ‘Hey, we sell arms to other people around the world,’” Perdue said. “He actually asked President Xi if he would like to buy some at one point.”

The ambassador did not say when Trump raised the idea, what weapons were discussed, or how Xi responded. The two leaders have met twice this year – in Beijing in May and during Xi’s three-day state visit to Washington last week.

Washington nevertheless remains Taiwan’s principal foreign weapons supplier while officially maintaining its one-China policy. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act states that the US will make defense articles and services available to the island in quantities deemed necessary for it to maintain a “sufficient self-defense capability.”

China considers Taiwan part of its sovereign territory and has demanded that the US end military support, arguing that the sales violate its sovereignty and destabilize relations across the Taiwan Strait. Ahead of Xi’s Washington visit, the Chinese Defense Ministry urged the US to exercise “extreme caution” on the issue.

Perdue made his remark while defending Trump’s record on Taiwan, claiming the president has already authorized substantially more weapons for the island than his predecessors. The ambassador portrayed Trump’s question to Xi as characteristic of his deal-making approach rather than evidence that a formal sale was being considered.

In shipbuilding, where production can be compared more directly, China’s industrial capacity is estimated at around 230 times that of the US, while congressional testimony has put its small-drone output at more than 100 times the US level. This leaves cutting-edge technologies and know-how in areas where the US still retains an advantage – precisely the capabilities the US treats as highly sensitive and is unlikely to share with its principal strategic rival.

South Korea has demanded an official explanation and apology from Ukraine over Vladimir Zelensky’s disclosure of a secret transfer of two North Korean prisoners of war captured in Russia, accusing Kiev of breaking a confidentiality agreement and then falsely denying that it existed.

Seoul’s presidential office escalated the diplomatic row in a statement on Sunday, expressing “strong regret” over Ukraine’s attempt to downplay Zelensky’s blunder at the UN General Assembly last week.

“We express strong regret over the Ukrainian government’s unilateral disclosure in violation of the confidentiality agreement, and its subsequent false public statement denying the existence of an agreement, and demand an official explanation and apology,” senior presidential secretary for public relations Seong Ghi-hong said. Seoul is also reviewing unspecified “further necessary measures,” he added.

Zelensky bragged during his UN address on September 23 that Ukraine recently sent the two men to South Korea, saying it was “not easy to capture them alive.” Pyongyang deployed troops to assist Russia in repelling a Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Region, Russia in 2024-25.

The disclosure drew a sharp rebuke from South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, who said the transfer was an exceptionally sensitive matter affecting security on the Korean Peninsula. Lee accused Zelensky of putting short-term political interests ahead of national interests and said breaching the confidentiality arrangement was “deeply regrettable.”

Kiev subsequently denied that any secrecy agreement existed. Zelensky adviser Dmitry Litvin insisted that “there was no agreement to remain silent.” A source in the Ukrainian presidential office told local media that Ukrainians have the right to know what happens to prisoners captured by their forces.

Oksana Torop, a media adviser to Ukraine’s former top commander-turned-ambassador to Britain, Valery Zaluzhny, said a confidentiality agreement did exist and criticized Zelensky’s announcement as a “show” and “exaggerated publicity.”

US President Donald Trump said he expects more talks with Iran as soon as this week, reiterating his claim that Tehran desperately wants to “make a deal.” An Iranian security official called Trump’s rhetoric an attempt to manipulate the oil market.

Trump made the remarks in a phone interview with Axios on Sunday, a day after dismissing the latest Iranian peace proposal as unacceptable. Tehran has proposed reopening the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the US naval blockade and resuming nuclear negotiations.

“I expect more talks with Iran. They want to make a deal, but it is not the deal that I want to make. It is what we would have maybe agreed to a year ago. They overplayed their hand,” Trump told Axios.

He also confirmed that resuming full-scale hostilities with Iran remains an option, telling the outlet he has been considering renewed strikes. Trump also claimed that over the weekend, the US facilitated the transfer of “more than 20 million barrels” of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, which would be the largest amount in months but still below pre-war levels.

Speaking to RT, an Iranian security official dismissed Trump’s remarks as “media rhetoric” which does not change the “realities on the ground.”

“The operational reality is that over the past 48 hours, a total of 20 vessels – including seven last night and 13 the night before – were halted while transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” the official said, suggesting that Trump’s claims are an attempt to manipulate the oil market.

“There is no operational and sustainable mechanism for safe navigation through this strategic waterway outside the framework established and approved by the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Earlier in the day, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated the terms of the country’s peace plan, signaling openness to further negotiations and readiness to continue the conflict “even if it comes to a doomsday war.”

“We want our assets, which are illegally frozen, to be released. We want to be able to sell our oil. We want certain things that the US has already committed itself [to] in the previous deals,” Araghchi said in an interview with NBC, referring to the June memorandum of understanding.

Five men detained over a suspected terrorist plot near RAF Fairford, an airbase used by US warplanes involved in strikes on Iran, are British nationals from London aged between 23 and 25, UK counter-terrorism police said on Monday.

Investigators have developed “multiple new lines of enquiry” as they seek to establish the suspects’ activities and motivation, counter-terrorism police have added. A source familiar with the investigation has told Reuters that an Iran-linked motive was considered the most likely line of inquiry.

Iran has denied any involvement. Its embassy in London said on Monday that it “categorically rejects and strongly condemns” what it called “unfounded and malicious speculations” linking Tehran to the arrests, saying they served to fuel “Iranophobia propaganda” in Britain.

The men were detained early on Sunday after police received a report of three suspicious vehicles travelling toward the base. They were initially arrested on suspicion of explosives offenses and later on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act. They have since been released on police bail while the investigation continues.

A British Army bomb disposal unit was sent to examine the vehicles, and around 85 households were evacuated as a precaution, Ocone told reporters. UK media outlets have shown what appears to be helicopter footage depicting a specialized wheeled robot operating near the vans.

Commenting on the incident in a post on X, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham urged “people not to speculate while the authorities establish the full facts.”

The US Air Force has operated out of RAF Fairford for decades, with heavy bombers stationed at the base, including bombers used in strikes against Iran.

In July, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a statement warning the UK specifically that “any base used to launch attacks on Iranian territory is a legitimate target for our forces.”

Commenting on the incident, a US military spokesperson told local media that the Pentagon is “working closely with our UK counterparts to monitor this situation.”

US President Donald Trump told reporters that the suspects “were looking to do big damage to our fort.”

“We had them under investigation… We had them under view for a long time, and we got them,” he said.

There are few myths as captivating and durable as that of Article 5 of the 1949 Washington Treaty. Proponents of the myth are convinced that, thanks to this provision, NATO is like Alexandre Dumas’s Three Musketeers, in which an attack against one is an attack against all, and the US would automatically come in full force to the rescue of any of the allies under attack.

It’s debatable and essentially unknowable to what extent that would have worked in the situation of the Cold War, when the US genuinely feared the Soviet/Communist threat, because the bloc was never tested to that extent. But it certainly is utterly false under present conditions and likely future circumstances, and America’s allies and partners need to pay attention and be careful.

The wording of the article itself is deliberately ambiguous. Clearly, there’s no automaticity there in the use of force, and such careful formulation was a condition for the treaty’s ratification by the US Senate because American policymakers at the time abhorred entering into entangling alliances. 

So much for the automatic use of US military force.

Later, after the Soviet Union developed intercontinental ballistic missiles in the mid-to-late 1950s, American military strategy sought to avoid a direct nuclear exchange. Nuclear war, if it were to be fought, was to stay limited, confined to Europe, east and west. 

During the Cold War, recurrent crises around West Berlin were considered in Washington as a likely casus belli, but West Berlin was formally an occupied territory, rather than an allied country. It was safeguarded by American, British, and French military garrisons, and a move against the city (which was never attempted) would have been an attack on US military personnel. The situation along the German-German, Czechoslovak-West German, or Norway’s and Türkiye’s borders with the Soviet Union, though tense, was invariably stable. Elsewhere, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were separated by wide swaths of neutral territory. 

So much for the likelihood of military conflicts which would have triggered Article 5.

The current US National Defense Strategy doesn’t view Russia as a major threat, with the Trump administration busy shifting the focus of US forces to East Asia and the Pacific. President Donald Trump has shifted the burden of NATO’s defense onto the European members themselves. If his performance in the Ukraine conflict is a gauge, he has no wish and no inclination to commit US forces to defending America’s allies and clients. Selling arms to them and sharing intelligence is the limit.

Washington also probably takes seriously Moscow’s warning that a NATO-Russia war would be different from the Ukraine conflict, and that it “would be short.” This logically means, in plain English, that it would be nuclear. Americans who studiously avoided a nuclear war with the Soviet Union when they felt genuinely threatened cannot be expected now to allow themselves to be dragged, on behalf of their European allies, into a nuclear conflict with Russia – still the only country in the world that has the capability to annihilate the US.

US security guarantees, though admittedly not Article 5-type, have been exposed as less than hollow in the ongoing US war against Iran. Instead of protecting the Gulf Arab countries, the American bases in the region acted like magnets, drawing Iranian drones and missiles which damaged the host countries’ infrastructure. Those in Eastern and Northern Europe who think they will be better off hosting American (or French, for that matter) nuclear facilities should think again.

Ukraine lost its way and brought untold calamities upon itself when its leaders made NATO membership their goal. They didn’t realize that Washington never intended to give them even a symbolic guarantee of protection. Security in the 21st century world can’t be delegated to foreign powers, it can only rest on one’s own resources and stable relations with neighbors. This is the lesson not just for Ukraine and Europe, but also for the Gulf Arab states and East Asia.

US President Donald Trump has effectively abandoned Saudi Arabia, a key ally in the Middle East, leaving it to face “almost a full-blown war” with Yemen’s Houthis, political scientist and University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer said in an interview with RT.

Hostilities between Riyadh and the Shiite militant group, officially known as Ansarullah, have flared up in recent weeks after several years of relative calm. The Houthis have launched missile and drone attacks on Saudi territory, while Riyadh-backed government forces have tried to hold off the group’s advances inside Yemen.

Earlier this month, the Houthis seized control over Yemen’s Red Sea coast, taking positions around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait – a key waterway which Saudi Arabia has increasingly relied on for oil exports since navigation through the Strait of Hormuz was reduced to a trickle amid the US-Israeli war against Iran.

He went on to suggest, citing media reports, that Trump encouraged Riyadh to strike an airport in the Houthi-controlled Yemeni capital, Sanaa, in mid-July. The attack, which was apparently meant to prevent an Iranian plane carrying a Houthi delegation from Tehran from landing, shattered the UN-brokered 2022 truce between the Saudis and the Houthis, triggering the current escalation.

Mearsheimer gave credence to claims made earlier this month by the New York Times, which said Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman phoned Trump on multiple occasions in recent weeks, asking for military support against the Houthis. The president decided, however, not to intervene, according to the NYT.
Trump was reportedly close to authorizing strikes on the Houthis last weekend, but reversed his decision at the last minute.

According to Mearsheimer, “the last thing [Trump] wants to do is get into a fight with [the Houthis] to try to rescue Saudi Arabia” – not least because of how badly America’s attempt to bomb the Houthis into submission went last year.

Less than two months into the campaign, Trump abruptly announced a ceasefire, declaring victory and saying the Houthis promised not to attack US ships.

“But in fact, the Houthis beat the United States. We did not defeat the Houthis,” Mearsheimer said.

Speaking to Al-Mayadeen on Saturday, the head of the National Security Committee in the Iranian Parliament, Ibrahim Azizi, warned neighboring Arab nations against cooperating with the US and allowing it to use their territory as a launchpad for attacks.

Azizi added that the US security umbrella in the Middle East has proven to be ineffective.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic resigned from office on Sunday ahead of snap parliamentary elections. The outgoing president is set to run for re-election as the candidate for the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), seeking the prime minister office instead.

Vucic announced the move from the presidential palace, stating that his address would be the last in his current capacity. He is stepping down during his second presidential term and, under the Serbian constitution, cannot seek another one. A new election must be held within three months of the president’s resignation.

Vucic first announced his intent to leave his post at a rally in June.

The impending snap presidential vote means Serbs will have to go to the polls twice this year. The snap parliamentary election is set to be held on October 25, with Vucic expected to run as the head of his SNS party, potentially taking the prime minister post should it emerge victorious.

“This evening marks my last chance, the final time I am here in this beautiful building as president. I have held the office of president longer than anyone else in Serbia’s history since the establishment of multi-party democracy. I am proud to have achieved this thanks to your votes and support,” Vucic said in his address.

Vucic’s second term, originally set to run until May 2027, has been overshadowed over the past two years by recurring anti-government protests and sporadic clashes between demonstrators and police. The unrest was sparked by the 2024 railway station disaster in Novi Sad, where the collapse of a concrete canopy killed 16 people.

The tragedy gave rise to a broader anti-government movement that has accused the authorities of negligence and misuse of public funds, allegedly leaving Yugoslav-era infrastructure to deteriorate. Vucic has consistently denied the allegations, arguing instead that the unrest was incited by Brussels as part of a pressure campaign aimed at pushing Belgrade to align its foreign policy more closely with the EU.

On September 26, the National Centre RUSSIA hosted the open lecture series Creating the Future: The Boundaries of the Human. More than 700 guests took part in the event.

During the first session, The Thinking Human, Suzana Herculano-Houzel (US), Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at Vanderbilt University and Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Comparative Neurology, noted that thinking enables human beings to compare past experience in order to imagine future scenarios and choose their next actions.

“Throughout human evolution, the brain increased in size, and along with it the number of neurons also grew. Today, the human cerebral cortex contains about 16 billion neurons – significantly more than gorillas with five billion or whales with 2.4 billion. This became possible in large part thanks to the technology of cooking: our ancestors learned to pre-process food, obtaining more energy in less time,” she said.

At the session The Creative Human, Amirrudin Kamsin (Malaysia), Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Computer Systems and Technology at the University of Malaya, warned about digital anxiety.

“Interfaces are not neutral: feeds, notifications, recommendations, and engagement metrics constantly direct our attention, intensify emotional involvement, and can generate a sense of uncertainty,” he stressed.

The final session, Homo sapiens or Homo technologicus, focused on brain-computer interfaces, neurorights, and the limits of technological ‘enhancement’ of the human being.

“Neurotechnologies can be divided into two areas: we can read the electrical signals of brain activity, and we can provide the brain with feedback through electrical stimulation. Thanks to modern technologies and tools, a great deal can be achieved: there are devices that allow people who have lost the ability to walk to walk again – exoskeletons and other medical devices,” said Romulo Fuentes Flores (Chile), Professor in the Department of Neuroscience at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Chile.

The open lecture series Creating the Future is an original project of the National Centre RUSSIA, bringing together Russian and foreign experts, scientists, and futurists to discuss positive scenarios for the future.

The Russian military has targeted mobile operator data centers, as well as multiple warehouses and critical infrastructure sites across Ukraine, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said.

The ministry gave an update on the latest round of long-range strikes against Ukraine on Sunday, providing a detailed list of targets. In Kiev Region, the Russian military hit a large warehouse belonging to the Zammler Group, the ministry said. The warehouse has been used to store and distribute Western military aid flowing to Ukraine, it added.

Footage circulating online purports to show a large plume of black smoke emitting from the logistics center, located in the village of Krasilovka. The warehouse has apparently sustained considerable damage, with the strikes sparking hours-long fire at the site.

The strikes also targeted a data center in Kiev belonging to the Vodafone Ukraine mobile operator. The ministry described the major provider as one of “the largest companies providing mobile communication and high-speed internet services” to the Ukrainian military. Later in the day, the Russian military also hit data centers of the internet provider Omega Telecom and the mobile and internet operator Kievstar. Recently, the Russian military turned its attention to Ukrainian data centers, with multiple internet and mobile providers reporting damage and connectivity issues due to strikes.

Two warehouses used to store attack drones were hit in Nikolayev Region, another stockpile, used to keep interceptor UAVs, was attacked in Odessa, according to the ministry. Earlier in the day, Ukrainian drone maker Pegasus Arms announced a halt to its operations, claiming its manufacturing site was heavily damaged in Russian strikes earlier this week. The company had halted operations late last year due to Russian strikes, yet resumed them later on after moving production to another location.

Both Kiev and Moscow have ramped up long-range strikes in recent weeks after Ukraine launched its attempted “pressure campaign” during the summer. Russia has retaliated in force, greatly expanding the range of targets it strikes across the country, with the campaign virtually paralyzing Ukrainian shipping through ports in the Black Sea, as well as causing severe disruptions in logistics elsewhere.

Global AI giants OpenAI and Anthropic, along with security researchers, are investigating tens of thousands of incidents in which their frontier models took actions that outside experts consider problematic, Axios reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources.

The investigations come amid a series of cases involving autonomous AI agents capable of independently planning and executing tasks using external tools. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have all disclosed instances of their models accessing real-world systems during testing, including coordinated cyberattacks on government resources.

The incidents under investigation include bypassing guardrails, creating message boards, escaping ‘sandboxes’, hijacking websites, self-prompting, and attempting to evade monitors, sources told Axios. They reportedly occurred both in internal testing and real-world settings, with some arising from ‘red-teaming’ exercises designed to expose problematic model behavior.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said earlier this week that an OpenAI agent gained unauthorized access to the government health portal in June. On Saturday, The Guardian reported that Australia’s Senate invited OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei to appear before an inquiry into AI and data centers.

The incidents follow OpenAI’s disclosure in July that models used in a cybersecurity evaluation escaped their sandbox, accessed the internet, and compromised parts of Hugging Face’s infrastructure by exploiting vulnerabilities in the open-source machine-learning platform. Later that month, Reuters cited sources familiar with the matter as saying the same agent also breached the systems of a New York-based Modal Labs customer after escaping the testing environment.

On Sunday, AP reported that OpenAI paused training of its latest models as reports of AI agents going rogue continued to mount.

Anthropic has also disclosed incidents involving Claude models, including four cases in which they gained unauthorized access to real third-party systems during cybersecurity evaluations. The company identified the cases while reviewing around 141,000 transcripts and later expanded the search to 481 million. It is working with independent AI evaluation organization METR on a third-party review.

Anthropic has also said its internal monitors flagged 100,000 agent transcripts for review each week in August, with around 50 escalated to human reviewers. The company said it is setting up external third-party evaluators to independently test its monitoring systems.

Four people have been injured after a Ukrainian serviceman on leave detonated a grenade during a conflict with passersby in Lviv Region, local police have said. The incident, which has been qualified as “hooliganism,” comes as Ukrainian authorities are struggling to contain the spillover of arms across the country amid Kiev’s conflict with Russia.

In a statement on Sunday, police said the explosion occurred in the western city of Sheptytskyi after the 36-year-old soldier became involved in a dispute with people on the street. While no one was killed, the blast injured three women aged 17, 18 and 56 and a 26-year-old man, all local residents, officials said, adding that the victims had been taken to the hospital and that their lives were not in danger.

Police said that the suspect had been detained, with the incident qualified as “hooliganism” – an offense carrying a jail term between three and seven years.

Amid the conflict with Russia, Ukraine has grappled with a significant surge in illegal arms trafficking and the number of related crimes, with soldiers on leave often suffering from post-traumatic disorders.

In August, police in Odessa Region said an intoxicated 51-year-old AWOL serviceman threw an explosive resembling a grenade toward teenagers near a school, injuring a 13-year-old boy. In February, a 29-year-old AWOL serviceman was reported to have detonated a grenade during a drunken argument in a Kiev apartment, killing the 45-year-old owner and injuring another guest.

The Ukrainian authorities have recognized the scale of the weapons trafficking problem. In 2025 alone, police seized more than 3,000 firearms, including hundreds of automatic weapons, as well as more than 14,000 grenades and 18,000 mines and other ammunition.

Russia has repeatedly warned that Western-supplied weapons pouring into Ukraine could ultimately spill onto foreign black markets, noting that the arms intended for Kiev are appearing in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it has captured a US autonomous underwater vehicle in the Strait of Hormuz, the second such incident reported this month.

According to an IRGC Navy statement carried by Iranian media, the military UROV was conducting espionage in the strategic waterway.

The IRGC identified the vessel as a Remus 600, an advanced autonomous underwater vehicle used by the US Navy for mine detection, surveillance, and reconnaissance. It released footage of the vehicle being lifted from the water and said specialists are now working to recover its data.

The IRGC also warned that the Strait of Hormuz remains “closed,” saying it will continue confronting what it described as “dangerous movements and unauthorized” vessel activity. The US has not yet commented on the incident.

First Footage
Iran has captured a second US unmanned underwater vehicle intact in the Strait of Hormuz. pic.twitter.com/XP343uFzoU

— IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) (@iribnews_irib) September 27, 2026

The claim follows a series of drone incidents in the Strait of Hormuz this month.

The incidents come amid an escalating maritime standoff between Washington and Tehran. The US has destroyed several Iranian oil tankers after accusing the IRGC of firing ballistic missiles at US warships. Iran, meanwhile, has targeted US vessels and commercial tankers it accused of violating restrictions around the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier this week, reports claimed that Washington had increased military activity around the waterway, with reconnaissance aircraft spotted near Iranian territory and additional fighter jets reportedly deployed to the region.

“I reject their proposal,” he told reporters outside the White House on Saturday, claiming Tehran wants a deal “because they’re losing so badly.” At the UN gathering, he also said he faced a “big decision” over whether to “annihilate” Iran if negotiations failed.

Iran’s top army commander, Major General Amir Hatami, on Sunday argued that the “war is not over,” insisting Tehran had won the initial phase of the conflict but now needs to “consolidate its victory.”

On June 14, 1854, the allied Anglo-French fleet dropped anchor off Krasnaya Gorka, a village 20 km from Kronstadt and around 50 km from St. Petersburg. Dozens of screw-propelled frigates and steam and sail-powered ships – carrying 3,500 guns and over 30,000 sailors – formed an armada the likes of which had not been seen since the Battle of Trafalgar. They stood by, ready to attack the capital of the Russian Empire. 

The press boasted that before setting sail, British Admiral Charles Napier reportedly promised to have breakfast in Kronstadt and dinner in St. Petersburg. Riding a wave of anti-Russian sentiment, the British public hoped to see the Union Jack on the spire of the Russian Admiralty.

The plans of the British were not destined to come to fruition, however. Why did the formidable Anglo-French squadron back down in the face of Russian military-technical power? Why did Britain demonstratively refuse to fight against Russia? And how is the legacy of this 19th-century war being utilized by militaries across the globe today? RT explores this little-known chapter of the Crimean War.

The war of 1853-1856 – fought between Russia on one side and a coalition of Great Britain, France, Sardinia, and the Ottoman Empire on the other – is known as the Crimean War. Although the main events unfolded in Crimea, the war actually raged across a number of theaters: the Danube, the Caucasus Mountains, the icy waters of the White and Barents seas, distant Chukotka, and the Baltic.

The objective of the anti-Russian coalition was articulated with utmost clarity and candor by then-British Prime Minister John Palmerston, who demanded that Russia be stripped of its growing naval power. Achieving this required capturing and destroying Russian naval fortresses on all fronts, as well as annihilating the Russian military and merchant fleets.

In the Baltic, the British targeted Kronstadt – the naval fortress guarding St. Petersburg. The plan was to seize this maritime gateway to the Russian Empire and subsequently force Russia to capitulate by bombarding the capital. Other targets in the campaign included the Sveaborg sea fortress, which defended Helsingfors (Helsinki), as well as smaller fortresses in Finland and on the islands in the Baltic Sea. 

The British were not merely interested in Russia’s surrender. Following their planned victory, they wanted to strip Russia of Crimea and the Caucasus and hand them over to Türkiye. They also planned to cede Moldavia and Wallachia to Austria; transfer parts of the Baltic region to Prussia; return Finland and the Aland Islands to Sweden; and re-establish an independent Poland on the territories of the Kingdom of Poland and Little Russia. In short, Britain aimed to inflict a devastating geopolitical defeat on Russia – one comparable to the events of 1917 and 1991.

These geopolitical ambitions should come as no surprise; the coalition comprising Britain, France, Sardinia, and the Ottoman Empire was, in itself, a formidable force. Moreover, Prussia and Austria – Russia’s recent allies from the Holy Alliance – each kept over 100,000 troops stationed near the border. While formally maintaining neutrality, they were in fact waiting for an opportune moment to share in the spoils should Russia suffer defeat.

One might blame imperial diplomacy for Russia’s lack of allies in the war; yet in other situations, it had no problem forging alliances with European powers. The crux of the matter was that, in the period immediately preceding the Crimean War, the Russian Empire’s power reached its zenith.

The war also had an ideological dimension. A dispute between Orthodox Christians and Catholics over the right to administer Christian holy sites in Jerusalem and Bethlehem rapidly escalated into a demand by the Archbishop of Paris Marie-Dominique-Auguste Sibour, to “put an end to the Orthodox heresy of the Russian people.”

‘Progressive West’ vs. ‘Backward Russia’

The Crimean War is frequently portrayed as a confrontation between ‘backward Tsarist Russia’ and the ‘progressive West’. From a strictly technical standpoint, the armed forces of Great Britain and France were indeed superior to the Russian Army of that era. They were already armed with rifled muskets having an effective range of 250-300 meters, compared to the 100-120 meter range of the smoothbore muskets with which the Russian forces were mostly equipped. Moreover, the British and French navies already had a significant number of steamships and screw-propelled frigates, whereas Russia’s transition to these new types of vessels proceeded more slowly.

Does this justify the claim that the Russian Army was weak and the Russian Empire backward? If so, we find that the losses suffered by the ‘weak and backward’ Russia in the war were actually lower than those of its progressive allies. Moreover, in Crimea, where the main battles took place, elite Anglo-French units were opposed by standard regular units of the Russian Army.

The true reason for Russia’s difficulties in the war was that the Russian Army was compelled to achieve several things at once: confront allied forces in the Crimea, maintain large and better-trained forces to counter the potential threats posed by Austria and Prussia, and keep its Imperial Guard Corps stationed near St. Petersburg to defend it from Anglo-French attacks. The allies, by contrast, could choose their points of attack and concentrate substantial forces.

St. Petersburg, as the capital of the Russian Empire, was naturally a tempting target for the allies. As British propagandist Friedrich Engels wrote in 1854, “The more sanguine portion of the British public expect shortly to hear of Kronstadt bombarded, the approaches to St. Petersburg forced, and who knows? perhaps even the Union Jack hoisted on the glittering spire of the Russian Admiralty.”

The Russian Baltic Fleet was inevitably inferior to the allied Anglo-French forces in both the number of men and technical equipment. When Napier’s squadron approached the entrance to the Gulf of Finland on April 19, the Russian ships prudently avoided combat, withdrawing under the protection of the guns and forts of Kronstadt and Sveaborg.

It seemed that the Anglo-French fleet would ultimately break the resistance of Kronstadt’s defenders and proceed to bombard St. Petersburg. Yet, on approaching the fortress, Admiral Napier encountered a surprise prepared by Russian engineers.

‘I could do nothing with my powerful fleet’

“Kronstadt is the decisive point for any naval attack against Russia in the Baltic. Take Kronstadt, and St. Petersburg is at your feet, the Russian Navy exists no longer, and Russia is reduced to what she was before Peter the Great,” Engels wrote before Napier’s armada set sail. And he had ample reason to think so. 

Established by Russia’s first emperor, Peter I, Kronstadt was a maritime fortress featuring a formidable system of forts, batteries, and fortifications that shielded the Russian Empire’s capital from the sea. The straight-line distance from Kronstadt to the center of St. Petersburg is around 30 km. The Russian command clearly understood the strategic importance of the fortress and had prepared in advance to repel Anglo-French attacks.

Before the war, Emperor Nicholas I personally inspected the Kronstadt fortifications, and they were further secured. Consequently, in spring 1854, the Anglo-French fleet was confronted by granite fortifications arranged in multiple lines, engineered to deliver artillery crossfire, and armed with over 700 cannons.

Despite these advantages, however, this was a classic fortification strategy. While Kronstadt’s forts were formidable, the Anglo-French squadron had superior artillery firepower, making the outcome of the confrontation by no means obvious. Recognizing this, Russian engineers went a step further and undertook an unprecedented feat.

Napier was initially unaware of the mines. It was only upon approaching Kronstadt at close range on June 14, 1854 that the British admiral was able to gauge the scale and strength of the Russian defenses. As Napier said, “I could do nothing with my powerful fleet, since any attack on Kronstadt or Sveaborg would have meant certain death.” After spending several weeks in the waters near Kronstadt and realizing that there would be no breakfast, not to mention dinner in St. Petersburg, Napier was forced to turn back. The fleet also left Sveaborg.

However, returning to England without any victory was not an option. While Napier had managed to constrain elite units of the Russian Army near the capital and disrupted trade in the Baltic, the ambitions of British command spread far beyond that. They needed at least a semblance of military success to return home with.

Doomed fortresses

Realizing the futility of the attempts to capture Kronstadt, the British fleet decided to plunder coastal villages. However, this hardly justified the enormous resources the British had expended. Thus, the allies resolved to direct their full might against Bomarsund – an isolated, unfinished fortress on the Aland Islands. 

The Aland Islands hold a critically strategic position in this part of the Baltic Sea, being just 22 km from Finland and 38 km from Sweden. Russia seized these islands during its war with Sweden in 1808-1809. At the time, in the midst of a very cold winter, General Bagration’s troops traversed the frozen waters of the Baltic Sea basin, moving from Finland to the Alands and then to Sweden, less than 100 km from Stockholm.

Understanding the strategic importance of the islands, Russia began constructing the Bomarsund fortress. Yet by the outbreak of the Crimean War, it was only partially complete and had only a quarter of the planned towers and weapons. The garrison comprised just 1,600 soldiers; their ammunition was extremely limited. Once a forward outpost of the Russian Empire, Bomarsund now found itself completely cut off as Napier’s fleet appeared in the Baltic.

Despite these odds, the garrison fought fiercely. After another fortnight of intense fighting, on August 16, 1854, the Anglo-French troops finally breached the outer defense line of the fortress. By that point, the garrison had spent nearly all the ammunition, leaving Commander Yakov Bodisko with no choice but to surrender.

The British acknowledged the heroism of the defenders, and Bodisko was allowed to retain his sword while in captivity. Upon his return from imprisonment, a military tribunal deemed his actions at Bomarsund justified and commendable.

The garrison of another Russian fortress, Gangut (now the Finnish city of Hanko), did not wait for a similar fate to befall it, and blew up its own fortifications on imperial orders. Nevertheless, the success of the Anglo-French forces in the Baltic was mostly limited to these minor incidents. As British media noted, “English guns did not speak in the Baltic Sea. They whispered in Bomarsund, but the whole of Europe waited for them to resonate in Kronstadt and Sveaborg. One could not have dealt a heavier blow to Britain’s naval honor.”

Second attempt 

British accounts of the Baltic campaign assess Napier’s actions in a rather flattering way, implying that though he didn’t secure any significant victories, his forces managed to tie down the Russian fleet and prevented reinforcements from reaching Crimea.

This theory is fundamentally flawed, since during wartime, Russia would have defended its capital no matter what. It’s hard to imagine the Baltic fleet abandoning St. Petersburg and making its way through the English Channel and Gibraltar, navigating hostile waters controlled by England and France, on the way to the Black Sea. Thus, the first year of the Crimean War in the Baltic was clearly a success for Russia: It distracted the Anglo-French fleet, which expended great resources without achieving significant military success.

For operations in the Baltic Sea that year, they again assembled a massive fleet of 67 ships. Just like the previous year, they set their sights on Kronstadt, hoping to lure out the Russian fleet stationed there. However, they only stumbled on underwater mines. Four British steamers became the first victims of these mines, leading the Anglo-French command to realize that capturing Kronstadt was out of the question. 

Following this, light Anglo-French vessels began raiding the Finnish coast and plundering local fishermen. Meanwhile, the main forces of the allies aimed to capture Sveaborg – the second most significant Russian stronghold in the region, which defended Helsingfors.

In August, the Anglo-French squadron approached Sveaborg with plans to destroy the fortress and incinerate the strategically vital Russian shipyards. However, after a 45-hour bombardment and firing over 20,000 shells at the fortress, they failed to inflict any substantial damage on it. Russian military engineers had set up impressive defensive positions.

With no other options, the British and French had no choice but to leave the Baltic Sea by autumn 1855. This effectively marked the end of the Crimean War in the Baltic.

Lessons learned

Beyond the disastrous military operations, Britain also faced diplomatic setbacks in the Baltic.

After occupying the Aland Islands, Admiral Napier suggested that Sweden take them over. Following the resignation of Aberdeen’s ministry, the new British prime minister, Palmerston, spent all of 1855 actively working to draw Sweden and Norway – then united by a personal union – into the war against Russia. Britain frightened them with tales of ‘Russian imperialism’ while simultaneously hinting at the potential return of territories lost in previous wars with Russia.

Sweden’s pragmatic approach is understandable: Having suffered major defeats in past wars with Russia and lost the Baltics and Finland, it recognized the futility of engaging in another war with the Russian Empire on Britain’s behalf. 

With its advanced military technology and strategic decisions in the Baltic, 19th-century Russia effectively anticipated the military strategy of the 21st century called ‘anti-access/area denial’. While the Anglo-French fleet formally surpassed the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Empire, it was paralyzed by Russia’s impregnable fortifications and minefields.

Today, various countries are implementing similar strategies. China has developed hypersonic anti-ship missiles known as ‘carrier killers’ to counter the US Navy, effectively closing off the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea in the event of war. Another example is Iran. While it clearly pales in military strength compared to the US, its missiles and drones enable it to control the Strait of Hormuz, making any US naval operation in the region costly.

However, the most significant lessons from this conflict were undoubtedly learned by Russia. Although the Baltic campaign was successful for Russia and the powerful Anglo-French fleet didn’t achieve much, the war in general ended unsuccessfully for the empire. It exposed numerous areas of governance that required serious improvement. As a result of the Crimean War, Russia undertook crucial reforms in military affairs, finance, economics, law, and public life. This ushered in a new and more prosperous era.

At least 27 people were killed and 26 wounded in two mass shootings in South Africa within hours of each other, prompting police manhunts.

The deadliest attack took place late Saturday at a bar in Wedela, southwest of Johannesburg, where eight gunmen reportedly armed with AK-47 rifles and pistols opened fire on patrons, killing 17 people and wounding 15.

According to the South African Police Service (SAPS), people were drinking inside and outside the bar when the attackers arrived at around 9:30 PM local time. They opened fire on those outside before entering the bar and continuing the rampage there. The suspects allegedly searched some patrons and took their cellphones before fleeing in two unidentified vehicles. Two other vehicles were set on fire. 

#sapsGP [GAUTENG POLICE LAUNCH MANHUNT AFTER 17 PEOPLE KILLED IN WEDELA TAVERN SHOOTING]

Gauteng police have launched a manhunt for eight unidentified armed men following a deadly shooting at a tavern in Extension 3, Wedela, West Rand District, on Saturday, 26 September 2026, at… pic.twitter.com/2G4jNsYcU6

— SA Police Service 🇿🇦 (@SAPoliceService) September 27, 2026

Thirteen men and four women were pronounced dead at the scene, and the wounded were taken to hospitals. Footage posted online appears to show the moment the shooting began, with people abruptly falling silent mid-song, then screaming as gunshots ring out in the background.  

🇿🇦 AFRIQUE DU SUD : Au moins 27 morts dans deux fusillade à Johannesburg, où huit hommes armés de fusils d'assaut ont ouvert le feu dans un bar, et dans un établissement de nuit près du Cap. La police tente de localiser et appréhender les suspects pic.twitter.com/MeJH2aiDUS

— Infos Françaises (@InfosFrancaises) September 27, 2026

BREAKING: A bloody weekend in South Africa leaves 27 dead after two separate overnight mass shootings. Gunmen killed 17 at a Wedela tavern near Johannesburg, while a separate attack in Cape Town's Lwandle township left 10 dead.https://t.co/dOr41GxiV9 pic.twitter.com/MNkgY1AkrY

— HINT News (@9415st) September 27, 2026

17 people were shot dead and 15 others injured in a suspected robbery at a tavern in Wedela Ext 3 near Carletonville . Two vehicles also burnt to ashes not too far from the scene. @Sowetan1981 pic.twitter.com/zwM9eL85e8

— Michelle Banda (@MimieShana) September 27, 2026

Police have mobilized detectives and specialized units to hunt down the suspects. No arrests have been announced and the motive remains unknown.

Hours later, another mass shooting struck an entertainment venue in Lwandle, outside Cape Town, around 1,000 km (620 miles) away. Gunmen entered the establishment at around 2:00 AM Sunday and opened fire on patrons. Five people died at the scene and another five succumbed to their injuries in hospital, according to police. Eleven others were wounded; a search for the attackers has been launched.

Earlier this year, President Cyril Ramaphosa described organized crime as the “most immediate threat” to the country. In March, he authorized the deployment of more than 2,000 troops to support police in crime hotspots across five provinces heavily affected by gang violence and illegal mining: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, North West, and Western Cape.

Despite efforts to stem the violence, South Africa continues to record high levels of violent crime. The latest quarterly police statistics show 5,427 murders from April to June. While slightly down from 5,770 over the same period last year, the figure amounts to nearly 60 murders per day.

Ramaphosa condemned the shootings on Sunday, saying “it cannot go on like this,” as he vowed that the security forces will “pull out all stops” to tackle the violence. He said the authorities will use technology to help track the attackers, but stressed that broader action is needed to stop people from “just pick[ing] up guns and starting shooting people at random.”

WATCH | President Cyril Ramaphosa says the deadly Wedela tavern shooting, which claimed 17 lives, underscores the urgent need to curb violent crime. He says technology is helping police identify the suspected gunmen. pic.twitter.com/K3jPLWeVkJ

— SABC News (@SABCNews) September 27, 2026