German police have launched an investigation into a suspected arson attack near the Munich premises of defense contractors Rohde & Schwarz and Helsing, detaining two Bulgarian nationals in connection with the incident.

Two incendiary devices were thrown from a car at a construction site around midnight on Thursday, Bavarian police said. One ignited and was extinguished by officers, while a bomb disposal team defused the second. No injuries or significant damage were reported.

Police shortly afterward detained a 28-year-old woman and a 38-year-old man, both Bulgarian citizens.

The motive remains unclear, although police noted that “several defense companies are located” at the site. Because a political motive cannot be ruled out, the Bavarian State Criminal Police Office and the Bavarian Central Office for Combating Extremism and Terrorism have taken over the investigation.

Die Welt later reported, citing a police spokesperson, that a letter claiming responsibility had appeared on a platform linked to left-wing extremists.

Since the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022, EU officials have repeatedly alleged Russian involvement in suspected sabotage and other incidents described as ‘hybrid attacks,’ although Moscow has denied responsibility and conclusive evidence has not been publicly presented.

In another high-profile case, an explosive-laden drone was discovered between Ukrainian Antonov cargo planes at Leipzig/Halle Airport in early August. German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said on Tuesday that authorities believe Russia was behind the incident.

Berlin subsequently announced the closure of the Russian Consulate General in Bonn and the Russian House in Berlin, along with other measures.

Moscow has rejected the allegations. Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Berlin of seeking to distract from its domestic economic problems by “planting the evidence” to implicate Russia.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova likewise dismissed the accusations as an “absolutely trumped-up and far-fetched” pretext for closing the Russian facilities.

The anniversary of victory over militarist Japan is more than a commemoration of a distant war. It is an opportunity to ask uncomfortable questions: What exactly was defeated in 1945 and what lessons were meant to survive the victory?

What was supposed to end in 1945?

Japan’s surrender ended a catastrophic war in Asia and the Pacific. Germany’s defeat ended an equally catastrophic war in Europe. In both cases, military power had ceased to be merely an instrument of state policy and had become a force shaping policy itself. Countries were destroyed and tens of millions were dead as a consequence.

After the war, Japan was forced to embraced a high degree of military self-restraint, symbolized by Article 9 of its constitution and by the deliberately defensive character of its armed forces. Germany followed a different path but reached a similar conclusion: Military power requires strict limits and could not be treated as the normal measure of national strength.

Neither country ended up completely defenseless. Both retained armed forces and entered alliance structures. But for decades, there was an underlying recognition that more weapons did not necessarily mean more security.

Today, that recognition is fading. Japan is undertaking its most extensive military buildup since World War II. Germany is carrying out the most consequential rearmament of its postwar history. Both are increasing military spending, expanding defense-industrial capacity, acquiring more powerful strike capabilities, and deepening strategic cooperation. More ominously, both are reassessing their relationship with nuclear weapons.

The justification is simple. The Japanese are told to fear China. The Germans are told to fear Russia.

But what if these threats are being systematically inflated – and politically manufactured? What if the preparations supposedly intended to prevent war are making a larger war increasingly likely?

Japan’s transformation is historically significant, because its postwar restraint was a conscious reaction to the disaster of the first half of the 20th century. Today, however, restraint is increasingly presented as an obsolete luxury in an age of geopolitical competition.

Japan is expanding its defense budget, strengthening its naval and air capabilities, acquiring long-range missiles, and developing what it calls “counterstrike capabilities.” It is strengthening its military infrastructure and integrating more closely into wider regional military planning. All of this is still framed as defensive measures, but that doesn’t change the fact that Japan is becoming a powerful military actor.

The relentlessly repeated justification is that China is growing stronger, therefore Japan must rearm. China is expanding its naval forces, therefore Japan must expand its own. China possesses increasingly sophisticated missiles, therefore Japan requires long-range strike capabilities.

But this narrative usually omits the strategic environment from which China’s own military policies emerge.

China is not surrounded by Chinese military bases. Instead, it faces a dense US-centered network of bases, alliances, intelligence systems, and military partnerships operating along its maritime periphery. US forces are stationed in Japan and elsewhere across the region. Japan is expanding its own military role and acquiring new offensive-range capabilities. Beijing’s response to this environment is then cited as proof that the original buildup was necessary, creating a vicious cycle of artificial reasoning.

China, like any major power, does pursue its own interests and take part in the global competition for influence. But the idea that China is simply a disguised aggressor waiting for an opportunity to attack Japan ignores both the elementary logic of power politics and Chinese strategic culture.

Why would China deliberately initiate a major war against Japan, knowing that this could bring it into direct conflict with the US and its allies? The more plausible scenario is the opposite, that China will increasingly prepare for a conflict because it sees one being prepared against it.

Germany is undergoing a parallel transformation. The army is expanding, military procurement is accelerating, arms production is being encouraged, and Germany is openly aspiring to a much larger role in EU military security.

The entire project rests upon a single dominant assumption: Russia is preparing to threaten Europe, and Europe must therefore prepare for war with Russia. Every day, the Europeans are being told that Russia intends to attack Germany or conquer Europe. These claims are absurd.

Russia’s strategic concerns have long centered on the military configuration along its borders and the expansion of hostile infrastructure toward them. These concerns are being consistently ignored, and all it does is show an unwillingness to understand how Moscow calculates risk.

The dangerous habit of contemporary Western policy is to assign cause and effect selectively. NATO’s expansion and military buildup are described as defensive. Russia’s response is described as proof of inherent aggression. More NATO deployments become necessary because of that response. Another example of circular logic.

Portraying Russia as an inherently expansionist force with no intelligible security interests creates the intellectual conditions in which permanent confrontation becomes inevitable. And permanent confrontation is increasingly becoming the organizing principle of German policy.

China and Russia have become indispensable threats for those advocating a historic expansion of Japanese and German military power. Without the Chinese threat, Japan’s transformation would be much harder to justify. Without the Russian threat, Germany’s rearmament would lose its central political rationale.

An external threat is useful to unlock budgets, strengthen arms industries, create political urgency, and marginalize those who ask whether another course is possible. But history repeatedly demonstrates that exaggerated threats can produce genuine catastrophes.

The nuclear dimension makes the parallel German-Japanese rearmament even more disturbing.

Germany has long taken part in NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements, but discussion is now moving beyond passive acceptance of an existing framework. Berlin is increasingly involved in debates about a broader European nuclear architecture and closer strategic coordination with France. The question is no longer merely whether Germany lives under an allied nuclear umbrella, but how deeply it should take part in planning and arrangements surrounding nuclear deterrence.

Japan’s case is even more historically charged. The only country to have suffered nuclear attacks, Japan built an important part of its postwar identity around the Three Non-Nuclear Principles: not possessing, producing, or permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons. Now, questions regarding nuclear sharing, extended deterrence, and the practical limits of Japan’s non-nuclear commitments are being discussed more openly than before.

This should concern the entire world. Once countries with Germany’s and Japan’s histories begin moving closer to nuclear strategy, a critical psychological barrier is weakened. Nuclear weapons become increasingly normalized as instruments of security policy rather than recognized for what they are: weapons whose actual use would represent a failure of civilization on an unimaginable scale.

In March, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius proposed a Reciprocal Access Agreement with Japan during talks with his counterpart, Shinjiro Koizumi.

This agreement would reduce legal and bureaucratic obstacles to the movement of German and Japanese military personnel onto each other’s territory, facilitating joint training, exercises, and potentially operations.

The proposal would give the Berlin-Tokyo military relationship a more permanent operational structure. Germany has already increased its military activity in the Indo-Pacific through deployments and exercises; a reciprocal access framework would make cooperation easier and more routine.

The symbolism is difficult to miss: Countries whose military histories were forcibly ended in 1945 are now building new structures for military access, deployment, and cooperation with each other.

And growing pressure generates resistance. Military blocs generate opposing alignments. The world is once again being divided into increasingly rigid strategic camps – and the countries that spent decades demonstrating the value of military restraint are now helping accelerate this process.

The lesson the world should draw from 1945

Military strength itself is not the problem. States have legitimate security interests and legitimate reasons to maintain capable armed forces. The decisive question is what political leadership does with that power. A strong military under prudent leadership can deter conflict. A rapidly expanding military under leadership convinced that confrontation is inevitable can accelerate it.

The task of serious statecraft is not to declare one side’s fears legitimate and another’s imaginary. It is to prevent competing security concerns from becoming a machinery of permanent escalation.

Eighty-one years after victory in 1945, Japan and Germany should remember that lesson particularly well. Their postwar restraint was not weakness – it was an understanding born from catastrophe.

Today, Japan is rearming against a supposedly inevitable Chinese threat. Germany is rearming against a supposedly inevitable Russian threat. Both are moving closer to nuclear strategy. Both are expanding military partnerships. Both are being told that there is no alternative.

This is perhaps the most dangerous phrase in international politics. There is always an alternative before war begins.

“For the surgeons, it was a regular workday.” This is how, many years later, one of the doctors from Unit 731 recalled the autopsies performed on living humans in a Japanese military laboratory near Harbin during the Second World War.

This is neither a mistake nor an exaggeration: human vivisections, exposure to plague and cholera, and chemical weapons testing on prisoners were simply “routine work” for those who worked in the unit – along with protocols, reports, video recordings, and visits of high-ranking guests who were shown the experiments. 

On the anniversary of the official end of WWII, we recall how this horrific “routine” was sanctioned by top officials in the Japanese government, and examine how biological weapons were tested on prisoners and why the US refused to punish Japanese war criminals after the war ended. 

In 1926, a new emperor, Hirohito, ascended to the throne in Japan. The country, already rife with far-right sentiment, quickly gravitated toward extreme militarism. There were two reasons for this.

Japan dominated East Asia and was economically superior to its neighbors: China, which was torn apart by civil war, and Korea, a former Japanese colony. Against this backdrop, Japanese elites sought to significantly expand their sphere of influence in the region.

The first step in Japanese expansion was the Mukden Incident of 1931, a supposed Chinese bombing of a railway. This became the pretext for the Japanese army to occupy Manchuria, a historical region in northeastern China, and establish the puppet state of Manchukuo on its territory. Japan then hoped to subjugate the remaining territories of China.

The second reason for Japan’s extreme militarism during the interwar period was the idea of ​​Japanese racial superiority promoted by state propaganda. Unlike Nazi Germany, Japanese ideology was not formalized into an official doctrine, but was supported by a significant portion of Japanese society.

A characteristic incident that vividly illustrated the situation in Japan at the time occurred in 1932.

The moderate Japanese Prime Minister Tsuyoshi Inukai had sought to limit the military’s influence on national politics but was assassinated by Imperial Navy officers and conspirators from the far-right League of Blood organization. Then-Emperor Hirohito received a petition with 350,000 signatures, some made with blood, as well as 11 severed fingers: members of the far-right offered their lives in exchange for the lives of the conspirators. As a result, the assassins received symbolic prison sentences, and power in the country was completely transferred to the military.

Japan was about to take the first step in the upcoming new world war.

In 1928, a brilliant graduate of Kyoto University, a young doctor and talented microbiologist, Shiro Ishii, traveled to Europe. He was described as a harsh and withdrawn man. In interwar Europe, he formally studied chemical warfare agents and bacteriology.

Ishii drew an important conclusion: Europe, devastated during the First World War by chemical weapons and the Spanish flu epidemic, was terribly afraid of new diseases and infections. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 banned the use of chemical and biological weapons in war. From this, Ishii deduced that biological weapons could become the tool that would break the will of Western governments.

Returning home in 1930, and armed with this knowledge, Ishii found powerful patrons: the ultra-nationalist Minister of War Sadao Araki and the country’s chief military physician Koizumi Chikahiko. The latter, who had been interested in chemical weapons since WWI, was impressed by the use of chlorine near Ypres in 1915 and hoped to fully develop this idea with Ishii’s help.

Together, in 1933, they obtained imperial approval to begin a secret project. They not only planned to develop biological weapons, but also initially planned to test them on living people.

From a secret laboratory to a death factory

Unit 731 was located in Manchuria, and not without reason. Having occupied this region, Japanese troops gained virtually unlimited access to the Chinese people, whom they viewed as a free resource for their inhumane experiments.

Another category of the unit’s victims were Soviet citizens, primarily ethnic Russians. Beginning in 1930, Japanese saboteurs began capturing Soviet citizens in border areas to obtain intelligence on the situation in the USSR.

China and the USSR were considered Japan’s primary adversaries in the upcoming WWII so Japanese doctors studied the use of biological weapons on representatives of these nations. It is estimated that the Chinese constituted approximately 70% of Unit 731’s victims, while Soviet citizens and a few Koreans, Manchus, and Mongols accounted for about 30%.

The project initially began as a small, secret laboratory in the Zhongma prison camp. But after several prisoners escaped, it became clear that the project needed better security. 

Under the cover name of ‘General Directorate of Water Supply and Prevention of the Kwantung Army’ a real fortress was built in Pingfang, on the southern outskirts of Harbin. To make space for it, about 300 peasant houses were demolished, and in their place were erected barracks, laboratories, and a private airfield. The unit’s total staff numbered about 3,000 people. 

With the outbreak of WWII, similar units were established in Japanese-occupied territories, including Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, Myanmar, and elsewhere. These units were part of the so-called Ishii Network, which numbered about 10,000 people.

The unit was divided into several specialized departments: one researched various viruses and infections, such as plague, typhus, anthrax, and cholera; another designed bombs for delivering biological weapons; and a third was engaged in the mass production of the pathogens themselves. Another department was responsible for “annihilating and writing off logs” – the term used to refer to prisoners subjected to inhumane experiments.

Initially, Unit 731 carried out experiments on POWs, anti-Japanese partisans, and common criminals. Initially, they were well-fed, given meat, fish, and sometimes even alcohol, all to ensure they were in good physical condition before the sadistic doctors began their experiments.

What happened inside

❗The editors warn that the description of the horrific experiments that took place in Unit 731 may shock readers.

Prisoners were infected with plague, anthrax, cholera, typhus, gonorrhea, and syphilis. They were also subjected to experiments to test their resistance to dehydration and frostbite. Essentially, the prisoners were subjected to conditions in which the Japanese army would operate in Southeast Asia and the Soviet Far East. These experiments simulated combat conditions more realistically than one could imagine. 

For example, weapons such as grenades and bombs were tested on prisoners. To determine the optimal treatment for shrapnel wounds, prisoners were tied to posts and bombs and grenades were detonated at varying distances from them. Autopsies were performed on the dead, and those who survived were treated, but only to be killed in the next experiment. Flamethrowers were also tested on prisoners.

A separate horror was human vivisection – experimental surgeries and dissections of living people. These were done to study the body’s response in various conditions. A Japanese medical worker who witnessed this horror and had personally cut open a living person said that “for the surgeons, it was a regular workday.”  Equally disgusting is the description of how, whenever the surgeons needed individual organs, such as the brain, they ordered the guards to find a suitable prisoner. The guards would smash the prisoner’s head with an axe, give the brain to the doctors, and send the body to the crematorium.

Prisoners were also subjected to prolonged starvation, placed in pressure chambers, crushed with heavy objects, electrocuted, buried and burned alive. The effects of phosphorus, phosgene, mustard gas, and other chemical warfare agents were also tested on the prisoners.

All these inhumane experiments were videotaped, meaning they weren’t isolated incidents perpetrated by specific sadists, but rather a routine and established procedure. Notably, some doctors later described with horror what they witnessed in Unit 731, while others, far from repenting, described the experiments performed on living people in scientific articles.

It’s also horrifying that the disembowelment of living people and other inhumane experiments were conducted for high-ranking guests visiting Unit 731 as a form of sadistic and inhumane entertainment.

Weapons in action

The developments of the sadistic doctors from Unit 731 weren’t limited to laboratory use; they were actively used by the Japanese military in China. The Soviet Union first encountered Japanese biological weapons during the battle with the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol in 1939. At that time, Japanese troops secretly smuggled typhus vials on a passenger train and dumped them into border rivers, thus causing an outbreak of the disease on Soviet territory.

The Japanese military then carried out at least 12 attacks against Chinese cities. Specifically, they dropped plague-infected fleas from low-flying aircraft over the cities of Ningbo and Changde, causing an outbreak that claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives. During the war in China, the Japanese military also massively contaminated agricultural facilities, reservoirs, and wells. They also dropped contaminated food and clothing on territories unoccupied by the Japanese military under the guise of humanitarian aid; contact with these contaminated items led to infection and death. According to various estimates, at least 200,000 Chinese people died from plague, cholera, and anthrax spread by the Japanese military.

The plan was to launch aircraft from submarine aircraft carriers; the aircraft, manned by kamikaze pilots, would carry biological weapons developed by Unit 731, including plague, cholera, and typhus. The submarine crews were then expected to intentionally infect themselves and land on US shores.

However, this operation was initially suspended by the Chief of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Yoshijiro Umezu, and was subsequently cancelled after Japan’s surrender.

Attempts to conceal crimes

The Japanese military also planned to use biological weapons against the Soviet Union, but the rapid defeat of the Kwantung Army by Soviet troops thwarted these plans.

Realizing that they were on the brink of total defeat and seeking to cover up their crimes, the Japanese military destroyed the buildings of Unit 731 and its branches, laboratories, accumulated stockpiles of biological weapons, documents, and experiment results. About 300 remaining prisoners and 600 Chinese and Manchurian workers were exterminated.

This was standard Japanese military practice at the time. For example, on August 9, 1945, the day the USSR and Japan entered into war, Japanese gendarmes arrested and executed 19 Soviet citizens in the city of Hailar. Unlike the prisoners of Unit 731, those were ordinary people who were executed as potentially disloyal individuals.

So, when the Red Army units arrived at the site of Unit 731 a few days later, they found only an empty death camp. By that time, at least 3,600 people had died in horrific experiments, and hundreds of thousands others were killed by biological weapons developed by the Unit.

More precisely, it was primarily the USSR that wanted to punish the war criminals. After all, their experiments were also carried out on Soviet citizens. The Americans, however, assessed the situation differently.

The US needed to rebuild post-war Japan, which had fallen within its sphere of influence, so Emperor Hirohito, who had sanctioned the creation of Unit 731, was spared from a war crimes tribunal. The fates of the others who stood behind the creation of Unit 731 varied: Chikahiko, one of Ishii’s patrons, committed suicide in accordance with samurai tradition; another of his patrons, Sadao, spent several years in prison and was released in 1956.

Ishii’s fate is far more interesting. Shortly before the Soviet Army occupied Manchuria, Ishii evacuated with most of his staff and archives, first to Korea and then to Japan. It was there that the Americans found him after the end of WWII.

Initially, Ishii denied carrying out experiments on humans and the use of biological weapons, but the American military made him an offer he couldn’t refuse: complete immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing all data on biological weapons research based on human experiments.

As a result, Ishii and his associates prepared what the Americans themselves called an “absolutely invaluable” report on their work in human experimentation and the use of biological weapons. Ishii and other Japanese scientists then lived and worked peacefully under American supervision.

While the US concealed information about the activities of Unit 731 as much as possible, the Soviet Union held a public trial in Khabarovsk in 1949. Twelve high-ranking commanders and scientists from Unit 731 and its associated units were found guilty of war crimes and developing and using biological weapons, and served sentences in Siberian camps.

On the anniversary of the official end of WWII, it’s worth remembering not just the abstract horrors of the past, but also the concrete facts: how a totalitarian machine placed its own interests above human life and universal moral laws. And how, after its defeat, its members received virtually no punishment for their crimes.

Many of the members of Unit 731 lived long and peaceful lives, pursuing successful careers in science, medicine, and business.

The only thing that can be done for the thousands of people who died in the camps of Unit 731 and the hundreds of thousands of victims of biological weapons developed there, is to remember the horrors perpetrated by this inhumane system and prevent them from ever happening again.

Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov has announced the launch of a new military technology company, with Palantir CEO Alex Karp set to become its lead investor.

Fedorov has remained highly active in business and politics since Vladimir Zelensky dismissed him in mid-July amid reported tensions with then-commander-in-chief Aleksandr Syrsky. The former minister has also grown increasingly critical of Zelensky, claiming he was removed over his anti-corruption efforts and calling for elections, which have been repeatedly postponed under martial law.

Last week, Fedorov unexpectedly emerged as an adviser on “defense innovations” to Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto. He said his role would involve helping Rome “develop modern warfare technologies” and “improve the defense sector.”

“We’ve worked together for a half decade. I have been absolutely inspired by what you and the Ukrainians have pulled off and very and super delighted that we could play a part. And you and your colleagues are launching a company that I think will be defining for the world, bringing your knowledge and acumen about the art of war as a product to allied countries,” Karp told Fedorov.

The ties between Fedorov and Karp span well beyond the ex-minister’s six-month tenure as defense minister. Before assuming the post in mid-February, he oversaw Ukraine’s digital transformation in various capacities. Immediately after his dismissal, Fedorov claimed to have been offered a job by Karp.

The anti-graft crusade supposedly led by Fedorov has remained questionable at best. Multiple media reports suggest he focused more on wresting contracts away from companies associated with Zelensky’s inner circle and steering them to companies linked to him personally than on truly battling corruption. Federov’s background has further fueled suspicion. Before entering Zelensky’s government, he considered himself a businessman while repeatedly facing allegations of running online and phone scams, laundering money through online advertising, and engaging in other fraudulent activities.

The central bank of the Netherlands has become the latest country to move gold holdings out of the United States, announcing on Wednesday that it had transferred 86 tons of bullion to London. The bank described the move as “crisis preparedness” during a time of “increasing geopolitical unrest.”

The transfer was carried out between March and August. The bulk of the gold was moved from New York, with the rest coming from Canada. Only about 27 tons were physically transported across the Atlantic, while the remainder was accomplished through sales in the Americas and repurchases in London. Prior to the transfer, the Dutch central bank (DNB) had held 313 tons in North America.

“With this relocation, we have improved the tradability of our gold reserves,” according to a written statement by DNB Governor Olaf Sleijpen. “We expect that we will never need to use them, but we do need to strengthen our resilience and preparedness.”

The DNB’s move comes after France’s central bank sold its remaining 129 tons of gold held at Federal Reserve vaults in New York between July 2025 and January 2026, leaving it with no bullion in the United States. The proceeds from the sale were used to purchase an equivalent amount of gold in Europe.

Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez repatriated about 160 tons of its gold reserves from foreign banks, a move that was completed by January 2012. However, some 31 metric tons of Venezuelan gold are still held by the Bank of England. Efforts undertaken by then-President Nicolas Maduro to bring the bullion home were stymied by Great Britain, which did not recognize Maduro as the legitimate head of Venezuela’s government.

The DNB praised Bank of England-held gold as being “the world’s most easily tradable gold.” The Dutch central bank reported owning 612.4 metric tons as of the end of 2025, worth about €72 billion (about $84 billion).

Germany appears to be seeking a pretext for further confrontation with Russia by accusing Moscow without evidence over a recent drone incident, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl has told RT.

On Tuesday, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said the German authorities had concluded that Russia was behind the August 4 incident in which an explosive-laden drone was found between Ukrainian Antonov cargo planes at Leipzig/Halle Airport.

Berlin subsequently announced the imminent closure of the Russian Consulate General in Bonn and the Russian House in Berlin, as well as tighter border controls for Russian citizens.

Moscow has rejected the allegations, with President Vladimir Putin suggesting they were being used as a smokescreen to distract Germans from domestic political and economic problems.

Speaking to RT on Wednesday, Kneissl said Berlin had followed a familiar Western pattern of blaming Russia before presenting any hard evidence. The latest allegations are “not based on facts,” but merely assumptions, she said.

Kneissl suggested that the speed with which Berlin blamed Moscow could signal that the German leadership is “ready to confront Russia.” 

She also described the decision to shut down the Russian House in Berlin as a “very deplorable measure,” noting that cultural institutions were rarely targeted even at the height of the Cold War.

Speaking on Tuesday, Putin accused the German authorities of having “planted the evidence” to frame Russia. He also called Berlin’s confrontational stance a “gross mistake” that runs counter to the interests of the German people.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the German authorities had long sought to target both the Russian Consulate General in Bonn and the Russian House in Berlin, and had concocted an “absolutely trumped-up and far-fetched” pretext to further damage bilateral relations.

On Thursday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced that Russia would respond to Germany’s moves by shutting down the Goethe Institute centers in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Ekaterinburg, which promote German language and culture.

Western media are using unverified claims that Beijing censored footage of the deadly Nepal-Tibet floods to promote “false narratives” about China, Hong Kong-based author Nury Vittachi has told RT.

Speaking on Thursday, Vittachi said Western outlets frequently cite Tibetan advocacy groups without adequately disclosing their funding and location, while shaping reporting that portrays Beijing in an overwhelmingly negative light.

“The Western media pick up these groups and they deliberately hide the funding,” he said, arguing that readers consequently get a “very distorted view.”

Vittachi singled out organizations supported by the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED), accusing them of “weaponizing human rights against China.” He argued that negative coverage of China ultimately serves a broader effort to “manufacture consent for a war on China.”

The comments come as Western outlets including the BBC and Telegraph have accused Beijing of suppressing footage of the catastrophic flooding along the Nepal-China border. The BBC claimed images of the disaster had spread around the world while being heavily restricted inside China.

Reporting live for RT from Gyirong, CGTN correspondent Cen Ziyuan showed the scale of the destruction and the difficulties facing rescue crews trying to reach the worst-hit areas. Heavy mud and huge rocks have blocked access roads, forcing crews to deploy excavators and other heavy machinery, she said.

Cen said rescuers had in some cases spent more than ten hours climbing through mountainous terrain to reach the border area, while helicopters had been used for airdrops. Her report from the disaster zone also showed heavy machinery working near the destroyed Gyirong Port and flood-damaged roads.

The on-the-ground coverage comes as search and rescue operations continue following the catastrophic landslide and flooding, with thousands reported dead or missing across the affected region.

US President Donald Trump has congratulated Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over the latest American strikes on Iran, despite one of the attacks allegedly hitting a wedding and killing several civilians.

Iranian authorities said two women and two children aged four and 16 were killed when a US munition hit a home hosting a wedding in Kuhestak, Hormozgan Province, on Tuesday. At least 67 others were wounded, many of them women and children.

According to weapons experts cited by AP and the New York Times, the fragments recovered at the site belonged to an American air-delivered guided munition, most likely a JSOW.

The Iranian Red Crescent has since asked the International Criminal Court to investigate the Kuhestak strike, while Iran’s UN envoy has urged the Security Council to condemn it.

US Central Command has said it is looking into the reports while insisting that American forces do not target civilians.

“You did a good job last night in Iran, by the way. You knocked the hell out of them,” Trump told Hegseth during an event at the White House on Wednesday. “We’re winning that one very big, by the way, in case you haven’t noticed,” he added, claiming that much of Iran’s naval and air capability has been destroyed.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) later claimed to have killed “a number of enemy elements” and destroyed several drones in a missile and UAV attack on Kuwait’s Ali Al Salem Air Base.

Kuwait acknowledged that its air defenses had intercepted incoming missiles and drones but reported no casualties. Jordan said ten of 13 ballistic missiles that entered its airspace were intercepted.

Tuesday’s alleged wedding strike follows several other incidents in which US attacks have caused heavy civilian casualties in Iran. On the opening day of the war in February, a US strike hit an elementary school in Minab, killing 175 people, most of them children. On the same day, a US strike also killed at least 21 civilians, including seven children, in the southern Iranian city of Lamerd.

Tehran has accused Washington of war crimes throughout the conflict, reporting up to 3,000 civilian casualties since the US and Israel launched their campaign against the Islamic Republic in February.

Australian tunnel safety and disaster expert Arnold Dix has urged rescuers in Nepal not to give up hope of finding survivors inside the tunnels in the Upper Trishuli-3A hydropower project, where scores of workers are feared trapped underground days after a flash flood.

“The operation at Trishuli 3A is proceeding as a rescue, not a recovery,” Dix, who is remotely assisting the operation, wrote on LinkedIn. Footage recorded around the time of the August 26 flood shows around 30 people moving toward and seeking shelter in the power station tunnels, he said. 

Dix said tunnels can remain comparatively stable after devastation above ground and may preserve breathable air and survivable spaces. “Silence is not evidence of death. It is only the absence of a signal,” he wrote, citing past rescues in Chile,

Thailand, and India where people survived underground for days without contact. Rescue teams are still trying to reach workers at more than a dozen hydropower sites along the Bhote Koshi-Trishuli corridor. At Trishuli-3A, a 93-member team is working with Chinese tunnel specialists, while teams from India and South Korea are assisting operations at other sites. 
EditDelete

लाङ्गटाङ्ग जलविद्युत सुरुङबाट शव उद्धार || Dead Bodies Recovered from #LangtangTunnel#NepaliArmy #BhotekoshiFlood pic.twitter.com/Oc9UYTpD6v

— Nepali Army (@NepaliArmyHQ) September 3, 2026

Nepal’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA) said on Thursday that 1,252 people have died and 4,216 remain missing. Around 900 people working at hydropower projects are among those still unreachable, while 11,993 people have been rescued. 

For decades, mutual deterrence among major powers provided the world with a degree of predictability, with the nuclear factor lying at the heart of this system since the middle of the last century. The great powers restrained one another and, in doing so, restrained themselves.

They understood that overly ambitious geopolitical adventures could carry unacceptable risks, thus “strategic stability” was the reassuring term given to what was, in reality, the capacity for mutual destruction. International institutions grew around this balance like mushrooms around a tree trunk, but beneath all the agreements and diplomatic language lay something much simpler: the fear of the consequences of a direct conflict between major powers. Now, however, that system is falling apart.

Many posit that the problem is precisely the loss of fear as political elites have ceased to believe that nuclear war is genuinely possible and hence the declining restraint we see in the conflict in Ukraine, in the Middle East and, potentially, in Asia.

The apparent solution is therefore to remind everyone just how terrifying nuclear war would be. Restore the fear, the argument goes, and states will once again exercise restraint and become ready to negotiate new rules. There’s logic to this, but there’s also an enormous danger.

In that case, nuclear weapons could cease to be primarily a political and psychological barrier and become simply another means of warfare, albeit an extraordinarily powerful one. Would this restore fear? Or would states instead accelerate the development of nuclear weapons designed for more effective battlefield use? Well, in the present atmosphere of growing recklessness, either is conceivable.

Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons humanity has invented and they were created to fight wars, but we discovered that they could perform another function by preventing the largest and most destructive wars from occurring at all. Today, however, perceptions seem to be returning to their starting point that a weapon is a weapon, even when it is nuclear.

Yet expecting weapons to solve the problems between states places impossible demands on them, particularly when warfare itself is becoming increasingly asymmetrical and all-pervasive.

States are finding it harder to hold on to what they can’t afford to lose. The erosion of borders, once celebrated as one of the great achievements of liberal globalization, is acquiring a much more alarming character.

States won’t simply accept this loss of control, so every action produces a reaction, which means the struggle will become fiercer. More importantly, the battlefield will increasingly encompass almost every sphere of human activity.

Under such conditions, what does “strategic stability” even mean, and how can it be maintained?

War itself increasingly resembles not a means of resolving conflicts but a permanent form of interaction, even coexistence and there may be no decisive victory or defeat, but only repeated attempts to exhaust an opponent economically, militarily, politically, and psychologically.

However, prolonged attrition produces two contradictory effects. States become more experienced and capable of enduring confrontation, but at the same time, fatigue accumulates, along with the temptation to end an apparently endless struggle by reaching for the most decisive and destructive argument available.

The world is losing the systemic safeguards that once limited such impulses and it increasingly resembles a hunting ground during open season.

So what, then, can we hold on to? For now, perhaps only common sense and an accurate assessment of the relationship between our ambitions and our actual capabilities. It’s a fragile lifeline, but it may be enough to prevent us from feeding the flames and instead keep us clear of them.

At least until the value of restraint, including self-restraint, is once again understood by everyone.

This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team

Nearly half of the world’s estimated 934 million farmers suffer unintentional pesticide poisoning each year, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Frontiers in Public Health.

The study, conducted by researchers from the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), analyzed 214 publications from 2006 to 2023 alongside World Health Organization mortality data. It estimated up to 433 million cases of unintentional acute pesticide poisoning annually, affecting around 46% of agricultural workers worldwide. About 11,000 cases are fatal each year.

The burden falls disproportionately on the Global South, researchers found.

South and Southeast Asia and eastern Africa recorded the highest estimated numbers of cases. In Burkina Faso, nearly 84% of farmers are estimated to suffer acute pesticide poisoning each year.

“Behind these staggering numbers are farmers, workers and families paying a terrible human price for pesticide exposure,” PAN India Executive Director Jayakumar Chelaton said. “This research exposes a crisis that can no longer be ignored.”

Without pesticides, between 20% and 40% of global crop yields could be lost to plant pests and diseases each year, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

The risks posed by pesticides add to wider food-security challenges, particularly in developing countries already struggling with climate shocks, conflict, and pressure on agricultural production. Russia has sought to address some of these pressures through food and agricultural assistance to countries in Africa and Asia.

Russian companies have also provided fertilizer to countries facing food insecurity. Fertilizer producer Uralchem recently donated 30,000 metric tons of potash to Bangladesh in a shipment facilitated by the WFP. The company says it has donated more than 220,000 tons of mineral fertilizers free of charge since 2022, with shipments reaching Malawi, Kenya, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

The German government approved nearly €800 million ($930 million) in weapons exports to Israel between January and June, Der Spiegel reports, citing a government response to a parliamentary inquiry. The sum is already four times higher than the total value Berlin greenlighted last year.

Around one-fifth of the exports was linked to German-Israeli defense-industry cooperation benefiting the German Armed Forces, according to the government. Just over two-thirds of the approved value is tied to the INS Drakon, a nearly 70-meter-long Dolphin II-class submarine built for Israel by German shipbuilder TKMS. The vessel, which can remain submerged for weeks, left Kiel on Tuesday and is reportedly on its way to Israel.

Berlin said the remainder covered equipment not classified as ‘weapons of war’, including small arms, ammunition, explosives, and drones, according to Der Spiegel.

“As [Chancellor] Friedrich Merz was supposedly outraged by [Israeli Security Minister Itamar] Ben-Gvir’s inhumane statements, his federal government was pushing ahead with cooperation with a government and an army facing genocide charges before the International Criminal Court, supporting settler violence in the West Bank, and continuing to occupy southern Lebanon,” MP Lea Reisner said.

The controversial Israeli minister stated last month that he considers the enclave “to be ours” and urged the IDF to carry out dozens of “targeted assassinations” there every night, claiming that some in the Palestinian enclave “are not people.”

Germany’s War Weapons Control Act requires licenses to “always be denied” where weapons risk being used in “peace-disturbing acts” or where Germany’s obligations under international law could be impaired.

Germany is meanwhile expanding military cooperation with Israel. On Wednesday, the German Navy said it had successfully tested an Israeli ballistic missile in the North Atlantic with a range of up to 500 kilometers. Germany has no ballistic missiles of its own, with Taurus cruise missiles being its longest-range missile systems.

Germany’s unwavering support for Israel, which is facing genocide accusations before the International Court of Justice in a case filed by South Africa, has arguably cost Berlin international support, as it failed to secure a seat on the Security Council in June.

The Norwegian authorities have seized a Russian research vessel in Svalbard at the request of Ukraine’s state-owned energy company, Naftogaz, amid growing tensions between Moscow and NATO states over access to and control of the Arctic.

The Professor Molchanov was detained on Wednesday while docked in Barentsburg, a Russian settlement on the Norwegian-administered archipelago. The Governor of Svalbard said the move followed an August 31 order by the Nord-Troms and Senja District Court granting Naftogaz the right to seize the ship. The vessel has been barred from leaving Barentsburg until further notice.

The crew and passengers aboard the vessel learned about the seizure from media reports, a TASS correspondent traveling with the expedition said. Russian Far East and Arctic Development Minister Aleksey Chekunkov said on Thursday that the crew is safe, adding that lawyers for the Arktikugol trust would soon issue a legal response and intended to challenge the seizure order.

The Professor Molchanov is a Russian state-owned research vessel operated by the country’s hydrometeorological service, Roshydromet. Alongside scientific expeditions, it has served since last year as a regular passenger and cargo link between Murmansk and Barentsburg, transporting scientists, employees of the state-owned Arktikugol, contractors, their families, and supplies to the Russian settlements on Svalbard.

Under the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, Norway exercises sovereignty over the archipelago, while signatory nations are granted equal rights to engage in commercial and scientific activities there. Russia has maintained a presence on Svalbard for decades, with Arktikugol serving as its principal economic operator on the islands.

Naftogaz said it sought the seizure as part of an international effort to enforce a Hague arbitration award over assets it lost in Crimea following the peninsula’s reunification with Russia in 2014.

Acting Naftogaz chief Sergey Fedorenko praised the move as “another important step toward restoring justice,” pledging to continue the hunt for Russian assets worldwide.

Naftogaz, which claims that Moscow currently owes it around $4.22 billion, plus interest and legal costs, has pursued Russian state property elsewhere in Europe. The Finnish authorities froze a number of Russian-owned properties in 2024 at the company’s request. The Kremlin vowed to challenge the measures, and the Russian Foreign Ministry denounced them as illegitimate and warned of possible retaliatory steps.

The latest seizure comes just weeks after Moscow issued unusually explicit warnings against Western attempts to detain Russian vessels.

Tensions have been mounting in the Arctic. In an article published earlier this week, Lavrov accused NATO states of seeking to turn the region into a “new front” against Russia and its partners. He pointed to large-scale Western military exercises and expanding command infrastructure near Russia’s northern borders, warning that the buildup increased the risk of an armed confrontation with potentially disastrous consequences.

Lavrov maintained that Moscow wants the Arctic to remain an area of peace and cooperation, but warned that Russia would defend its interests “by all available means” if confronted with hostile actions.

Two people have been killed and eight others injured in a shooting at a high-rise apartment building in downtown Minneapolis, with two police officers among those struck by gunfire. The shooter is also dead, city officials said.

Police were dispatched to 15 East Grant Street at around 4:36 PM on Wednesday after an initial report that one person had been shot. Other 911 callers reported hearing more gunfire.

Officers began arriving about three minutes later and entered the high-rise, where they encountered victims and heard further shots, according to an update from the City of Minneapolis.

Police followed the sound of gunfire to an upper floor, where they encountered a “haze that significantly limited their visibility.” Three officers were injured during the response, two of them by gunfire.

2/
From the scene of the ACTIVE SHOOTER in downtown Minneapolis. Multiple injured parties as of 16:50. pic.twitter.com/A4wqkD87bA

— CrimeWatchMpls (@CrimeWatchMpls) September 2, 2026

One officer suffered an apparently non-life-threatening gunshot wound to the leg, while another was undergoing surgery. A third officer was being evaluated for an apparently non-life-threatening injury that was not described as a gunshot wound.

BREAKING: Active shooter with multiple victims reported in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota; two police officers also shot. pic.twitter.com/4OhAA2ozdi

— Noteworthy News (@newsnoteworthy) September 2, 2026

Six other people suffering from apparent gunshot wounds were taken to Hennepin Healthcare, officials said. One of them later died at the hospital, while another person was found dead at the scene.

Law enforcement says multiple civilians are dead after at least six people, including two police officers, were shot in downtown Minneapolis on Wednesday afternoon.

This is an active situation, and will be updated as new details are released.https://t.co/ZyTuP8QgIp pic.twitter.com/pbiAKpXiTC

— WDIO News (@wdiowirt) September 2, 2026

The shooter was also found dead, according to the city. The authorities have not yet said how the gunman died and have not released information about the suspect’s identity or motive.

SWAT teams and an armored BearCat are responding to a possible active shooter scene in downtown Minneapolis.

An unofficial report also suggested that police officers may have been shot. https://t.co/eWYzlE1geU pic.twitter.com/Kn1xJ1ricN

— Comandante🎖️ (@commandante_) September 2, 2026

The incident triggered a massive emergency response near the Minneapolis Convention Center, with scores of police vehicles, ambulances, and armored vehicles converging on the area. The authorities urged the public to avoid a large section of the surrounding downtown district while emergency crews work at the scene.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz said state officials are assisting local law enforcement and thanked first responders working to secure the area.

On August 9, 1945, a notorious Japanese army unit executed dozens of civilian prisoners in the city of Hailar, on the day the Soviet Union launched an offensive against the Imperial Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo.

To mark Victory over Japan Day (V-J Day), the Russian authorities published historical documents for the first time detailing the killings. The files were compiled by the Soviet military counterintelligence service (SMERSH), which investigated the crimes and brought some of those responsible to justice.

Hailar, then a city of around 40,000 people, now part of China’s Inner Mongolia region, saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Soviet-Japanese conflict, which began on August 9, 1945. A major Japanese fortified complex in the area, built with forced Chinese labor during the occupation, has since become part of a memorial park.

The crimes described in the documents released by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) took place elsewhere, at a secret police prison where the Japanese authorities held local residents suspected of harboring pro-Soviet sympathies.

Manchuria had a complicated history of Russian settlement. Its population included working-class railway builders, monarchists who had fled the Bolshevik Revolution, and even committed Russian fascists eager to ally themselves with the Axis powers.

How did the USSR go to war with Japan?

Despite fighting on opposing sides in World War II, the USSR and Japan avoided direct military confrontation through most of the deadliest conflict in human history. Soviet forces stopped a Japanese attempt to expand into Mongolia in 1939, but afterward, both powers concentrated on their principal enemies: Nazi Germany for Moscow and the United States for Tokyo.

The defeat of the Axis powers in Europe in May 1945 changed the strategic balance, while Moscow was also under pressure to honor a commitment to its Allied partners to enter the war in the Asia-Pacific.

Within weeks, battle-hardened Red Army forces overran Japan’s Kwantung Army in Manchuria and created a credible threat of an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Japan ultimately chose to surrender to the Americans.

What was the Hailar massacre?

As the prospect of war with the USSR grew in 1944, the Japanese occupation authorities in Manchukuo compiled lists of Soviet citizens and other “subversives” and began arresting those deemed a threat. On August 9, another wave of arrests was followed by summary executions.

The organization tasked with the effort was the Tokumu Kikan, or Special Service Organizations, a network of elite military-civilian units specializing in human intelligence and fifth-column activities. The decentralized organization traced its origins to a force created in 1904 by Japanese intelligence officer Akashi Motojiro to conduct covert operations against the Russian Empire. It was reestablished in 1919 as Tokyo pursued plans for expansion on the Asian mainland.

Lt. Col. Amano Isamu, who headed the Tokumu Kikan branch in Hailar, ordered the killing of 43 people on August 9, 1945, with Japanese-commanded local police assisting in the operation.

Three weeks later, after the occupation regime collapsed, local residents exhumed the bodies so they could bury their relatives. SMERSH investigators established that many of those killed were Soviet citizens living in Hailar.

What evidence was found in Hailar?

The complete report assembled by Maj. Gen. Pyotr Popov, the SMERSH commander in Hailar, contained more than 100 pages of documents as well as a collection of photographs.

The FSB has declassified and published around 20% of the material, including excerpts from a medical examiner’s report, transcripts of interviews with witnesses and suspects, a description of the secret prison, and updates Popov sent to Moscow as the investigation proceeded.

Who were the victims?

According to the documents, Soviet forces learned about two mass graves exhumed by locals, while 19 bodies were still awaiting burial, allowing investigators to conduct proper post-mortem examinations. All of those killed were identified as ethnic Russians and Jews except for one Mongol man. 

Messages left on the walls of prison cells provide a glimpse into the people held by the Tokumu Kikan. Many of the inscriptions simply contain victims’ names, including one reading ‘Gosha K’. Others include biographical details, dates of imprisonment, and complaints about torture, malnutrition, and deaths inside the prison.

A young man named Vinokhodov left a farewell message saying, “dying for the cause, I feel some relief,” suggesting that he sympathized with the Soviet Union.

How did the Japanese kill the prisoners?

The prisoners were killed by clean beheading carried out by a professional’s strong hand, the forensic report said. The evidence suggests that at least one of the executioners was an accomplished swordsman.

The documents state that several victims were not completely decapitated, with their heads left attached to their bodies by skin at the throat. Although Soviet investigators did not comment on this, it has significance in Japanese cultural tradition.

Traditional seppuku, a ceremonial form of self-disembowelment that also served as a form of capital punishment among the samurai class, was normally carried out with the assistance of a second person. The assistant would cut off the dying person’s head to end the suffering. A technically difficult cut that left the head partly attached was regarded as evidence of exceptional swordsmanship and was intended to preserve the dignity of the person being executed.

Seppuku was long outlawed by 1945, however, and it is highly unlikely that an Imperial Japanese officer intended to grant his prisoners an honorable death. A more plausible explanation is that the executioner was showing off.

One notorious episode during the Nanking massacre in 1937 involved two Japanese officers who were reported to have competed to see who could kill 100 people with a sword first. Contemporary Japanese newspapers portrayed the victims as battlefield combatants, although researchers have concluded that they were almost certainly prisoners of war.

What happened to the perpetrators?

In November 1945, a Soviet military tribunal sentenced Japanese military and police personnel involved in the mass arrests and executions in Hailar to death. Tokumu Kikan chief Amano and Maj. Gen. Haseki Kageyama, the head of the provincial gendarmerie, were among those executed by firing squad.

Their fate contrasted with that of many other Japanese officers, including Tokumu Kikan alumni, who were later incorporated into the US-backed postwar order. Former enemies, including individuals implicated in war crimes, offered their knowledge and experience to Washington as the Cold War began.

One example was Imperial Japanese spymaster Arisue Seizo. Gen. Charles Willoughby, who headed US military intelligence under Gen. Douglas MacArthur, recruited Arisue and similar figures to kickstart anti-Communist operations in Asia.

Why did Soviet citizens live in a hostile nation?

Russia became heavily involved in the development of Manchuria in the late 19th century as it sought greater access to Chinese markets. The Russian defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and the collapse of the Russian Empire during World War I, however, sharply reduced the country’s influence in the Far East.

Harbin, one of the main centers of Russian settlement in Manchuria, became a magnet both for people who wanted nothing to do with the new Soviet state and for those seeking to actively undermine it. Some younger Russian emigres in Manchuria came to believe that fascism could provide a path to restoring Russia, creating an organization that at its peak in the 1930s was estimated to have around 20,000 members.

The Russian community in Manchuria nevertheless remained sharply divided over the Soviet Union. According to historian Sergey Smirnov, around 120,000 people in the region in the 1920s were either Soviet citizens or sympathized with the new state, while more than 100,000 held opposing views.

The divide is also reflected in the newly released documents, which identify a “white emigree” surnamed Kaevich as a member of the Japanese police who took part in the Hailar massacre.

Where are the Hailar massacre archives?

The archives are held by three separate institutions. 

The Central Archives of the Federal Security Service (CA FSB) holds interrogation transcripts, personal files and and background declarations of Japanese officers and medical personnel.

The Russian State Military Archive (RGVA) stores operational military records of the Soviet Red Army’s trans-Baikal offensive into Manchuria in August 1945.

The State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) stores the official state records, evidence compilations, and international legal paperwork regarding the 12 primary Japanese war criminals prosecuted by the Soviet Union for crimes against humanity in Northeast China.

The British government’s plan to turn prison laundries and other unused spaces into cells will not solve the country’s jail overcrowding crisis, former MP Andrew Bridgen has told RT.

The Ministry of Justice has fast-tracked £110 million ($149 million) from existing budgets for the conversions, saying this week it could create between 200 and 900 additional places.

The adult male prison estate is operating at more than 98% capacity, with around 1,500 places reportedly available at the start of September, the lowest level this year.

Speaking to RT on Wednesday, Bridgen said that creating more space would not address the system’s deeper problems. “Quite honestly, we need a root and branch reform of these institutions,” he said.

Bridgen blamed years of chronic underfunding for worsening conditions, saying that “overcrowding is causing huge problems.” Around 30 people a day are arrested over social-media posts and that some 1,200 are imprisoned each year, he said.

He also accused the authorities of “two-tier policing,” saying: “If you call someone a pedophile, you’ll probably go to prison. But if you actually are a pedophile, it would appear the judicial system doesn’t put you in prison.”

With jails close to full, ministers have retained an early-release program due to begin in October. However, around 4,500 inmates are expected to be set free in ten stages through June 2027, down from approximately 6,000 under the original proposal.

The reduction followed a public outcry over the plan, prompting British Prime Minister Andy Burnham to tighten the eligibility rules and bar prisoners convicted of manslaughter, rape, grooming, serious child sex offenses, indecent assault, and death by dangerous driving.

The policy follows an emergency measure introduced in September 2024 that allowed eligible inmates to leave after serving 40% of their sentences, rather than half.

The Ministry projects that the prison population in England and Wales could rise from 87,332 in November 2025 to between 98,000 and 103,600 by March 2030.

When you’ve burned all your bridges, go and burn some more.

That seems to be the unspoken strategy of Berlin’s policy toward Moscow, which is the only plausible interpretation of Germany’s fresh efforts to damage its already abysmal relationship with Russia. Not that they have come as a surprise. Since the odd drone incident at the Leipzig/Halle airport at the beginning of August, the German political establishment and its always compliant mainstream media have been preparing the ground for explicitly blaming Moscow.

The German public has been subject to what looks like a systematic campaign of escalating innuendo for almost a month. The story emerging from this barrage of unfounded claims and speculation masquerading as self-evident certainty has been changing: the role of an airport bus driver merely discovering the drone sitting quietly on the tarmac next to an extra-large Ukrainian transport plane or kicking it to the ground with a Bruce-Lee-type flying kick, as initially claimed, has remained unclear and contradictory. Initial reports of another drone colliding with a plane in flight had to be retracted when traces of birds became too obvious.

Now, clearly, the time has come to make things official. The German government, represented by Minister of the Interior Alexander Dobrindt and foreign policy chief Johann Wadephul, has blamed the drone incident on Russian intelligence services and announced retaliation measures, such as closing a consulate and cultural center in Berlin, even more travel restrictions and individual sanctions on Russians, and fresh attempts to go after Russian ships by, in effect, piracy. The Russian ambassador has been called in, various EU governments, the EU commission, and NATO – though not the US – have made a grand show out of supporting Germany.

Moscow has roundly rejected Berlin’s accusations, called in the German chargé d’affaires, and promised a symmetric response to Germany’s actions. President Vladimir Putin has plausibly described them as a “grave mistake” and, equally plausibly, surmised that it is due mainly to attempts to shape elections and distract from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s historically sensational unpopularity.

What is even worse, however, is that no proof has been presented of Russian involvement. It is true that after the announcement of Berlin’s official blame game, conveniently timed leaks to the mainstream media have conveyed unsubstantiated claims about two holders of Russian passports being involved. But this conspicuous combination of a specific accusation presented without evidence and clearly coordinated leaks merely hinting at it makes the impression of manipulation even worse.

Not to speak of the fact that these passports – if they exist and if they actually belong to real perpetrators – are extremely flimsy and, frankly, bizarre pieces of evidence: Why would Russian intelligence services make sure their agents carry Russian passports? If anyone had an interest in making it that easy to point fingers at Moscow it would surely be either Ukraine, which has a vile record in terrorist false flag operations, lying, and subterfuge of the worst sort. For Kiev, it would have been ideal to place a drone that creates hysteria in Berlin but fails to destroy an asset as valuable and rare as the AN-124 Condor transport aircraft.

The fact that the West in general and Germany in particular already has a long record of proven false alarms about Russian drones has also made no difference. As the Germans say, where there’s a will, there’s a way. And the will to deepen tensions with Russia is boundless among the current German establishment.

Speaking of which, it is impossible not to be stunned by the difference between Berlin’s treatment of a devastating terror attack which did actually work and one that either failed or was staged to begin with: We now know that Ukraine – most likely with the help of one or more NATO states – committed the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline attack, that is the single worst sabotage of postwar Germany’s vital infrastructure, economy, and environment while blaming Russia.

After the Leipzig/Halle incident it has taken less than a month to come to sweeping conclusions and reach for strong retaliatory measures while not presenting evidence. What a contrast. Clearly, those commentators are right who guess that Berlin’s newfound capacity for rapid over-reaction is rooted in several aggressive policy agendas: the current push to turn the German foreign intelligence service BND into an instrument of sabotage paramilitary operations; the new militarism which aims to build the most powerful conventional army in Europe and is explicitly targeting Moscow, and, last but not least, turning hatred and fear of Russia into a distraction in a country in deep economic crisis.

If Berlin is not preparing for open war with Russia, it is certainly doing its best to leave precisely that impression. Many Germans do not agree with this road-to-perdition course. For all of Europe’s sake, let’s hope that they will finally manage to change it.

In a thought-provoking recent column, “The Age of Endarkenment,” the distinguished Brazilian economist Paulo Nogueira Batista examines the relative political decline of the collective West and the inability of its leading powers to respond constructively to the most complex challenges of our time.

He raises an important question, asking what can other leading nations, including his native Brazil, do in response to the increasingly destructive behavior of the architects of the modern international order?

One answer is greater cooperation among themselves, but this requires understanding what can bind together states with very different cultures and interests, and what gives their joint initiatives a genuine competitive advantages and the most important example is undoubtedly BRICS.

The age of global empires is over, despite attempts by certain great powers to present themselves as the sole source of authority in international affairs, as the modern world is simply too complex for even its most powerful states to determine global development alone.

Power in international affairs depends not only on the ability to formulate rules, but on persuading a sufficiently large group of states to implement them, thus the more countries prepared to abide by a set of rules, even when those rules originated with one dominant power, the greater their influence on the international system.

This raises an old but increasingly important question, why do states cooperate?

During the supposedly golden age of international organizations under the Liberal World Order, the answer appeared relatively straightforward. Western alliances existed to preserve arrangements favorable to their members, but today the same question must be asked of the emerging organizations of the non-Western world.

The counter-offensive by the United States and Europe against the erosion of their international position may often appear chaotic, yet behind it lies something more durable than formal bloc discipline: a shared worldview and common political values. Those seeking a more just international order must therefore understand both the strengths and weaknesses of the institutions they have created.

Traditionally, two factors transform common interests into sustained cooperation, and those are geography and shared values.

This also produced Europe’s strong tradition of alliances, something largely absent from Asian history and understood rather differently in Russia.

Asian powers were historically separated by enormous distances, so formal alliances made less sense when states couldn’t realistically come to one another’s aid in time. Russia, meanwhile, developed a strategic culture based primarily on surviving by its own resources, meaning alliances therefore tended to be regarded as a choice carrying serious moral obligations rather than an unavoidable necessity.

Europe developed differently, as centuries of interaction within a common space eventually produced a coherent political civilization. European states became connected not simply by interests but by ideas, and those who argue that “the West” is as much an idea as a geographical category therefore have a strong case.

But geography matters principally because it can help create this civilizational commonality and once that commonality exists, geographical proximity becomes much less important.

Nobody seriously argues, for example, that the effectiveness of the Five Eyes intelligence partnership comes from Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the US occupying a convenient geographical space. They plainly don’t, but they cooperate effectively because they share a language, political culture and historical experience.

The same is true of the G7, whose influence has little to do with its members being scattered across North America, Europe and Asia, and this brings us to BRICS.

BRICS is a big deal, first, because it has become the first serious non-Western alternative in the debate over who sets the rules of international affairs and how those rules should operate.

Virtually every major institution of modern global governance, beginning with the United Nations, emerged from a political and intellectual order overwhelmingly shaped by Western powers. BRICS is different and its only significant intellectual debt to the West is its acronym, coined by a Western economist in 2001, but what subsequently emerged from that label was something quite different.

For the first time in centuries, a major international political project has developed largely outside the West’s intellectual and institutional leadership.

Second, BRICS was built around three of the most important powers of the non-Western world, with Russia, India and China joined by Brazil, South America’s largest country.

The individual objectives of these states are less important than the fact of their cooperation, but simply bringing Russia, China and India into a room to discuss common international objectives without Western participation represented something genuinely new. History provides surprisingly few examples of major powers cooperating institutionally for purposes other than defeating a common military enemy.

BRICS succeeded because it reflected this change, so it was, in political terms, an idea whose time had come, but none of this success depended primarily on having members on every continent.

BRICS was founded instead on a more important proposition, that the distortions of an international order created and dominated by Western states might be corrected peacefully through cooperation among major non-Western powers.

Turning that proposition into a coherent strategy is now the real task facing intellectuals and policymakers across the BRICS countries.

The future of BRICS will therefore depend much less on filling geographical gaps on the world map than on strengthening its intellectual foundations. It needs an idea of international order that its members can defend and humanity can recognize as a credible alternative.

Where its supporters happen to sit on the globe is secondary, instead what matters is whether they possess an idea worth promoting, and the political strength to defend it.

This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team

AI is advancing faster than governments can regulate it and could widen global inequality, making international cooperation essential to managing its development, experts at the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) warned.

The 11th EEF takes place September 1-4 in Vladivostok, Russia, focusing on investment, the development of the country’s Far East, and economic cooperation across the Asia-Pacific.

At Wednesday’s ‘Future of AI Governance’ session, speakers discussed how to make the technology safe and trustworthy.

“AI capabilities are advancing far faster and becoming far more powerful than governments can understand, assess and control,” Svetlana Lukash, the deputy head of Russia’s Presidential Experts’ Directorate, said.

Lukash told RT on the sidelines of the EEF that the international community must agree on how to align AI with human values, principles, and knowledge. She said BRICS could develop a common approach, but broader cooperation is needed. “AI knows no borders,” she said. “If geopolitical disagreements did not stand in the way and the whole world could reach an agreement, it would be much more effective.”

Chezka Raumae Gonzales, the founder of Philippine Blockchain Week, said AI has already changed the world. The key questions, she argued, are “who would shape its future, who would benefit and who would be responsible if something went wrong.”

Beyond regulation, participants focused on who would have access to the benefits of AI. Natalya Mochu, the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) regional director for the CIS, warned that the technological gap between countries could become insurmountable without action. The ITU estimated in 2025 that 6 billion people were online, while 2.2 billion remained without internet access.

AI can boost efficiency in science, medicine, and manufacturing, but is already reshaping employment and incomes, Jeffrey Sachs, the president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, said. “Wealth could become concentrated among companies controlling AI patents and models,” he warned.

China plans to provide developing countries with 5,000 AI training opportunities over five years, Zhang Weiwei, the director of the China Institute at Fudan University, told the panel. Beijing also intends to establish international cooperation centers and help 30 countries deploy an AI-powered weather-warning system, he said. The country generates “more electricity than the US, the EU, and Japan combined,” leaving it well positioned to expand AI development, Zhang said.

Mud and water have almost completely blocked hydropower tunnels in Nepal’s flood-hit north, complicating efforts to reach the more than 600 workers feared trapped underground, Prime Minister Balendra Shah has told parliament.

Shah said the floodwaters had carried large amounts of mud and soil into the tunnels in the Bhote Koshi-Trishuli corridor last week, creating an unusual and difficult rescue environment. Nearly 4,000 people remain missing in the country as authorities continue search and rescue efforts eight days after the floods.

The death toll from the flood is now 1,114, the country’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA) said on Wednesday. Nearly 12,000 people have been rescued to date.

Across Nepal, families are starting to carry out symbolic funerals as hopes dim for the retrieval of the remains of their loved ones.

Nepalese authorities are also carrying out mass burials of unidentified flood victims as morgues run out of space. The bodies are being buried with identification markers, after collecting DNA samples, to facilitate their future identification.

The total morgue capacity in the Himalayan nation is only 350.

Rescue teams need the weather to improve and the mud to dry sufficiently before stable space can be created for personnel and equipment, Shah said.

He also said the tunnels offered limited space to deploy the heavy equipment needed to remove the mud and rocks.

The prime minister’s comments come as some families of those believed trapped in the tunnels question delays in the rescue effort.

At the 60-megawatt Upper Trishuli-3A project, 42 people are believed to be trapped inside an underground powerhouse, while more than 557 people remain missing from the Upper Trishuli-1 project.

Upper Trishuli-1 Managing Director Giriraj Adhikari said the developer’s technical team should have been mobilized from the outset but joined the effort only on Monday, Kathmandu Post reported. At the Langtang Khola project, promoter Vijay Mohan Bhattarai said only one company representative had been allowed at the site until Monday.

Nepal has approached the board of the UN-backed Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, seeking financial assistance for the damages from the flood, reports said. Nepalese Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal said the aid should be treated as “moral liability” and “not charity.”

”The major industrial emitters – such as China, which is the world’s top emitter, the United States at number two, and India at number three – have a historical responsibility to compensate vulnerable nations like Nepal.”

Recently, Russian officials and state media have been deliberately using the toponym ‘Britain’ instead of ‘Great Britain’ and ‘United Kingdom’ to refer to the nation that, just a few decades ago, was known as 'the empire on which the sun never sets'. Speaking at a press conference dedicated to reviewing the results of Russian diplomacy in 2025, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on this rhetorical innovation. “No offense meant, but I think that this is what it should be called, because Great Britain is the only example when a country calls itself great. Another example was the Great Libyan Jamahiriya, but that country is no more,” Lavrov said. 

Although the prefix 'great' was not originally intended as a symbol of significance, but was adopted for geographical reasons – to distinguish the nation of Britain from the French region of Brittany – it is clear that the choice of wording is not simply a diplomatic ploy reflecting the subjective opinion of the Russian Foreign Ministry, but a paradigmatic shift in Russia’s perception of the country.

Taking into account the completion of the diplomatic mission of Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin and the lack of an immediate successor, the Times has spread rumors about a possible downgrade in diplomatic relations between Moscow and London. The Russian Foreign Ministry emphasized that the quality of relations is already at an all-time low due to London’s conduct, and British Ambassador to Russia Nigel Casey expressed hope for the current status quo to be maintained; however, it is absolutely clear that the dialogue between the two nuclear powers is on the brink of collapse.

A possible downgrade in diplomatic relations doesn’t simply mean recalling the ambassador and entrusting the mission to a lower-ranking diplomat known as ‘chargé d’affaires’; it is a calculated political signal of dissatisfaction with the foreign policy of the other side that reduces relations to a bare minimum. Worse still, this could be followed by a complete rupture of diplomatic relations, which typically occurs at the start of a direct military confrontation.

Therefore, to understand whether a further deterioration of the situation, fraught with the most serious consequences for global politics, should be expected, it seems logical to ask two classic questions found in both British and Russian literature: “Who is to blame?” and “What is to be done?”

Back in the mid-19th century, British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, attempting to convey the idea that the country’s foreign policy should be based not on personal sympathies but on the cynical defense of its own national interests, formulated London’s subsequent foreign policy doctrine, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” This formula most accurately captures the essence of British policy in regard to Russia.

Despite ad hoc agreements between the two countries in the 16th century (e.g., Richard Chancellor’s expedition in 1553) and a military alliance during the First and Second World Wars (the Northern Convoys are usually considered the apogee of this military brotherhood), relations between the two countries were never truly allied, as the British monarchy viewed Russia (regardless of its political system) as a geopolitical adversary. This sentiment was reflected in the popular Russian saying, “The Englishwoman is up to no good!”

At the time of the Russian Empire, Great Britain was the leading world power, and was responsible for assembling a hostile anti-Russia coalition during the Crimean War (1853-1855) and systematically pursuing a policy of weakening Russian influence in Central Asia (which birthed the geopolitical term ‘The Great Game’). In the period between the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, London did everything in its power to deepen the political crisis in Russia.

First, King George V refused to fulfill the request of his relative, Nicholas II, for political asylum, which resulted in the execution of the Russian royal family; and then he took a direct part in the military intervention during the Russian Civil War.  As a result, British forces were present in various corners of Russia: in the north (Murmansk and Arkhangelsk), in the Black Sea region (Odessa, Crimea, and Novorossiysk), in the Caucasus (from Batumi to Baku), and even in Central Asia (in Turkmenistan and along the Central Asian Railway).

Finally, during the Soviet era, then-British Prime Minister Winston Churchill delivered his famous Fulton Speech, marking the beginning of the Cold War following his government’s failure to implement Operation Unthinkable, which envisioned a massive attack on the Soviet armed forces.

It would suffice to recall how in April 2022, then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called on Russia to withdraw its troops from Kiev, giving Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky the opportunity to both preserve his shaky power and regroup forces with the goal of transforming the Special Military Operation into a protracted military conflict. Current British Prime Minister Andy Burnham continues his predecessor’s work.

Despite initially promising to focus on resolving the country’s many domestic problems, he is spending his time and money lobbying for more military aid for Kiev and coordinating the illegal detention of the vessels of the so-called ‘shadow fleet’ in international waters.

“What is to be done?” 

The context in which relations between London and Moscow are currently developing is key to understanding Russia’s unusually harsh diplomatic reaction to Britain’s actions and the rhetorical changes concerning its official name. What many in the UK perceived as an attempt to downgrade the country’s status in global affairs is, in fact, a highly calibrated reaction, carried out in the form of ‘political trolling’, the purpose of which is to expose the dangerous role played by the UK in modern world politics.

The UK has learned to achieve its strategic goals in clashes with more powerful opponents by exploiting its reputation as an ‘underdog’ –  in other words, taking advantage of an adversary’s underestimation of its potential, it is capable of prevailing over a clearly stronger adversary at an opportune moment.

However, today, it is the UK  that plays a key role in the strategy of keeping US President Donald Trump within the limits of 'transatlantic solidarity', preventing the American president from fulfilling those campaign promises that run counter to the interests of the 'collective West' – such as the annexation of Greenland or the diplomatic settlement of the Ukraine conflict, which would automatically unblock Russia-US trade relations.

Following Brexit in 2015, London took advantage of the general underestimation of its position in global affairs and embraced the concept of ‘Global Britain’ which envisions, among other things, a battle for its core geopolitical interests not only with adversaries (i.e., Russia or China) but also with allies, such as the US and the EU.

Although the British Empire no longer exists, this in no way affects the infrastructure of its global influence, as the British Commonwealth of the mid-20th century has been replaced by the Commonwealth of Nations also headed by the British monarch. Moreover, ‘Commonwealth realms’ – i.e., sovereign and influential nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – continue to recognize the British monarch, King Charles III, as their head of state.

The King exercises his authority by means of appointed ‘governors general’. In this regard, is it any wonder that Canada – which has traditionally adhered to Washington’s foreign policy, reaping enormous profits from border trade – has suddenly fiercely reacted to Trump’s tariff restrictions and his initially humorous remarks about making Canada the “51st state of the US”? Canadian coffee shops even hastily rebranded ‘Americano’ to ‘Canadiano’ in protest against their neighbors. But is all this surprising given that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney previously held the position of Governor of the Bank of England? 

Just as all the banter and differences between Holmes and Dr. Watson did not stop these two self-sufficient individuals from successfully solving cases together, neither should a fierce reaction to mutual ‘political trolling’, the burden of previous grievances, or an unwillingness to jointly resolve certain issues stand in the way of diplomatic dialogue between Russia and the UK. Particularly since such dialogue will inevitably have to resume sooner or later in the face of the growing number of challenges and threats in the modern world.

The pro-Iranian Explosive Media Group has released a Lego-style AI animation showing a deadly US strike on a wedding in southern Iran that killed five civilians, including a child, according to the Iranian authorities.

The video emerged as the US resumed strikes on Iran on Tuesday, saying it was targeting Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) sites near the Strait of Hormuz over alleged threats to commercial shipping and US troops. Iran has since launched missile and drone strikes on US military facilities across the region.

The clip circulated on Iranian media on Wednesday along with footage from the scene in Kuhestak, Sirik County, Hormozgan Province, showing extensive damage to the residential building and debris scattered around the site. Iranian media described the attack as the US turning “a wedding in Sirik into mourning.”

USA attacked a wedding in Sirik and turned it into a mourning...

We will seek revenge https://t.co/psf3Egno2d pic.twitter.com/D6GJj2ZQjr

— Explosive Media (@ExplosiveMediaa) September 1, 2026

At least five people were killed and more than 60 wounded in the strike, many of them women and children, according to Iranian officials. A four-year-old and 16-year-old were among those killed.

Iran’s Red Crescent Society has called on the International Criminal Court to investigate the attack, saying the civilian nature of the site raises “serious concerns” under international humanitarian law. It said the strike could constitute a war crime and called for an independent and impartial investigation.

US Central Command spokesman Captain Tim Hawkins said the military is aware of reports of civilian casualties, adding that they originated in Iranian state media. “The US military never targets civilians,” he stated.

In a phone call with Fox News, Trump said Iran will be “totally wiped out” if it strikes back.

Iran subsequently announced its “punishing response,” claiming missile and drone attacks on US military facilities in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Erbil in Kurdistan Region, Iraq. The IRGC claimed that US personnel and military equipment were hit in some of the attacks.

Iranian-American Lego cartoonist Mahdi Hemmat, another creator whose animations have gone viral, told RT earlier this year that this content helps Tehran challenge Washington’s narrative. America’s “old ‘believe what we say’ approach no longer works,” he said, because “reality is streaming live.”

Hemmat described Iran’s online strategy as “low cost, high impact,” saying content produced by independent creators could force “billion-dollar media empires to play defense.” He said his animations are based on “verifiable events anyone can deep dive into.”

The white American mother accused of murdering her three young children would have instantly been “painted a criminal” had she been African-American, former US congressional attorney and women’s rights advocate Reese Everson has claimed in an interview with RT on Tuesday.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense has not denied that she strangled her three children in January 2023. Her lawyers have argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and was therefore not criminally responsible for her actions.

According to Everson, Clancy’s identity as a white educated woman and nurse affected how her actions were viewed.

”The unspoken sentences is that no healthy, normal white American woman would do this. So only someone totally out of their mind and in a psychotic breakdown could possibly do something of this magnitude,” she claimed, adding that “class and race have already separated this woman, Ms. Clancy, from her actions… If she were African-American, more than likely she’d be painted as a criminal.“

Prosecutors have argued that Clancy was lucid when she sent her husband away to pick up takeout, and strangled her daughter Cora, five, her son Dawson, three, and eight-month-old son Callan while he was away. Clancy then attempted suicide by jumping from a second-story window and remains paralyzed from the waist down.

Jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision on Tuesday, ending their fourth day of deliberations without a verdict.

The case has drawn national attention and divided public opinion, with both supporters and detractors weighing in.

Watch the full interview with Reese Everson below.

Meta’s multibillion-dollar settlement with US states over alleged harm to children on social media does not go far enough, a former member of its safety team has told Politico.

The agreement, announced last week during a federal trial, resolved claims by California and 28 other states that Meta deliberately designed its Facebook and Instagram platforms to keep minors hooked and misled the public about the risks. It provides for payments of up to $17 billion and imposes new restrictions on users under 18.

Arturo Bejar, a former Facebook safety employee and key witness in the case, said in an interview published on Monday that he had spoken to around 40 bereaved parents and that social media had played a meaningful role in their children’s deaths. “These changes would not have saved one of those lives if they had been in place,” he said.

“Meta gets to define harm as whatever they define it as, and they get to put it in terms of the things they’re already doing,” Bejar said.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said further action was needed, but added that the agreement “provides important protections” for children and teenagers.

Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the settlement resulted from years of discussions with state attorneys general. The company has denied wrongdoing throughout the case, insisting that it has worked to protect children and teenagers online. It has also rejected the idea that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately made addictive, arguing that “social media addiction” is not even a recognized psychiatric condition.

The company continues to face thousands of separate lawsuits over alleged harm to young users. Also last month the European Commission found Meta in breach of its Digital Services Act (DSA), over the “addictive design of Instagram and Facebook.” Meta is currently reviewing the EU’s case files and drafting its formal legal response.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek will be remembered less for its formal group photo than for the leaders in attendance – and the political significance of bringing them together. Seated around the same table were Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the leaders of Central Asian nations, Iran, Pakistan, and Belarus. They were joined for the expanded session by leaders of partner countries, including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as well as representatives of international organizations, among them UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

This was no longer simply a regional gathering focused on security in Central Asia. The SCO’s ten member states now cover roughly a quarter of the world’s landmass, account for more than 42% of its population, and generate over 23% of global GDP. In other words, nearly half of humanity was represented in Bishkek. The simultaneous presence of the leaders of Russia, China, and India was especially significant: They represent the world’s largest country by area, its second-largest economy, and its most populous nation. Together with the SCO’s other members, they form a demographic, resource, industrial, and political bloc without which any serious discussion of reshaping the international order is now impossible.

That is why the summit in Kyrgyzstan should be seen as more than another entry on the diplomatic calendar. It demonstrated that multipolarity is no longer an abstract formula but is beginning to acquire a clear institutional shape. The SCO is one of the platforms where a new balance of power is emerging not only in speeches and declarations, but in practice – through regular meetings between leaders, security coordination, settlements in national currencies, new transportation corridors, energy cooperation, and the gradual development of independent mechanisms for growth.

Over the past quarter-century, the SCO has evolved from a confidence-building mechanism along the former Soviet-Chinese border into the largest association in Greater Eurasia. Its original agenda – combating terrorism, separatism, and extremism – remains in place, but it is no longer the organization’s sole focus. Trade, energy, transportation, digitalization, food security, humanitarian exchanges, and the reform of international institutions have all been added to the list.

The Bishkek summit cemented that evolution. The leaders adopted the Bishkek Declaration along with 27 other documents. The package included decisions on responding to emerging security challenges, combating drug trafficking, developing ports and logistics hubs, nuclear safety, energy, and emergency response. The SCO also introduced a single partner status, merging the previously separate categories of observer state and dialogue partner. On the surface, this may look like an administrative reform. Its political significance, however, is much broader: The organization is streamlining its external framework and preparing for more systematic engagement with countries that want to cooperate without immediately becoming full members.

The practical side of multipolarity is also visible in the economic sphere. Putin said national currencies now account for more than 98% of Russia’s settlements with other SCO countries. This does not yet amount to a common currency or a unified financial system, but it points to a sustained trend: The organization’s members are seeking to reduce their mutual trade’s dependence on external payment infrastructure. Discussions about an SCO Development Bank, new investment instruments, and the integration of Eurasian transportation routes are part of the same effort.

SCO Plus: Expanding without endlessly adding members

The defining political development of the Bishkek summit was the consolidation of the SCO Plus format. The first summit-level meeting under that name was held in Astana in 2024. In Bishkek, it moved beyond the experimental stage and became a distinct element of the summit itself. Representatives of 17 countries and six international organizations took part in the SCO and SCO Plus events. The expanded session focused on the role of the United Nations and the SCO countries’ contribution to building a fair multipolar world order.

The logic closely resembles that of BRICS Plus. In both cases, the goal is to build a broad circle of partners around a permanent core. This model allows the organization to expand its geographic reach without turning the admission of new members into an endless process or overburdening its decision-making machinery. Countries can participate in discussions of major issues, advance economic and political initiatives, and develop ties with members while retaining their freedom of maneuver.

There is, however, a difference between the two formats. BRICS Plus is primarily focused on the global economy, development, and reform of international financial governance. SCO Plus has emerged from a Eurasian agenda centered on security, transportation connectivity, and political dialogue. Over time, the two mechanisms could complement one another: BRICS can provide the broader global framework, while the SCO builds a dense network of cooperation across Greater Eurasia.

This is one of the defining features of the emerging multipolar system. It does not necessarily mean replacing the old closed camp with a new one. Rather, it is a system of overlapping formats in which countries can cooperate on some issues while disagreeing on others. SCO Plus is becoming the institutional expression of precisely that model.

Iran, Pakistan, and Türkiye: The SCO’s new geography

The presence of Iran, Pakistan, and Türkiye gives the SCO a significance that extends far beyond Central Asia. Their respective statuses, however, differ – and that distinction matters. Iran and Pakistan are full members: Islamabad joined alongside India in 2017, while Tehran completed the accession process in 2023. Türkiye participates in the SCO’s broader orbit as a partner.

The admission of Iran and Pakistan redrew the organization’s political map. It brought South Asia, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East directly into the SCO’s purview. At the same time, it brought together countries with serious disagreements of their own. That complicates efforts to forge a common position, but it also makes the organization more valuable. Dialogue is needed most not by those who already agree, but by those whose interests regularly collide.

In the Bishkek Declaration, the participants reaffirmed their support for Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, condemned the military strikes on Iranian territory, and called for a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict. This was an important outcome for Tehran. Iran’s SCO membership has acquired practical value by allowing the country to place its own security on the collective political agenda of a major Eurasian organization.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s remarks at the SCO Plus session captured the central meaning of the gathering. The emerging order, he argued, must not amount to replacing one center of hegemony with another. Multipolarity can be fair only if it rests on sovereign equality, multilateralism, and international law. This is an important caveat: Simply increasing the number of power centers does not automatically make the international system more stable. It also requires rules, representative institutions, and mechanisms for reconciling competing interests. Pezeshkian separately emphasized the potential of SCO Plus as a platform for shaping the future international order.

This also explains the criticism of the effectiveness of the UN and its Security Council voiced in Bishkek. SCO countries are not proposing that the United Nations be abandoned. On the contrary, they insist that it must retain its central role. But that role should be supported by updated representation that reflects the actual distribution of political, economic, and demographic weight in the world. Otherwise, the gap between the formal architecture of the mid-20th century and the realities of the 21st will only continue to widen.

Russia’s opportunity: A bridge, not an arbiter

For Russia, the Bishkek summit mattered not only because it reaffirmed the country’s place among Eurasia’s leading power centers. Moscow possesses a rare network of relationships that allows it to serve as a bridge between different groups within the SCO. Russia has a strategic partnership with China, a special and privileged partnership with India, stable ties with Pakistan, allied relations with the countries of Central Asia, a comprehensive strategic partnership with Iran, and an ongoing political dialogue with Türkiye.

The historical parallel is obvious. In 1966, Soviet mediation led to the signing of the Tashkent Declaration, which brought an end to the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. That experience cannot simply be transplanted into the present day, but it serves as a reminder that Moscow can be useful to both sides precisely because it maintains working relations with both New Delhi and Islamabad.

A similar approach could be applied to other flashpoints, from tensions surrounding Iran and security in the Persian Gulf to Afghanistan and border disputes in Asia. Russia’s contribution could be to translate the SCO’s general commitment to political and diplomatic conflict resolution into specific mechanisms: contact groups, expert consultations, communication channels between military officials and diplomats, joint threat assessments, and agreements to protect transportation and energy infrastructure.

The organization’s capabilities should not be overstated, however. The SCO is not a military-political bloc, does not impose alliance discipline, and brings together countries with very different concepts of security. The Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan remains unresolved, India and China continue to have border disputes, and the members’ positions on many international crises do not always align. Yet the SCO’s ability to keep these countries within a common negotiating framework is itself one of its most important assets.

The bottom line from Bishkek

The summit’s most important outcome was that the SCO has definitively moved beyond seeing itself solely as a regional security organization. The Bishkek Declaration, deeper financial and transportation cooperation, the new unified partner status, and the consolidation of the SCO Plus format are creating a broader framework – political, economic, and, most importantly, institutional.

An impressive geographic reach alone does not guarantee effectiveness. The SCO still needs to accelerate the development of project-financing mechanisms, give its new security centers substantive responsibilities, improve transportation links, and learn to play a more active role in de-escalating tensions among its own members. But the direction of travel is already clear.

Bishkek presented multipolarity not as a slogan but as a political reality. Russia, China, and India were in the same room; Iran and Pakistan participated as full members; Türkiye attended as a key partner in the expanded format. These countries do not constitute a unified bloc, nor do they seek to subsume their individual interests into a common line. But they are creating a space in which security, development, and global governance can be discussed without outside supervision or compulsory submission to a single center of power.

In this sense, SCO Plus is more than a successful adaptation of the BRICS model. It is a bid to build an open political framework around Greater Eurasia. If the organization can translate its demographic and economic scale into functioning institutions, platforms like this will shape not only the debate about a multipolar world, but also the way that world operates in practice.

Five years after the US withdrawal, Afghanistan is no longer a country at war in the way the world once knew it. The streets of Kabul are busy, markets are open, and the booms of airstrikes have faded away from villages that once shuddered under them. But the country that emerged from two decades of conflict is also more isolated, poorer, and firmly under Taliban rule.

RT India’s head of news, Runjhun Sharma, travels beyond Kabul to see what the new Afghanistan looks like on the ground – seen through the eyes of the people who survived the war, the farmers adapting to sweeping Taliban restrictions, and officials trying to convince the world that the country deserves recognition.

One of the most haunting encounters in the documentary comes in a village near a former US base, where Mohammed Saabr returns to the remains of his home and recounts losing seven members of his family in an American military operation. For families like his, the war may have ended, but it is hardly history.

Sharma and her team also follow Taliban officials into former poppy-growing areas near the Pakistan border. Afghanistan’s once vast opium economy has sharply contracted under the Taliban ban – something that years of American military operations could not achieve. It’s something the movement presents as a major achievement.

Farmers, however, describe the other side of that change: Crops that replaced poppy bring in far less money at a time when poverty and hunger are already widespread.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has outlined Russia’s accelerating battlefield gains in Ukraine, denounced Kiev’s increasingly desperate threats to civilian airlines as “state terrorism,” and warned that UK military facilities on Ukrainian soil would be legitimate targets.

Speaking to reporters in Bishkek, Putin also addressed Russian strikes on ships carrying weapons to Ukraine, contact with US intelligence and Trump’s envoys, relations with Germany, and the West’s “sharks of imperialism.”

Here are the key takeaways:

‘The enemy will crumble’

Putin said Ukrainian forces are steadily losing ground, while cautioning against predicting when the decisive turning point will come, as “war is cruel and difficult to predict.”

Russian troops are not merely advancing but “increasing the pace of the offensive,” he said, giving a brief rundown of developments across the front. Putin said Russian forces are approaching Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, and Druzhkovka, while claiming that around 5,000 Ukrainian troops have been encircled near the Krasnooskolskoye Reservoir. He also reported advances in Zaporozhye Region and toward Sumy.

“I have no doubt that the enemy will crumble. The question of timing is always very complicated.”

He also rejected proposals to freeze the conflict along the current front line.

“We don’t want to freeze it. We want to end the war and achieve a lasting, absolute peace – both in Ukraine and in Europe.”

‘No negotiations with terrorists’

Asked about Vladimir Zelensky’s threat to civilian airlines using Russian airspace, Putin said the remarks amount to “a bid for state terrorism,” contrasting them with Kiev’s calls for “negotiations and personal meetings.”

Asked whether Ukrainian political and military leaders could become targets, Putin said Russia has so far refrained from this because it may ultimately need people on the Ukrainian side to negotiate with.

“This is a bid for terrorism; it is not yet a transition to terrorism. If it comes to that, we will see how to respond. We will find the tools.”

‘They hit ours – they’ll get an answer’

Putin said the Russian military has been ordered to prepare “massive strikes” against Ukrainian energy facilities in response to attacks on Russian civilian and fuel infrastructure. Ukrainian drones once again attempted overnight to penetrate the air defenses of Moscow and St. Petersburg and strike three Russian oil refineries, but the attacks were repelled, according to the president.

“They hit ours – they’ll get an answer. That’s roughly how things stand.”

Putin also said a recent decree allowing temporary state management of poorly protected critical infrastructure was intended to force private companies and state agencies to cooperate more closely on defense against drone attacks, rejecting suggestions that it amounts to nationalization.

‘Kiev opened Pandora’s box’

Putin stressed that Russia has not attacked Ukrainian shipping at random, but only targeted vessels that bring weapons and ammunition into Ukraine, arguing that the secondary explosions following the attacks confirmed the nature of their cargoes.

The president said Russia expanded its maritime response after Zelensky launched his much-touted 40-day campaign against the Russian economy and logistics. According to Putin, Kiev failed to inflict any “critical damage” but hit around 100 vessels and killed several sailors, including foreign nationals.

“You yourselves opened Pandora’s box – now take what comes.”

Putin noted that the original Black Sea grain initiative was promoted as being essential to averting hunger in developing countries, particularly in Africa – yet only around 0.2% of Ukrainian grain exported under the arrangement reached developing markets, while most went to European countries.

Putin dismissed the idea that contact between Russian and American intelligence chiefs is unusual, noting that channels remained open even during the Cold War. He singled out Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, describing the Trump confidants as sincere interlocutors who have the US president’s trust.

“Mr. Kushner and Witkoff are always welcome guests here, and we work with them with pleasure.”

Moscow is open to additional participants in Ukraine talks if they can make a real contribution, he added, but not diplomacy in “meaningless mode.”

British targets and a ‘military secret’

“Any military facilities in Ukraine are our legitimate targets – British or any others.”

Asked whether military-industrial facilities in the UK could become targets if British weapons are used to strike Russia, Putin declined to reveal Russia’s red lines.

“That’s a secret. A military secret.”

Germany just needs to ‘press the button’

Putin also rejected German accusations surrounding a drone incident in Leipzig, arguing that Berlin is invoking the threat of an “aggressive Russia” to distract from domestic political and economic problems.

Russia remains capable of supplying Germany with gas, he said.

“They only need to press the button.”

German leaders, however, lack the political will to do so because of US sanctions, Putin said, describing Berlin’s broader Russia policy as contrary to the interests of the German people.

Western ‘sharks of imperialism’

Putin was also asked to explain a recent analogy involving orcas, polar bears, and Russia’s confrontation with the West. He said comparing the Collective West to an orca would be unfair to the animal, describing killer whales as intelligent creatures. Instead, he revived an old Soviet expression: “the sharks of imperialism.”

“If someone tries to drag us down the food chain and gobble us up, they may get hit in the teeth. Russia is ready to do that, despite the rapidly growing appetites and teeth of these sharks.”

Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has suggested that opposition politician Yair Golan knew about the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack in advance, prompting him to demand an apology and threaten legal action.

Speaking to Israel’s Channel 14 on Monday, Netanyahu questioned how Golan, a retired IDF deputy chief of staff, had been able to reach southern Israel so quickly during the assault.

“When you’re a military man of such high rank, claiming that you fought on October 7, already early in the morning you were there, already dressed and ready at a very, very early hour when others didn’t know, such as the prime minister,” she said.

Golan accused Netanyahu of “spreading a false conspiracy” and “attempting to rewrite” the events. He threatened to sue for defamation unless she apologized within 24 hours and made a substantial donation to survivors of the Nova music festival massacre, where nearly a third of the roughly 1,200 people killed in the attack died.

The retired major general drove to the festival area during the Hamas assault and rescued several people fleeing the massacre, the Times of Israel reported at the time.

Golan is running in Israel’s October 27 election as leader of the left-wing Democrats. However, the opposition bloc’s frontrunner and Benjamin Netanyahu’s main political rival is considered to be Gadi Eisenkot of the centrist Honest! Party.

IDF investigations have identified a chain of systemic failures preceding October 7, including failures to act on intelligence about Hamas’s “Jericho Wall” attack plan. A broader inquiry into failures across Israel’s political and security leadership has yet to clear parliament amid disagreements over its independence, with critics arguing that the government should not have influence over an investigation into its own potential failings.

Canada has very few similarities with Iran – to Canada’s own shame.

Let’s leave aside the basic differences, such as location, demographics, weather, and cuisine, and focus on the essentials: Historically, Iran is old and firmly based on an ancient civilization; Canada, like the US, is young and a little accidental, a leftover of the British Empire in its settler-colonial-ethnic-cleansing variant.

In terms of religion, Iran is shaped by pious Shia Islam; Canada displays the flaccid mix of an emasculated Christmas-and-jingle-bells-only Christianity and aggressive anything-goes consumerist secularism typical of the contemporary West.

Geopolitically, Iran is a proud and victorious opponent of the US and Israel; Canada is a fairly ordinary vassal in the American empire.

Accordingly, Canada is deeply and proudly involved in the West’s proxy war against Russia by way of using up Ukraine. Indeed, the Canadian contribution is particularly ironic because it also serves a frenetic and powerful nationalist Ukrainian lobby, rooted in deliberately privileged fascist World War Two runaways and Cold War conspirators. Iran, on the other side, has long helped Russia and, for its efforts, been directly attacked by Kiev’s Zelensky regime. In return, Western sources claim, Moscow has been helping Tehran with its ongoing defense against the US and Israel.

Most importantly, Iran is a country on the side of elementary decency, fundamental human ethics, and international law and therefore against the genocide committed by Israel, the US, UK, Germany, and various other Western accomplices against the Palestinian nation. Canada – Israeli murders of Canadian citizens and some cheap and, in effect, empty gestures from Ottawa notwithstanding – has been, at the very best, yet another camp follower of the Western genocide coalition.

Of course, there are orders-of-magnitude differences between the Trump administration’s ‘Operation Economic Outcast’ against Tehran and the latest round of tariff and trash-talk launched against Canada.

The ‘Operation’ targeting Iran, according to its mastermind and cheerleader Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, aims to combine a naval blockade, intelligence gathering, “mapp[ing] every node, every facilitator and every network that Iran” is using to trade abroad, and wide-ranging secondary sanctions to, in Bessent words, “asphyxiat[e]” Tehran. The declared end goal is to “collapse” Iran by inflicting an “Economic D-Day,” as President Donald Trump has put it.

There’s no such intention to wage total economic war in the case of Canada. Regarding Ottawa, Washington has merely initiated a pressure campaign within its empire. Its goal is not absolute destruction but the punishment and coercion of a wayward vassal.

In essence, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Mark Carney has rejected Washington’s offer of a crudely disadvantageous and interfering trade deal, featuring, according to the Financial Times, “ludicrous” American demands.

Washington is striking at Ottawa with 50% tariffs on Canadian goods worth $20 billion, and, in return, Ottawa will give as good as it gets. That’s the plan at least. But while the Wall Street Journal reports that both sides are getting ready for a long fight, there also is still some time for last-minute off-ramps.

Things need to be kept in proportion: the new US tariffs would affect about 5% of Canadian exports to its overbearing southern neighbor. The Canadian retaliation would target about 6% of what the US sends north. Meanwhile, US rhetoric is surging. Trump has renamed Lake Ontario as Lake America and posted an extraordinarily odd AI-generated video about it, featuring (Canadian?) wild geese marching in lockstep under US flags and firing assault rifles. In Canada, for now at least, Carney’s hardline response is popular.

In short, what is really happening between Ottawa and Washington may well seem like a farce if compared to the state of things between Washington and Tehran. Unsurprisingly, the Iranian leadership has declared that it won’t budge. And why should it? It has already won two rounds of war against Washington. While its economy is certainly suffering, the American-Israeli aggression has, in effect, fully immunized Iranian society against any regime-change schemes.

Finally, Washington will not succeed in making key players submit to its secondary-sanctions blackmail. China, now the world’s great oil power, as The Economist concedes, and a crucial partner for Iran not merely in economic terms, has already made that much clear. Russia is very unlikely to be impressed either.

But take a step back and look at the picture as a whole. Here we are: the US is waging economic war – of different intensity – against both opponents and so-called allies. More importantly, it is meeting resistance in both cases. And most importantly, in both cases, there is no reason to assume that Washington will win. All of that is happening against a background of the US escalating its use of brute force: There is the fresh “deal” – really, steal – to siphon off 65 billion barrels of crude from the de facto US protectorate of post-Maduro Venezuela. Regarding the much-disturbed bond markets, meanwhile, Trump has openly threatened to use the US military to shape them to Washington’s advantage.

The idea is about as smart as trying to fix a microchip with a sledgehammer. But, with the US, that doesn’t mean it won’t be tried. For the red thread running through all of the above is a combination of slipping real power, escalating aggressiveness, and rising resistance from others. What makes this so dangerous is that Washington seems to have entirely lost the ability to realistically adjust its aims and demands to its declining capabilities. Think of it as a bully past his prime who is not only very violent but also not smart enough to see when being more flexible would be in his own best interest.

Iran has launched a new wave of missile and drone attacks on US military facilities in the Gulf region after Washington resumed strikes on southern Iran, killing civilians, including children. 

The US military began striking Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets near the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, saying the operation was launched in response to alleged Iranian attempts to attack commercial shipping and US troops in the region. President Donald Trump called the strikes “large and powerful” and warned Tehran that any retaliation would trigger an even harsher response. 

The Iranian authorities said a US strike hit a residential building in Kuhestak, Hormozgan Province, where a wedding was taking place. At least five civilians were killed, including a four-year-old child and a 16-year-old teenager, and dozens more were injured. 

Iran subsequently launched what it called a “punishing response,” claiming missile and drone attacks on US military facilities in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Erbil in Kurdistan Region, Iraq. The strikes targeted Camp Titin near Aqaba, Sheikh Isa Air Base in Bahrain, Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, and Al Dhafra and Al Minhad bases in the UAE. 

Jordan said 13 ballistic missiles entered its airspace during the latest attacks, with ten intercepted and three falling away from populated areas. 

The escalation follows an exchange of strikes over the weekend, after US forces hit Iran’s Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran retaliated with ballistic missiles and drones targeting US military positions in Jordan. Trump subsequently vowed to “hit Iran hard.” 

Washington has also stepped up economic pressure on Tehran, launching an “economic onslaught” and threatening to cut foreign institutions that deal with Iran off from the US dollar system. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday that new secondary sanctions could be rolled out every week against foreign banks and companies that continue dealing with Tehran.

This live feed has now ended.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a well-timed ploy to ramp up defense spending? Germany's evidence-free claim that a drone found lying between Ukrainian cargo planes on the canopy of Leipzig/Halle airport is part of a pattern.

Last year's late-autumn drone sighting hysteria that swept across Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, was used by the bloc to amplify and entrench an anti-Russia stance that has seen it throw hundreds of billions it cannot afford into weapons and a war its chosen side cannot win.

Tens of millions of Euro has since been spent on the back of a 'scare' that has been shown to have been irrational, exuberant and driven by vested interests.

The most bizarre national security scare in recent European history began at Copenhagen’s Kastrup Airport on September 2 last year. According to Denmark’s Frihedsbrevet news site, an airport employee told her supervisors that she saw two drones approach the area “stealthily,” adding that “they are big. They are not toys.”

The airport was temporarily shut down, and within hours, reports of a similar drone incursion came in from Oslo, Norway.

“I can only say that this is in my eyes a serious attack on Danish critical infrastructure,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said at the time. “I cannot in any way deny that it is Russia.” Her Norwegian counterpart, Gahr Store, came to a similar conclusion. “Russia has violated Norwegian airspace on three occasions this spring and summer,” he claimed. “We cannot determine whether this was done intentionally or due to navigation errors. Regardless of the cause, this is not acceptable.”

“It is clear we are witnessing a pattern of persistent contestation at our borders,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. “Our critical infrastructure is at risk. And Europe will respond to this threat with strength and determination.”

Open-source investigators insisted that the sightings were a hoax from the outset. Sleuths on the Metabunk forums concluded that the ‘drone’ seen at Kastrup Airport in the above footage was actually a small single-engine plane. FlightRadar24 data showed one such plane – a Socata TB-20 Trinidad – passing over the airport’s main runway twice at the time of the sighting.

Where were drones spotted?

Nevertheless, panic spread across northern Europe as drones were supposedly spotted at the following airports, military bases, and infrastructure sites in the following days and weeks:

• September 23: Aalborg Airport, Denmark

• September 24: Aalborg Airport, Billund Airport, Sonderborg, Esbjerg and Skrydstrup airports, Denmark

• September 25: Billund Airport, Denmark; Thyssenkrupp factory, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany; University Medical Center, Kiel, Germany; Bundeswehr base, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany
  September 26: Karup Air Base, Skrydstrup Air Base, Jutland Dragoon Regiment base, Denmark

• September 27: Orland Main Air Station, Norway

• September 28: Bronnoysund Airport, Norway; Borris Camp, Denmark

• October 2: Munich Airport, Germany; Elsenborn-Butgenbach Air Base, Belgium

• October 3: Munich Airport, Germany

• October 31: Berlin-Brandenburg Airport, Germany

• November 2: Bremen Airport, Germany; Kleine Brogel Air Base, Belgium

• November 6: Gothenburg Airport, Sweden; Brussels Airport, Antwerp Port, Belgium

• November 9: Liege Airport, Doel Nuclear Power Plant, Belgium

• November 22: Volkel Air Base, Netherlands

• December 1: In the Irish Sea off Dublin, during Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s arrival by plane

Police across northern Europe received thousands of additional drone reports from civilians. In Denmark alone, nearly 6,000 reports of suspected drones were filed.

Did the drones even exist?

Not only is there no proof that Russia was connected with these sightings, there is no evidence that any drones were present at all. No wreckage has been recovered, no perpetrators have been identified, and no footage of the drones exists, except for the video from Copenhagen that apparently shows a light aircraft.

Despite being certain that Denmark was under “hybrid attack,” Mette Frederiksen acknowledged in late September that there could be an “alternate explanation” for the sightings. Six months later, six government sources told Denmark’s TV2 that they don’t “have any technical evidence to support that Denmark was subjected to a hybrid attack with drones.” Frihedsbrevet’s sources came to a similar conclusion, with the airport employee who reported the initial sighting admitting that she could have been mistaken.

Airport management still insist that drones were present in the area on September 22, but police have not acknowledged any drones, only “reports” of drones.

Danish troops reportedly opened fire on a drone over Borris Camp on September 28. According to an investigation by TV2, the only aircraft operating in the area at the time was a turboprop passenger plane. The Danish military, if TV2’s reporting is correct, nearly shot down a civilian aircraft over a false alarm.

After interviewing witnesses and reviewing surveillance footage, Norwegian police closed their investigation on November 6, stating that they were “unable to confirm or deny whether drones were actually observed on the night of September 23.”

German police have not been able to confirm any drone activity; Dutch officials have identified no threat, with internal documents stating that there was “no indication of sabotage or attacks on vital objects.” Dutch and Belgian authorities have found no credible basis for panic, with Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken issuing a half-apology last month for attempting to pass off a video of a police helicopter as evidence of nefarious aerial activity.

Did they just lie?

Out of every country involved, Denmark’s leaders were most insistent that Russia was behind the spate of sightings. Frederiksen, Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen, and Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard all described the incidents as “attacks,” despite nothing being attacked and no attackers being present.

“I consider it a new reality that Denmark and Europe are under more violent and frequent hybrid attacks,” Frederiksen said in a televised address on September 25. “And even though the authorities cannot conclude who is behind the hybrid attacks…there is primarily one country that poses a threat to Europe's security – and that is Russia.”

The flood of tips and reports from the public can be written off either as mass hysteria, or – more charitably – as a natural reaction from Europeans primed by their politicians and media to believe that Russia is planning an all-out war on the continent. As for why Frederiksen would stoke this fear, however, some clues can be found in her actions.

Denmark, she said last February, needs to undergo a “massive rearmament,” because “We don’t know what [Russian President Vladimir Putin] is planning, but we know that he and Russia are in the process of rearming.”

Frederiksen referenced this rearmament again in her September address, declaring that “the events of recent days only emphasize how important it is.”

Denmark held the EU’s rotating presidency at the time, and Frederiksen added that the alleged drone threat would be made front and center when EU leaders met in Copenhagen the following week, and that she would push for “the establishment of an actual drone wall.”

The EU’s drone wall

Frederiksen kept her word. Published on October 16, the European Commission’s ‘Defense Readiness Roadmap’ stated that a ‘European Drone Defense Initiative’ – the so-called “drone wall” comprising sensors and interceptors – would be operational along the bloc’s eastern borders with Russia and Belarus by 2027.

🚨🇪🇺 “We need to act now”

Ursula von der Leyen now wants to build a “Drone Wall” on the Eastern Flank of Europe to protect from the alleged Russian Aggression. pic.twitter.com/UAGH93fKRc

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) October 1, 2025

Drones continued to dominate the agenda at a European Council summit in Brussels in December. “The European Council strongly condemns all recent hybrid attacks against the European Union and its Member States,” read a statement released after the meeting. “In the light of Russia’s and Belarus’ intensified hybrid campaign, it calls for accelerated efforts to strengthen resilience, protect critical infrastructure, and…decisively ramp up Europe’s defense readiness by 2030.”

None of this is to suggest that Denmark orchestrated the drone panic to justify its remilitarization, or to sell the EU’s “drone wall.” Both initiatives were already underway at the time. Instead, it illustrates how Danish and EU officials saw an opportunity not to let a crisis go to waste, and kept the drone threat alive even as their own police forces, to put it mildly, struggled to substantiate it.

Belgium's very own drone crisis

An investigation by Belgium’s VRT broadcaster has since found that none of the reports of drones were credible, and Francken has been hammered by the opposition for sharing an image of a ‘drone’ over Brussels Airport that turned out to be a police helicopter. VRT found that the defense ministry ignored warnings from Belgium’s Inspectorate of Finance and purchased detection antennas at an inflated price, and Francken is now the subject of an inquiry by the Brussels Public Prosecutor's Office.

The debacle is reminiscent of the Agusta-Dassault affair. During the 1980s, defense contractors Agusta and Dassault paid the equivalent of €4 million in bribes to secure no-bid contracts for AW109 transport helicopters and electronic warfare equipment. Once exposed, the scandal led to the criminal conviction of Belgian Defense Minister Guy Coeme and Foreign Minister and NATO Secretary General Willy Claes. 

Nearly eight months after the first ‘drones’ were spotted over Copenhagen, the crisis is still being milked across Europe. In early May, long after the threat had been debunked in Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands, the Dutch defense ministry announced that it would acquire approximately 900 “electro-optical aiming devices” for use against UAVs, “without prior announcement due to the urgency of a crisis situation.”

Questioned by the Belgian parliament in April, Francken insisted that there is “no other plausible explanation” for the reports other than Russian drones, and that the only way to prove or disprove this is to invest in drone defense technology. “As long as you don’t have the means to detect and neutralize drones, it stands to reason that you cannot immediately produce physical evidence,” he told lawmakers.

The Dutch and Belgians aren’t letting a lack of evidence stop them from pursuing the defense deals that they wanted from this crisis, and the EU is unlikely to step in and pump the brakes.

The EU's censorious and paranoid media industry is the perfect environment for fake news to fester, as long as it suits the bloc. Remember, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's claims of “GPS jamming” hitting her plane on a trip to Bulgaria last September, and how, despite it being roundly debunked within days, it has been allowed to fester to serve her political agenda.

Anti-Russian hysteria is the animating political force in the EU, and the bloc’s leaders clearly aren’t going to let police and media investigations, or common sense, put a stop to the show.

Russia has rejected German claims that it was behind a suspected drone attack on Leipzig/Halle Airport in early August, with President Vladimir Putin suggesting the allegations were driven by Berlin’s domestic political and economic troubles.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Putin argued that the German chancellor is struggling with public confidence amid factory closures, job losses and falling living standards, and accused Berlin of using the supposed threat of an “aggressive Russia” to justify its policies.

“And where is the evidence? Well, they planted the evidence,” Putin said, describing Germany’s confrontational stance as a “gross mistake” that runs counter to the interests of the German people.

Putin drew parallels with similarly “nonsensical” earlier accusations that Moscow had sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines carrying its own gas to Europe, before the blasts were eventually blamed on a supposedly rogue Ukrainian team.

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul announced new measures against Russia on Tuesday, linking them to the August 4 drone incident. The measures include closing the Russian Consulate General in Bonn from September 18 and terminating the lease of the Russian House in Berlin. Germany will also tighten border controls for Russian nationals, draw up a new list of individuals for EU sanctions, and increase pressure on what Berlin calls Russia’s “shadow fleet.”

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Berlin had failed to provide any evidence substantiating its claims, dismissing the incident as an “absolutely trumped-up and far-fetched” pretext to further damage bilateral relations.

Germany has “failed to present any even remotely convincing or serious evidence” of Russian involvement, Zakharova said. “There is none and there cannot be any.”

Zakharova argued that German authorities had long sought to target both the Russian Consulate General in Bonn and the Russian House in Berlin, and had now come up with an “absolutely trumped-up and far-fetched” pretext to further damage bilateral relations.

Berlin “will get a fitting response,” she warned.

She questioned whether German officials had chosen the date out of “stupidity and ignorance” or were “literally announcing a return to their roots” and “ritually demonstrating their intentions.”

“On September 1, 1939, Germany unleashed World War II and, together with the countries of the Hitlerite Axis, killed 70 million people, 27 million of them ours,” Zakharova said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also accused Germany of pursuing further escalation, saying Berlin had failed to provide any arguments substantiating its accusations against Moscow.

In June, Roderich Kiesewetter, a senior MP and member of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said that Germany “should expel any remaining [Russian] diplomats.” He also described the Russian House as part of Moscow’s “influence” network.

Last year, Kiesewetter caused controversy at home after arguing that Germany should “take the war to Russia.”

EU officials have previously invoked the threat of drones to warn of alleged Russian “hybrid attacks” and justify the bloc’s military buildup.

Similar claims emerged in September 2025, when EU officials and Western media reported that Russia had allegedly jammed GPS signals on a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to Bulgaria.

Flight-tracking service Flightradar24 subsequently cast doubt on that account, saying that the aircraft had maintained “good GPS signal quality from take-off to landing.”

CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Moscow last week.

What we know: Ratcliffe met with Sergey Naryshkin, the director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. This has been confirmed by Naryshkin himself, who described the meeting as “routine.” We also know that the US spy chief did not meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The meeting took place, there is nothing unusual in this,” Naryshkin stated afterwards. “In the practice of special services, meetings of managers, personal meetings or online are part of our work. So, the meeting with John Ratcliffe is a working format.”

Naryshkin refused to state what issues were discussed, explaining that they were within the competence of the intelligence services. “And the competence of the intelligence services is such a rather delicate and special thing,” the Russian spy chief said.

What we don’t know: literally anything else.

Rumors abound about additional attendees, as well as the agenda – or lack thereof – that was pursued by Ratcliffe during a meeting which appeared to be anything but routine. But the fact is, any meeting between Ratcliffe and Naryshkin, given the nature of the times we live in, could never be described as “routine.”

A quick reminder: John Ratcliffe’s CIA is currently at war with Russia. Literally.

Ratcliffe assumed his current position on January 23, 2025. Prior to this, he did a short stint as national intelligence director during the last year of Trump’s first term in office. He was a Texas congressman for a few years, as well as a small-town mayor and acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Texas.

But he is fully cognizant of the CIA’s secret war against Russia, having been fully briefed while serving as DNI. As a member of Congress, Ratcliffe was a leading policy maker on national security issues serving as a member of the House Intelligence and Homeland Security committees.

Any effort to portray him as some sort of “innocent abroad” fails on the face of the facts.

The CIA has always been at war with Russia. During the Cold War, Moscow Station (the name of the CIA’s operation center based out of the US Embassy) was literally the front line of the spy-versus-spy antics taking place between the US and the Soviet Union.

The CIA headed up Operation Cyclone, a massive paramilitary-driven effort to create a Vietnam-like quagmire for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The goal of Operation Cyclone was to kill Russians.

I worked with people who were directly or indirectly affiliated with Operation Cyclone. ‘Kill more Russians’ was literally their mantra.

There was a time when the CIA hired genuine Russia-area experts. The analysts who populated the Office of Soviet Analysis (SOVA) in the Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War were some of the best experts on the Soviet Union imaginable.

I know because I worked with them. From 1988-1990, I received two classified commendations from the director of the CIA for my analytical work involving the Soviet Union. I was considered by the CIA leadership to be a top-notch Soviet analyst.

In 1992 the CIA actively recruited me for an analytical position within the predecessor to SOVA, the Slavic and Eurasian Office. I was brought in for a high-level interview, after which I was informed that the CIA would be passing on my application. When I asked why, I was told that I was too married to old school thinking about Russia – in short, I was a ‘Sovietologist’.

In the 1990s, the CIA’s task was to use Boris Yeltsin as an agent of influence to weaken Russia and facilitate foreign control over its resources. The CIA actively infiltrated every aspect of the Russian economy and used ‘soft power’ resources funded by the likes of the National Endowment for Democracy and overseen by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to hijack Russian democratic institutions and Russian social life, especially through media-related activities.

The CIA also was very active in working to break Russia up into more manageable fiefdoms, each ruled over by a CIA-controlled lackey. The Russian-Chechen conflict was a primary example of this activity.

When Boris Yeltsin stepped aside in favor of Vladimir Putin as Russia’s president on New Year’s Eve 1999, the CIA immediately made it its task to undermine Putin and replace him with someone from the Yeltsin camp willing and able to do the CIA’s bidding.

Putin’s resistance and resilience as a Russian leader operating independent of CIA control helped shape a new generation of Russophobes in the United States. The first generation were the ‘new Russian’ thinkers that replaced the old school ‘Sovietologists’ at the end of the Cold War. To them, Russia was a playground for which to launch experiments on economic and political domination with absolutely zero regard to the price being paid by the people of Russia.

This generation of Russophobes simply detested Russia and the Russian people, failing to attribute any normative human value to their lives. Millions of Russians lost their lives as a result, and tens of millions of others suffered greatly.

But Putin’s stubborn hold on power, despite concerted efforts by the CIA to oust him (think Navalny), led to the birth of a new generation of Russophobes, so-called ‘experts’ whose only claim to relevance is their undying hatred of Putin and everything Russian.

It is this generation that has gravitated to the upper levels of the CIA’s analytical community, and who openly hate all things Russia. People like Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Julia Gurganus.

It is this openly Russophobic CIA that John Ratcliffe oversees.

His relationship with Julia Gurganus is both instructive and illustrative of the sickness that pervades the CIA when it comes to Russia. Gurganus was the National Intelligence Officer for Russia back in 2016-17, at the height of the Obama-era Russiagate scandal that tried to make the case of collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton.

Gurganus helped manufacture the intelligence that underpinned this false allegation. She was a vociferous critic of Trump, so much so that the CIA quietly exiled her to a think tank position during Trump’s first term in office.

When Trump was reelected, Ratcliffe oversaw the whitewashing of Gurganus’ role in falsely accusing Trump of collusion, leading to the elevation of Gurganus as the senior CIA briefer onboard Air Force One as Trump flew to Alaska to meet with Putin in August 2025. That’s right – Ratcliffe purposefully cleansed Gurganus of her anti-Trump credentials so she could personally brief the president before his meeting with Putin.

There was a time when the CIA’s Directorate of Operations Russia House was home to living legends. People like Milton Beardon, who helped run Operation Cyclone and was chief of the Soviet/East European Division at the time the Soviet Union fell. Gardner Hathaway and Berton Gerber, who ran some of the most successful CIA spying operations from Moscow Station in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

And Murat Natirboff, another legendary Russian hand who led the Moscow Station during the Nicholas Daniloff affairs in the 1980s. Natirboff is instructional in this regard. His father was an officer in the Russian White Army which fought the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War. Natirboff hated the communists. But he loved Russia. He was held in very high regard by the Soviet officers of the KGB which faced off against him during his tour in Moscow.

I can personally attest to Murat’s feelings toward Russia – I met him after he left Moscow in 1988, where we spoke about my experiences in Votkinsk as an INF Treaty weapons inspector.

The CIA no longer employs people of this caliber in its operational work regarding Russia. Gone are the days of the Russian romantics – people who took the time to learn about their enemies to bring to life Sun Tzu’s classic observation: “If you know your enemy as yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.”

The present-day Directorate of Operations is overrun with paramilitary operatives, men (and women) who cut their teeth during the heyday of the post-9/11 ‘Global War on Terror’, where they oversaw secret wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran.

People like ‘Santa Claus’, the nickname of the CIA’s Kiev Station Chief who sent Ground Branch to Ukraine post-2014 to train the Ukrainian intelligence special operations forces on how best to kill Russians.

Veterans of the CIA’s drone assassination programs now advise the Ukrainian drone operators on how to kill Russians and destroy Russian infrastructure.

In December 2025, the CIA helped direct Ukrainian drones toward a residence in Valdai where Putin was staying.

Yes – John Ratcliffe’s CIA tried to kill the Russian president. The CIA denies Putin was the target, but the data from the guidance chips extracted from Ukrainian drone debris appears to suggest otherwise.

Today, the CIA is knee-deep in the business of killing Russians. They continue to guide Ukraine’s expanded drone warfare campaign targeting Russia. And Russians.

This is John Ratcliffe. This is the organization he leads. So, when people reflect on the recent visit by Ratcliffe to Russia, never lose sight of his primary mission.

Israeli authorities have seized a UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) school in the Shufat refugee camp, leaving Palestinian children in East Jerusalem facing uncertainty as their academic year begins.

RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij reports from the ground, where families say they fear losing access to affordable schooling or being forced to send their children into an Israeli-run system.

Fourteen-year-old Noor and her 11-year-old sister Fatima are among those still without a school just days before the new academic year, Dubenskij reported from Shufat. The sisters fear the disruption could derail their ambitions of becoming a doctor and a dentist.

A local community leader interviewed by Dubenskij said parents fear the Israeli curriculum would exclude subjects previously taught at UNRWA schools, including Islamic education and Arab history. Asked by the RT correspondent whether he feared the children would be “brainwashed,” he replied: “Of course, absolutely, without a doubt.”

The developments follow Israel’s takeover of UNRWA’s Qalandiya Training Center in East Jerusalem late last month, disrupting vocational education for hundreds of students. During the raid, Israeli forces shot and wounded a Palestinian teenager. UNRWA said more than 50 Israeli security personnel entered the facility while around 20 staff were inside and forced them from the premises.

Watch the full story below:

The US killed multiple civilians in southern Iran using new “precision” missiles with a wide damage radius, conflict monitoring group Airwars has found. Tehran has repeatedly accused Washington of war crimes since the US and Israel launched a war on Iran which has killed up to 3,000 civilians.

In an investigation published on Monday, the London-based watchdog examined three February 28 strikes in the city of Lamerd that killed at least 21 civilians, including seven children. It concluded that the weapons used were likely Lockheed Martin’s Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM), which made their combat debut during the opening phase of the US-Israeli war on Iran.

The PrSM is designed to explode above the ground, spraying tens of thousands of dense tungsten pellets in all directions rather than relying primarily on the blast itself.

Airwars found that civilians were killed at least 50 meters from the estimated detonation points, while damage extended as far as 150 meters. The three missiles exploded over two residential neighborhoods and a sports center.

Among those killed was a two-year-old girl struck while playing outside her home around 50 meters from one blast. Another strike over a sports hall killed seven civilians, most of them children.

The Associated Press separately reviewed the evidence and consulted six weapons experts, including two former military officials, who also assessed that PrSMs were responsible for the strikes.

“You would be hard-pressed to find a reason to use the PrSM in a densely populated area,” former US Army adviser Michael Meier told AP.

US Central Command has acknowledged deploying PrSMs against Iran, describing their use as a “historic first,” but has denied firing any weapons at Lamerd. It has instead suggested that an Iranian cruise missile was to blame, although weapons experts cited by AP and Airwars disputed that assessment.

Tehran has repeatedly accused Washington of war crimes over strikes on civilian areas. The Lamerd attack came on the same day as the US bombing of an elementary school in Minab, which killed 175 people, most of them children.

The Airwars findings come as direct US-Iran hostilities resumed over the weekend after a month-long lull. Washington struck Iran’s Larak Island on Sunday, prompting Tehran to launch missiles and drones at US military facilities in Jordan.

US President Donald Trump has since threatened another round of attacks, saying Washington would “hit Iran hard.”

Rescue teams in Nepal continue to search water-logged hydropower tunnels in the country’s north, where hundreds of workers remain unaccounted for seven days after a flash flood devastated areas near the border with China.

The death toll has risen to 1,003, Nepal’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA) said on Tuesday afternoon.

Nearly 4,000 people remain unaccounted for, the country’s Foreign Ministry said, adding about 590 foreign nationals from 39 countries are among them. Some 11,800 have been rescued.

As the authorities try to bring relief and supplies to survivors , rescue teams are racing to locate the hundreds believed trapped in the 12-13 tunnels of the many hydroelectric projects dotting the Trishuli river corridor.

The NDRRMA has listed 639 people associated with the hydropower projects as missing. But the authorities have not been able to establish how many of those could be inside the tunnels or may have been swept away.

At the Upper Trishuli-3A Hydropower Project, where rescue teams had located and drilled into the tunnel’s head on Monday, they were still pumping in air and draining water to enable entry. Excavators and rock breakers are clearing access routes to the 4 km-long tunnel, where between 30 and 40 people are believed to be in the underground powerhouse, the Kathmandu Post reported.

🇳🇵 Salute to Our Nepal Army! 🫡❤️@NepalPoliceHQ

Risking their own lives without hesitation, Nepal Army personnel are tirelessly working on the front lines to rescue people affected by this devastating disaster.

Their courage, sacrifice, and unwavering dedication to saving… pic.twitter.com/e7d0lYFeOq

— Ananda Nepali (@anandanepali99) August 31, 2026

Since Monday, Nepali Army teams working with specialists from other countries have advanced further into several tunnels. The Foreign Ministry said 24 Indian and nine Chinese tunnel-rescue specialists are deployed at the affected sites, while a South Korean team has also arrived in Nepal.

A joint team reached 200 meters into the 9.5 km-long Upper Trishuli-1 tunnel. Rescuers also reached about 50 meters into the Chilime tunnel, and around 150 meters into Langtang – both about 3 km in length.

A US lawmaker listed the names of prominent Jeffrey Epstein-linked figures in an extraordinary attempt to force the Department of Justice (DOJ) to fully release government materials on the millionaire who provided sex services to the global elite.

Representative Thomas Massie believes the administration of US President Donald Trump is covering up for Epstein’s associates and is seeking to pass an amendment to strengthen the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law a year ago.

In brief remarks on the House floor on Monday, which Massie later shared on X, he accused the government of continuing to withhold more than 3 million files.

“We want perpetrators of these crimes to be investigated and prosecuted,” Massie said, before naming known Epstein associates. “Perhaps hearing these names will shame the Department of Justice into delivering justice.”

On the House floor tonight, I read the names of several Epstein coconspirators who should be investigated and prosecuted.

I also began collecting 218 signatures for the discharge petition to force a vote on Epstein Files Transparency Act II. pic.twitter.com/fgpebvxNpP

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) August 31, 2026

Massie is considering running for a House seat from Kentucky in 2028, after losing the primary for the 2026 Republican nomination to Trump-backed contender Ed Gallrein. The former Navy SEAL’s victory in May was fueled by a record-breaking multi-million-dollar war chest backed by pro-Israel groups.

Massie and Trump had a major falling out over several issues, including the Epstein scandal, the Iran war, and major tax cuts passed last year.

Who are the people on Massie’s list?

• Frederic Fekkai. The French celebrity hairstylist was accused of sexual assault by former Epstein assistant Sarah Kellen, who was invited to testify before the House Oversight Committee earlier this year.
• Eduardo Teodorani. The Italian businessman was mentioned extensively in files released by the DOJ, indicating a years-long relationship with Epstein.
• Jean-Luc Brunel. The French modeling scout was among Epstein’s better-known associates. He was found dead in a Paris prison cell in 2022 while under investigation by the French authorities over allegations involving the rape of minors and trafficking of minors for sexual exploitation. Massie described him on the House floor as “conveniently dead by suicide in prison.”
• Daniel Siad. Another deceased modeling scout with ties to Epstein. Massie described him as “recently discovered dead in Paris.”
• Ramsey Elkholy. A musician who also worked as a modeling scout in Brazil and whose links to Epstein were highlighted in government disclosures.
• Prince Andrew. One of the most prominent figures associated with Epstein, the disgraced British royal was stripped of his title and House of Windsor properties last year.
• Lesley Groff. The former assistant to the late financier was “not a victim” and “conspired with Epstein to traffic other women,” Massie said. She was the only woman on the lawmaker’s list.

The Iran war is “relatively little” for the US compared with the vast amount of weaponry Washington gave Ukraine under Joe Biden, President Donald Trump has said. He claimed his predecessor handed Kiev $300 billion worth of arms for free.  

Trump made the remarks while taking questions from reporters at an Oval Office event on Monday as fighting in the Middle East flared up again after weeks of relative calm. US forces struck two Iranian rocket launchers on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, prompting Tehran to retaliate with missile attacks on US forces in Jordan and the UAE.  

Asked whether the prolonged operation against Iran was draining US military resources needed elsewhere, Trump shrugged off the concern. “This is a relatively little war for us. This is not a big war,” he said, adding that the US has “so much ammunition and munitions” stationed around the world that it could draw on additional supplies if needed.  

He then contrasted US expenditures on Iran with Washington’s support for Ukraine under his predecessor.  

“Joe Biden gave Ukraine over $300 billion worth of stuff free,” Trump said, adding that under his administration Ukraine “has to pay for it” through European NATO members. The $300 billion figure is widely disputed. A May report by the Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve put total US appropriations for Ukraine and the broader response to the conflict at about $195 billion since February 2022, of which $67.8 billion was committed in defense articles and services to Kiev.  

The war has consumed billions of dollars’ worth of US weaponry, with War Secretary Pete Hegseth putting the overall cost at $37.5 billion by July. Washington fired more than 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the first four weeks alone – despite producing only a few hundred annually – along with more than 1,000 Patriot and THAAD interceptors.  

Washington has meanwhile stepped up economic pressure on Tehran. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned on Sunday that the US could unleash “financial violence” against Iran, threatening to impose new secondary sanctions every week to punish Tehran and those doing business with it.

The war against Iran, launched by the United States and Israel six months ago, was conceived as a lightning campaign against a weakened and already battered enemy.

As far as is currently known, the immediate trigger was the unrest that swept Iran in January, which appears to have convinced the Israeli and American leadership that the government in Tehran was teetering on the brink of collapse and required only a final push.

At the beginning of the campaign, Donald Trump confidently predicted that the war would last a month or six weeks, and sometimes suggested it could be over even sooner. Instead, it’s become one of the defining events of the 21st century and its long-term consequences may ultimately prove comparable to those of the September 11 attacks or Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, and perhaps even surpass them.

Among the most important consequences is the damage inflicted on the United States’ position as the principal guarantor of security for the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, a role Washington gradually assumed after the Second World War, initially alongside Britain and later largely on its own.

The war has exposed two fundamental weaknesses in that first, the United States has proved unable to protect the oil infrastructure and essential services of the Gulf monarchies from devastating attacks by a middle-ranking power such as Iran, and second, it has failed to guarantee freedom of commercial navigation in strategically important waters against attacks by Iran and its Houthi allies in Yemen.

The scale of the American commitment in 1990 illustrates how much has changed.

To defend Saudi Arabia and defeat Iraq, the United States concentrated about 540,000 troops in the region, roughly a quarter of the active-duty strength of the US armed forces at the time. Seven of the Army’s 18 active divisions and two of the Marine Corps’ three divisions participated, while six of America’s 15 aircraft carriers were deployed, along with approximately 1,600 of its 6,500 combat aircraft.

Desert Storm was ultimately an overwhelming American victory achieved at remarkably low human cost, but American planners didn’t know beforehand that casualties would be so limited. Pre-war estimates envisaged as many as 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 to 7,000 dead, but despite those projections and substantial opposition in Congress, President George H.W. Bush and his administration went ahead.

The contrast with today is amazing as the United States is no longer capable of assembling anything resembling its 1990 force in the Middle East. Around 50,000 American personnel have been deployed for the current operation against Iran, supported by approximately 300 aircraft and just over 20 warships, including two aircraft carriers.

There has therefore been a radical decline in the resources the leading Western power can mobilize to defend what it regards as vital global interests, as well as in its ability to draw upon allied military power.

Curiously, this has happened without a comparable decline in America’s share of global military expenditure, given the United States accounted for roughly 35-37% of world military spending in 1990 and around 33%  in 2025. This discrepancy should encourage greater skepticism about attempts to measure military power simply by comparing defense budgets.

Yet resources are only part of the explanation as more important is Washington’s apparent inability to use effectively the formidable capabilities it still possesses.

The United States undoubtedly retains the technical capacity to inflict a crushing military defeat on Iran and overthrow its government through a sufficiently large joint military operation, even with substantially fewer forces than it deployed against Iraq in 1990, but the obstacle is the price.

Any decisive operation involving a substantial ground component would probably produce many thousands of American casualties, including hundreds, and more likely thousands, of deaths. The political system that accepted such risks in 1990 appears unwilling to accept them today.

The determination to save individual servicemen is understandable, but a military cannot expend resources on that scale to prevent individual casualties while simultaneously fighting a major war intended to achieve decisive strategic objectives.

The same caution is visible elsewhere, seeing as American troops have been kept away from the most dangerous areas, while US warships have operated at considerable distances from the Iranian coast, reducing their effectiveness. Washington has also sought to minimize public attention to its casualties, despite their relatively small number, in marked contrast with its approach during the much more dangerous operations of the early 1990s.

Then there is the financial constraint. The 1990-91 Gulf campaign cost the US budget about $64 billion, or around $120 billion when indirect costs are included. Adjusted for inflation, that would exceed $300 billion today. By mid-July, the current operation against Iran had already cost approximately $37 billion. The total is now likely between $40 billion and $50 billion, even though the campaign has failed to produce the decisive result originally envisaged.

The lesson is therefore more complicated than the simple claim that American military power has disappeared because the United States retains enormous military and financial resources. What’s changed is its ability to concentrate those resources, mobilize allies, and accept the human and financial costs required to achieve decisive political objectives.

Desert Storm demonstrated what American military supremacy looked like at its height, but the war against Iran is revealing something very different, a superpower that can still inflict enormous damage, but increasingly struggles to convert its military superiority into the political outcomes it seeks.

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

Christian schools in Jerusalem have been forced to indefinitely delay the start of the new academic year after Israeli authorities failed to renew entry permits for more than 70 teachers and staff living in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinians holding West Bank IDs generally require Israeli-issued permits to cross checkpoints into East Jerusalem. But Israeli authorities failed to renew entry permits for more than 70 teachers and staff “suddenly and without prior notice,” the General Secretariat for Christian Educational Institutions in Jerusalem said in a press statement shared with the media on Monday.

“Accordingly… it has been decided to suspend school attendance in the schools of the city of Jerusalem beginning Tuesday morning, 1 September 2026, until the necessary permits for teachers and staff are reissued and renewed,” the Secretariat said.

The dispute comes amid wider concerns about the treatment of Palestinians and Christians in Israel and the occupied territories.

In early August, Democratic US Senator Chris Van Hollen demanded the resignation of US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, accusing him of failing to protect American citizens and interests and criticizing his response to mounting violence in the West Bank, including attacks on Palestinian Christian communities.

In April, an IDF soldier was filmed smashing a Jesus statue with a sledgehammer in the Lebanese town of Dibil while another soldier photographed the act, as Israeli forces occupied the surrounding area. The incident triggered a global scandal and prompted a military investigation. The two soldiers were removed from combat duty and sentenced to 30 days in military detention.

Christian churches, clergy and nuns in Jerusalem have also faced harassment. Six religious Jews, five of them minors, were arrested after spitting and banging on the entrance to the St. James Monastery in the city’s Armenian Quarter and throwing stones at the compound wall in early August. This came just months after an Israeli man violently assaulted a French nun on Mount Zion, leaving her with a head injury.

According to the Religious Freedom Data Center (RFDC), a Jewish-Israeli watchdog organization, reported anti-Christian harassment more than doubled in the second quarter of 2026, with spitting attacks accounting for the majority of cases.

US President Donald Trump welcomed the presence of a senior Russian delegation at the G20, ignoring protests from EU officials who refused to appear alongside Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov in the gathering’s traditional “family photo.”

Siluanov arrived in Asheville, North Carolina for the two-day meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors on Monday at the invitation of the Trump administration. His first in-person appearance at the forum since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 immediately drew protests from European delegates.

German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil called the decision to treat Siluanov as a regular participant a “troubling” signal. Other EU officials reportedly threatened to boycott the photo unless the Russian official was excluded, according to the Washington Post.

Trump brushed aside the criticism when asked about Siluanov’s visit.

“We’re going to see what happens, but we like getting along with everybody,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. “One of the reasons that I’m so successful, I get along with everybody.”

US officials said Bessent also raised Trump’s plan for settling the Ukraine conflict and prospects for bilateral economic cooperation and growth. Other reports suggested that the US side made it clear that it would not offer Moscow economic relief or agreements in other areas before the hostilities end.

Siluanov took part in G20 discussions on the global economy, economic growth, and sovereign debt. He warned that “geopolitical fragmentation” is increasingly obstructing the free movement of goods, capital, and technology, while pointing to automation, AI, and import substitution as emerging drivers of Russian growth.

The US president has taken the same approach toward the G20. In April, he said it would probably be “very helpful” if Russian President Vladimir Putin attended the leaders’ summit in Miami in December.

“I’m of the opinion that you talk to everybody,” Trump said at the time. “I’m somebody that believes in talking.” The US subsequently invited Russia to the summit. Moscow accepted the invitation, while leaving open who will represent the country.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has dismissed as “garbage” a New York Times report alleging torture and abuse of detained deportees, accusing the newspaper of spreading false claims about federal immigration enforcement.

In a report published on Sunday, the Times said it interviewed ten people deported from the US to Liberia and Equatorial Guinea, several of whom said they had no ties to the African countries. They alleged physical abuse, harsh restraints and degrading treatment while in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In comments provided to the newspaper before publication, DHS disputed several of the allegations, saying detainees receive comprehensive medical care and rejecting claims that migrants were denied bathroom access or abused during deportation flights.

Following publication, the department went further, dismissing the report as another “hoax” and describing it as “garbage.”

Another day and another hoax about ICE detention from the @nytimes. The media is clearly desperate for these false allegations to be true.

NO ONE is being tortured, denied medical care, or beaten in ICE detention facilities.

Make no mistake: this type of GARBAGE being peddled… https://t.co/C0B868THrr

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) August 30, 2026

“NO ONE is being tortured, denied medical care, or beaten in ICE detention facilities,” DHS said on X, adding that “the media is clearly desperate for these false allegations to be true.”

The department also accused such coverage of fueling hostility toward immigration officers. It said assaults on ICE personnel increased by more than 1,300% between 2024 and 2025, while death threats against officers and their families surged by 8,000%.

ICE has faced mounting scrutiny during US President Donald Trump’s second term as his administration has expanded arrests and deportations as part of what it has billed as the largest immigration crackdown in US history.

The campaign has triggered nationwide protests and legal challenges, with detainees and advocacy groups accusing ICE of excessive force, poor detention conditions, and inadequate medical care.

At least 52 people died in ICE custody during the first 500 days of Trump’s second term, according to a June report by Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights.

DHS has denied that abuses are systemic and has repeatedly accused politicians and media outlets of demonizing immigration enforcement, including by comparing ICE agents to historical secret police and other authoritarian organizations.

The EU has placed ChatGPT, Reddit, and Roblox under the strictest tier of its online regulations, giving the US-based services four months to comply with rules denounced by Washington and leading tech figures as censorship.

The European Commission on Monday designated ChatGPT a Very Large Online Search Engine (VLOSE), while Reddit and Roblox were classified as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) under the Digital Services Act (DSA). All three reported at least 45 million average monthly users in the EU, crossing the threshold for heightened oversight.

They now have until the end of December to comply with additional requirements, including assessing and mitigating “systemic risks” linked to illegal content, minors, users’ physical and mental well-being, fundamental rights, elections, and public security. Violations of the DSA can carry fines of up to 6% of a company’s annual global turnover.

None of the three companies has publicly challenged the designation. OpenAI and Reddit said they were preparing to comply with the new requirements, while Roblox pledged to continue working “constructively” with Brussels.

The DSA and its competition-focused sister law, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), have become a major source of friction with Washington. US President Donald Trump has ordered officials to scrutinize EU digital rules that could force American companies to moderate content in ways that “undermine freedom of speech and political engagement.”

Telegram founder Pavel Durov has similarly accused the EU of using the DSA to expand censorship. In April, he argued that Brussels is using sympathetic Soros-backed NGOs and media to justify increased online surveillance and restrictions, warning that these campaigns are being used to “take away what’s left of our freedoms.”

The Pentagon has secretly hired conservative military veterans with a large social media following for undisclosed government roles, The Washington Post reported on Sunday. The influencers have promoted US War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s views while attacking critics of the Trump administration, the newspaper claimed.

The report comes amid President Donald Trump’s push to eliminate what his administration calls “woke” ideology from the military and his longstanding clashes with mainstream media.

According to the Post, those hired include retired Air Force Colonel Rob Maness and retired Army Colonels Kurt Schlichter and Thomas Anderson. Some of their assignments could influence policy, the newspaper claims, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter.

All three have reportedly received official civilian email accounts and been assigned to the office of Pentagon personnel chief Anthony Tata. His team has been tasked with addressing “culture-war issues,” including reviewing military colleges for “woke” ideology, according to the Post.

The newspaper goes on to cite a late August dispute involving conservative influencer Jennica Pounds as an example of the Pentagon’s social media efforts.

The Pentagon tightened press access rules last September as part of a broader crackdown on unauthorized disclosures following reports of turmoil inside the department. It has also reportedly considered using lie detector tests to identify officials leaking information.

Earlier this month, Trump lashed out over reports that the war on Iran had significantly depleted US stocks of critical missiles and air defense interceptors, insisting no shortage existed.

“The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down. Long term jail sentences will be sought!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

US President Donald Trump has vowed to “hit Iran hard” following Tehran’s retaliatory strikes on US military installations in Jordan, raising the prospect of another round of escalation after a month-long lull in direct fighting.

Iran fired ballistic missiles and drones at US military positions after US forces struck Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said its attack targeted the King Hussein and Al-Azraq air bases in Jordan in retaliation for the US strike, which Tehran said killed two Iranian soldiers and a civilian and injured several others.

“There will be a response,” Trump told Fox News reporter Trey Yingst by phone on Monday. “We’re going to hit them hard.”

Despite threatening further military action, Trump suggested that negotiations remain possible. “They want to meet so badly,” he told Fox. “The sanctions are kicking in really strongly.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran is “not looking for war” but would deliver a “decisive response” to further attacks.

Trump and senior US officials were already considering a plan for periodic strikes on Iranian military capabilities around the Strait of Hormuz before the latest exchange, Axios reported, citing three US officials.

The renewed military threats come after the Trump administration shifted much of its pressure campaign toward economic measures, launching an “economic onslaught” against Iran’s trade partners under Operation Economic Outcast.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday that Washington plans to roll out new secondary sanctions every week against foreign banks and companies that continue doing business with Iran, warning allies and rivals alike that they could be cut off from the US financial system.

“You’re either with us or you’re with the Iranians,” Bessent said, adding that Washington is prepared to use “financial violence if we have to.”

A monument to world-famous 19th-century Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky has been reinstalled in the eastern German city of Dresden after spending around a year in storage. The ceremony was attended by Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechayev, who thanked the city authorities for their commitment to preserving cultural and humanitarian ties between the two nations.

Initially unveiled in 2006 during a ceremony attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the monument was installed on the bank of the Elbe River near the regional parliament building. In 2025, it was removed because of nearby construction work.

The city authorities then decided to move it to a new location, and the monument was reinstalled near the Russian Orthodox Church of St. Simeon of the Wonderful Mountain in the southern part of the city on Saturday.

The ambassador thanked Saxony’s regional government and the city authorities for bringing the monument back amid tense relations between Moscow and Berlin.

Cultural ties “should remain a bridge, a space for dialogue between societies, academic communities, cultural institutions, and individual citizens,” the diplomat added in a statement issued on the occasion. Saturday’s ceremony was attended by a group of Russian diplomats, as well as members of the German-Russian Institute of Culture in Dresden.

Russian culture faces pressure in the EU amid the continued hostilities between Moscow and Kiev. Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, several EU member states have canceled events involving performers from Russia and other countries perceived as sympathetic to Moscow or barred Russian artists from participating.

Literature has not been spared in this anti-Russian drive either. In July, Latvia’s parliament approved a ban on Russian books and literature, among other consumer goods, claiming that Russia uses books and periodicals to spread propaganda and maintaining that the EU does not need such materials.

Moscow has repeatedly denounced such measures as “Russophobic censorship,” warning that attempts to “cancel” Russian culture will ultimately fail.

Dostoevsky had a special connection with Dresden, where he lived with his family for some two years between 1869 and 1871 and spent an important period of his creative life working on the novel ‘Demons’. The author’s relationship with Germany was not always rosy, though. Dostoevsky developed a gambling addiction while living in the German spa town of Baden-Baden, which was known for its casinos at the time. In February 1867, he spent over four weeks playing roulette and lost everything, including his wife’s wedding ring. His constant lack of money also forced him to write one of his novels, ‘The Gambler’, in just 21 days.

Critics have also interpreted many of the author’s works, including the world-famous ‘Crime and Punishment’ and ‘The Brothers Karamazov’, as veiled criticism of classical German philosophy, including that of Hegel and Kant, as Dostoevsky rebelled against the idea of rationalizing individual suffering as a sufficient price for historical progress and universal “harmony.”

A knife-wielding woman killed one person and wounded another in an apparently random stabbing attack in Times Square in New York City before being shot dead by police.

The violence erupted at around 4:27 PM on Monday near West 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue, one of the busiest intersections in Manhattan’s tourist district. The suspect, described by police as an “emotionally disturbed” woman, pulled two large kitchen knives from a shopping bag before attacking two passersby, according to an NYPD briefing.

Police said she stabbed a 68-year-old man in the abdomen before quickly turning on a 32-year-old woman and stabbing her in the abdomen as well. Both were rushed to the hospital, where the woman died from her injuries. The man was listed in stable condition.

NEW YORK: Police shot a suspected attacker following a stabbing in Times Square pic.twitter.com/GHT2q3LINK

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) August 31, 2026

The attacker fled toward the NYPD substation in Times Square, where officers confronted her while she was still armed with both knives.

Video from the scene shows officers repeatedly ordering the woman to drop the weapons. At least one officer used a Taser in an attempt to subdue her, but it failed to incapacitate her. The woman advanced toward the officers while brandishing the knives, prompting several of them to open fire.

This lady was running around stabbing people in time square. She straight up stabbed the person in front of me. Shit could’ve been me pic.twitter.com/lYfye4J1t1

— 𝖠𝖴𝖲𝖳𝖤𝖭꩜ (@austen_tv) August 31, 2026

The suspect collapsed at the scene, where officers rendered first aid, and was taken to the hospital. She later died from her injuries.

Footage from the scene showed a heavy police presence as the streets surrounding the area were cordoned off while investigators worked at the scene.

Here's the exact moment a lady charged at NYPD officers with two knives.

Minutes before this took place the lady allegedly stabbed multiple people.

What happened to good citizens these days ? Why didn't someone walk up behind her and hit her over the head with something ?…

— Viral News NYC (@ViralNewsNYC) August 31, 2026

Police have not publicly identified the attacker or her victims. The authorities said the attack appears to have been random and was not believed to be terrorism-related. The motive remains under investigation.

The US has stepped up purchases of Russian fertilizers despite broader Western restrictions on Moscow, with shipments rising by nearly a quarter in the first half of 2026, according to the Russia’s Export Center.

Veronika Nikishina, the center’s head, told RIA Novosti on Monday that the overall distribution of fertilizer exports had changed little since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The US now ranks third among destinations for Russian supplies, she said, while Western Europe remains a larger market despite a decline in shipments this year.

“Sanctions against Russian fertilizers could have devastating consequences because of their importance to global food security. Even hardliners in unfriendly countries understand this,” Nikishina said. 

In 2022, Washington authorized transactions involving Russian agricultural commodities including fertilizers to reduce the risk of shortages. The EU by contrast began imposing additional tariffs on some Russian nitrogen fertilizers in July 2025 as part of its drive to reduce reliance on Moscow, with the levies due to rise to €430 ($500) per ton by 2028.

The US-Israeli war on Iran and the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz have further exacerbated pressure on global fertilizer markets. The waterway handles an estimated third of the world’s fertilizer trade and a fifth of LNG shipments – a key input in the production of nitrate fertilizers. Experts, including Heartland Institute adviser Jeff Stier, have warned that any simultaneous disruption in the strait, the Black Sea, and to supplies from other major producers could trigger shortages of crop nutrients and a delayed food-price shock.

Recently, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Moscow was still waiting for clarification from the US and Türkiye regarding possible arms supplies to Ukraine. Russia expects a response, as this matter directly affects not only bilateral relations but also the prospects for resolving the Ukraine crisis. 

The issue goes far beyond the scope of yet another military-technical deal. In July, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for preventing the spread of the Russia-Ukraine conflict to the Black Sea region and advocated for the continuation of Ankara-mediated negotiations between Moscow and Kiev within the framework of the so-called Istanbul format. Türkiye emphasized that the security of shipping and energy infrastructure is of fundamental importance to it.

The Russian side, in turn, points out an obvious contradiction. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Ankara and Washington, in their contacts with Moscow, stated that they sent Kiev signals about the unacceptability of attacks in the Black Sea. However, Moscow has not received a public or equally strong response from Türkiye and the US concerning Ukrainian drone strikes on commercial vessels and the infrastructure of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium near Novorossiysk. The Russian Foreign Ministry also warned that strikes on infrastructure and vessels used for delivering Western weapons to Ukraine would continue until the security threats in the region of the Azov and Black seas are eliminated.

Leaving diplomatic language aside, the question is very simple: can Türkiye simultaneously supply Kiev with weapons capable of being used against Russian targets and demand that Moscow continue to consider it a neutral intermediary?

The US Congressional Record, published on August 6, shows two notifications about the proposed permanent transfer of American weapons from Turkish stockpiles to Ukraine. The first package includes 12 M270 MLRS launchers, 2,524 M26 unguided rockets with cluster munitions, and 47,000 M509A1 203mm cluster artillery shells. Their initial procurement price is listed at $255.9 million.

The second notification concerns 70 M39 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles with an initial procurement price of approximately $28 million. In total this amounts to approximately $283.9 million. However, it would be incorrect to automatically assume that this is the price of the current contract since the terms of the potential deal between Ankara and Kiev have not been publicly disclosed.

Another point is equally important. The documents do not prove that the weapons have already been transferred to Kiev. They only confirm that the Turkish government proposed re-export, and the US Department of State notified Congress of its readiness to approve it after the statutory review period. Ankara cites the desire to get rid of outdated weapons and redirect funds toward modernizing its armed forces as the reason for the re-export. Kiev, according to the documents, intends to use these systems to enhance its offensive and defensive firepower.

This formulation makes the situation particularly serious. This isn’t about armored vehicles, communications equipment, or individual commercial drones; M39 ATACMS missiles are capable of engaging targets at ranges of up to 165 km and carry cluster munitions. Combined with M270 launchers and thousands of rocket and artillery munitions, this constitutes a comprehensive package of enhanced long-range firepower systems. Its possible use will inevitably entail losses among Russian troops and the risk of strikes deep into Russian territory.

Russian-Turkish relations have never been an alliance in the strict sense of the word. Moscow and Ankara supported opposing sides in Syria and Libya; they hold different views on the status of Crimea, and compete for influence in various corners of Eurasia. Türkiye supplied Ukraine with drones, developed military-technical cooperation with it and consistently supported it. Yet, none of this prevented Russia and Türkiye from building gas pipelines, a nuclear power plant, developing trade, and reaching agreements in areas where their interests coincided.

This format was based on an unspoken rule that competition should not escalate into direct, critical damage to the other side. Strong disagreements could arise, but they remained manageable and were offset by cooperation in other areas.

The proposed transfer of ATACMS missiles, M270 launchers, and tens of thousands of cluster munitions brings Ankara dangerously close to the limits of this model of interaction. This is not a matter of one weapons system, but its purpose, the scale of the package, and the political context.

Türkiye isn’t simply offering to sell Kiev a batch of its own military equipment; it intends to transfer a large stockpile of American weapons intended to enhance Kiev’s firepower in the ongoing conflict with Russia, and is doing so with Washington’s approval.

Against this backdrop, Türkiye’s peacemaking rhetoric is starting to look increasingly unconvincing. Clearly, a mediator doesn’t have to be completely equidistant from the parties, but both sides should be able to trust it, at least on a minimum level. A mediator can’t call for a moratorium on strikes in the Black Sea while simultaneously helping one of the sides expand its weapons stockpiles; it can’t propose Istanbul as a platform for negotiations while strengthening Kiev’s military potential under the pretext of getting rid of outdated weapons.

A familiar argument is being voiced by Turkish experts: Russian-Turkish relations are so deep and multifaceted, they argue, that a single deal can’t destroy them. There’s certainly some truth to that. Neither Russia nor Türkiye want to replay the scenario of the 2015 crisis. Severing ties would be detrimental to both sides.

However, Ankara is drawing an all-too-convenient conclusion that economic interdependence guarantees impunity for any foreign policy maneuver; and this is a dangerous fallacy. The Turkish leadership apparently confuses freedom of maneuver with the absence of a price to be paid for that maneuver.

Russia indeed benefits from the Turkish market, transit routes, and bilateral trade, and this is apparent to all. Türkiye remains an important economic and regional partner for Moscow. However, the dependence of the parties is not symmetrical across all sectors. In recent years, the Russian economy has demonstrated its ability to redirect raw material flows, restructure logistics, and seek new markets. Russia’s size allows it to do this quite well. For Türkiye, however, a sudden reduction in Russian energy supplies, tourism, investment, or access to the Russian market creates a more immediate and concentrated effect. 

In 2025, trade between the two countries exceeded $50 billion. Russia retained a significant advantage in the trade structure: Türkiye primarily imports Russian energy resources and raw materials. That same year, it received approximately 22 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia; despite diversification, the share of Russian gas in Türkiye’s supply remained around 37%. Nearly seven million Russians visited Türkiye in 2025, securing Russia as the top source market for Türkiye’s tourism industry. 

For an economy with an annual inflation rate of nearly 32% (as of July 2026), high borrowing costs, and chronic sensitivity to the price of imported energy, the loss of even a portion of these advantages will not be trivial. It will hit foreign exchange earnings, production costs, the balance of payments, and employment in tourism. The Turkish economy may not collapse overnight, but a significant reduction in ties with Russia will deprive it of several key pillars: stable energy supplies, millions of tourists, foreign exchange earnings, a market, and funding for strategic projects.

For a country already experiencing chronic inflation, pressure on the national currency, and high borrowing costs, this will mean not another temporary downturn, but the risk of a protracted systemic crisis. Ankara will not be able to maintain economic stability for long under such conditions. And this isn’t a theoretical forecast. It didn’t take long for Türkiye to feel the consequences of the 2015 crisis, provoked by Ankara after the downing of the Russian Su-24 aircraft. The crisis brought about a collapse in Russian tourist flows, restrictions on agricultural exports, and business losses, even though the economic interdependence between the two countries was significantly lower then than it is today.

Russia, for its part, is not interested in dismantling relations, but if the delivery of the weapons is confirmed, it has ample tools for selective pressure, from revising trade preferences and tourist flows to tightening the terms of energy cooperation and a tougher stance on issues in which Türkiye requires Russian assistance.

Where is the red line?

Moscow will not react emotionally to Türkiye’s maneuver; that is not its style. A complete rupture in relations would only benefit those who have long sought to eliminate the independent Russian-Turkish communication channel and return Ankara to a disciplined, ‘Western’ line of conduct. The response must be consistent and proportionate.

Until the transfer is officially confirmed, Russia will seek a direct answer from Türkiye regarding several points: whether a final political decision has been made; on the terms and conditions of the re-export; and on the existence of any restrictions on the use of these systems to strike Russian territory. But if the weapons reach Kiev, it would no longer be possible to maintain the previous level of trust. Moscow will cease to perceive Ankara as an acceptable intermediary, will become less willing to consider Turkish interests in regional issues, and bilateral relations will become more rigid and purely pragmatic. 

It’s time for Ankara to soberly assess the balance of risks. Russia is interested in cooperation with Türkiye but it is not irrevocably dependent on it. Moscow will find other routes, markets, and forms of regional cooperation, although such a restructuring will require time and money. For Türkiye, the Russian factor is embedded in several of its most sensitive sectors: energy, tourism, the nuclear project, trade, and regional security. Given the current state of the Turkish economy, the cost of a strategic reassessment of its own capabilities could prove significantly higher than the expected benefits of a deal with Kiev and political rapprochement with Washington. 

This is precisely why the possible transfer of ATACMS missiles isn’t a matter that can be solved by another meeting between the presidents; it’s a test of the entire structure of the Russia-Türkiye relationship. If Ankara crosses the line, Russia doesn’t have to declare Türkiye an adversary – it would suffice to stop treating it as a privileged partner whose actions can always be attributed to regular political balancing. 

Well, what do you know! It turns out that you really can crawl into bed with Brussels on your own terms, and be friends with benefits, all without the need to officially shack up. 
The people of Iceland have just done something that would usually be considered political blasphemy here in Europe. They’ve decided that their country would like to remain in charge of itself, voting 53% to 47% in a referendum not to pursue getting officially hitched to the EU.

It’s a rarity these days to see a show of democracy that’s something other than just a midwife delivering whatever Brussels wants. It even had to be warned by elected officials not to meddle. Icelanders considered just the idea of continuing EU accession talks, which was the subject of this referendum – not even “do you want EU membership or not,” but only “should even we keep playing footsie with Brussels over it” – and decided that they didn’t need a ring on their finger in order to keep their toothbrush in Brussels’ bathroom.

Iceland already has access to the European common market through the European Economic Area (EEA). What else could it possibly gain from greater submission to Brussels that would actually make it worth surrendering any more of its autonomy?

Much has since been made of comparisons to the UK and Brexit, arguing that Iceland’s inclusion in the EU’s common market isn’t true independence and that if it were, then the UK wouldn’t have needed to withdraw from the EU entirely. But they’re comparing a bitter post-divorce Brexit deal with a country being wooed. Do you treat your ex-wife like your new girlfriend?

So basically, they’re saying, “Why would we voluntarily make ourselves less capable of deciding what happens here?” It probably doesn’t much help that the EU has developed a real talent for taking relatively straightforward questions and feeding them into a regulatory meat grinder to the point where nobody remembers what the original issue was.

Take packaging, as a recent example. Everyone voted on this nonsense requiring reusable containers for take-out in the same way that you have to show up to the supermarket with a reusable bag, or else risk having your groceries tumble out of your arms and into the crosswalk en route while returning home. (And forget about using a car, Earth-killer.) I guess nobody thought through what would happen once the measures actually took effect. Because the EU Commission, which drafted the nonsense, recently went like, “Wooo, boy! Exactly how high were we when we came up with this one?!” Then it urged member states not to enforce the rules or related penalties. That’s not exactly a compelling way to entice anyone to voluntarily hand over even more authority to these same jokers.

And Brussels understands that Iceland remains useful to the EU regardless. “The European Commission takes note of the outcome of Iceland’s referendum. The Commission respects the choice of the Icelandic people. Iceland remains a close partner of the European Union,” it said. In other words, “You may have declined our marriage proposal, but it’s not the end of our relationship.”

The lesson here is that you really CAN cooperate with the EU without becoming fully absorbed by it, and you can trade with it without transferring every conceivable decision to it, and you can have common interests without having a common political identity that’s decided by bureaucrats, after which countries and citizens are squeezed into it like mental patients into a straitjacket.

Iceland has just proven that there’s a third option that exists between isolation and membership. The congratulations came from global sources as diverse as the populist right and left, and even globalist establishment crony and former US national security advisor John Bolton, who framed it as a rejection of Trump’s invasion-related fear-mongering that risked making Iceland feel insecure enough to run straight into the EU’s arms.

Folks from all sides seem to have actually accepted Icelanders saying no – even the EU, despite sounding as thrilled about it as a rejected guy getting up off his dusty knee, post-proposal. Usually, when people vote the ‘wrong’ way, we’re treated to lectures about misinformation, populism, Russian influence, democratic backsliding, or the possibility that the electorate has simply become too stupid to appreciate the wonderful plan being implemented on its behalf. But Iceland appears to have escaped this compulsory remedial democracy class. She’s just that hot, apparently.

Canada, in particular, should take note before getting too cozy with Brussels, because the EU is so thirsty for its natural resources these days, drooling over its ample natural assets while the mainstream Western press fantasizes en masse about a European-Canadian wedding.

Iceland is now the indisputable gold standard in geopolitical thirst trapping.

Sounds like a good time for the EU to ponder why its regulatory and bureaucratic smooth moves aren’t proving enough to seal the deal when the average citizen actually gets a say.

Masked Israeli settlers have attacked and injured an NBC News crew and a local woman in the West Bank, the US broadcaster has reported. The journalists were accompanying a Palestinian family to a home they said they had been forced to abandon because of settler violence.

Attacks by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories have surged since the Gaza war began in October 2023, with the UN recording violence at unprecedented levels.

The latest assault took place on Saturday in the village of Jalud near Nablus, where NBC correspondent Matt Bradley and his colleagues had been speaking to 51-year-old Aida Ahmed Abdullah. Footage shows a vehicle with Israeli license plates approaching before at least three masked men emerged and attacked the group with sticks and rocks.

צפייה חובה! תיעוד מלא של המתנחבלים תוקפים צוות חדשות של ה-NBC בג'אלוד
משחיתים את רכבם, מרביצים להם עם מוטות ופוצעים אותם באורח קל-בינוני. 5 פצועים בזירה.pic.twitter.com/ya9fYWYxMz

— Arbel - ארבל 🟦 (@ArbelReports) August 29, 2026

“They jumped out, beat us, then jumped back in the car,” Bradley said. He was struck twice in the arm and received treatment at a clinic, while other members of the crew were also injured and equipment and a vehicle were damaged. Abdullah was taken for medical treatment.

The UN said in June that more than 1,000 attacks causing casualties or property damage had been recorded this year, averaging six incidents a day – the highest rate since records began.

Palestinian Americans have also been caught up in West Bank violence. Saifullah Kamal Musallet, 20, was beaten to death by Israeli settlers in 2025, while 14-year-old New Jersey-born Amer Rabee was shot dead by Israeli troops. Amer believed his US citizenship would keep him “protected” and “free,” his father Mohammed Rabee told RT.

US lawmakers have accused Washington of failing to secure accountability for Americans killed in the territory. In a letter to the administration of US President Donald Trump this year, senators demanded independent investigations, citing an ongoing “lack of accountability” for their deaths.

More than 20 Western countries have called the project “unacceptable,” warning it would divide the West Bank and undermine prospects for a two-state solution. Arab and Muslim states have likewise demanded an immediate halt. Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are considered illegal under international law.

Russia has repeatedly said a negotiated two-state solution is the only viable path to peace, supporting an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital alongside Israel.

Iran is preparing a more aggressive response to renewed US attacks, and could strike economic targets as well as military sites, University of Tehran professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi has told RT.

His warning comes after Washington and Tehran exchanged direct strikes for the first time since late July, reigniting hostilities following a month-long lull.

US forces struck two Iranian launchers on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, claiming they were preparing to fire rockets carrying sea mines into the key waterway. Tehran said the attack had killed and wounded several soldiers and civilians and vowed retaliation.

Hours later, Iran launched missiles and drones at US military facilities in Jordan, claiming to have damaged both infrastructure and fighter jet positions.

Marandi described the renewed US strikes as a “grave miscalculation” on the part of Washington and stated that Tehran will not hold back after the deaths of its servicemen. He predicted that the Iranian response will be “different from what we’ve had before” and include strikes on both military and economic assets.

Marandi linked the shift to Washington’s simultaneous military and economic pressure on Tehran. The Trump administration last week announced what it called an “economic onslaught” against Iran, while oil prices jumped following the latest exchange of strikes.

Iranian officials have also promised a broader military response to further attacks. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran is “not looking for war” but would deliver a “decisive response” to aggression, while the IRGC warned that “every attack will be met with even more devastating responses.”

Watch the full interview with Mohammad Marandi below.

The US is preparing to unleash “financial violence” against Iran by rolling out new secondary sanctions every week, with banks first in line, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said. Foreign banks dealing with Iranian funds could ultimately be cut off from the dollar-based financial system.

The renewed economic pressure comes as US and Iranian forces exchanged strikes for the first time since late July.

On Sunday, Washington struck two Iranian rocket launchers on Larak Island near the Strait of Hormuz, claiming the Islamic Republic’s forces were preparing to fire rockets carrying sea mines into the waterway, which handles around 20% of global crude oil trade. Tehran said several soldiers and civilians were killed. Iran retaliated early on Monday, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claiming “significant damage” to two US military bases in Jordan.

The Treasury chief said he would urge G20 officials to sever economic links with Iran or risk US secondary sanctions themselves. “There can be no leakage,” he said, warning: “You’re either with us or you’re with the Iranians.”

Bessent said Washington plans to target an unidentified bank this week as part of the pressure campaign, warning that the White House is prepared to use “financial violence if we have to.”

The push follows Treasury action on Friday targeting the UAE operations of Banque Misr, Egypt’s second-largest bank. US officials proposed cutting its Emirati branches off from correspondent accounts after claiming they processed around $1.8 billion for companies allegedly tied to Iran’s shadow-banking network between January 2024 and June 2026.

The campaign could put particular pressure on China, Iran’s largest trading partner and leading oil buyer before the war. Beijing has opposed Washington’s secondary sanctions, insisting its trade with Iran is lawful and warning against US measures targeting Chinese entities.

Russia has also rejected the US pressure campaign. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last week Moscow “categorically” opposes unilateral sanctions and would coordinate with Tehran and other countries to counter Washington’s latest restrictions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Kyrgyzstan on Monday.

The three national leaders will later attend the annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a Eurasian group of nations seeking to improve security and economic ties.

Originally a five-member regional group that included China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan which signed its first agreement in Shanghai, the SCO has since expanded to become the biggest regional organizations for cooperation. It includes ten permanent members, 15 dialogue partners and two observer states.

The group has a range of political, security and economic goals and has been called by its members a key mechanism in transition to a new multipolar world system, replacing the period of US unipolarity that followed the Cold War.

The SCO states say Western nations are engaging in increasingly hostile and disruptive activity as their global dominance slips away, and having a forum where other nations can agree on joint responses to new challenges becomes more important.

This live has now ended.

Icelanders appear to have found a way to have their cake and eat it by rejecting a proposal to restart integration talks with the EU, RT’s Rachel Marsden reports.

In a referendum on the weekend, almost 53% of voters in the northern Atlantic nation supported maintaining the status quo rather than exploring the possibility of EU membership.

The small island country already has access to many of the benefits offered by the economic bloc, but cannot be dictated to by Brussels on key domestic policy issues, such as access to fishing resources or immigration policy.

Watch the video to learn more.

Rescue teams in Nepal are still trying to contact the more than 900 people believed to be trapped in hydropower construction sites, six days after a flash flood devastated the country’s northern mountainous region bordering Tibet.

The death toll in Nepal has climbed to 903, the country’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority said Monday morning. It said 4,247 people are still missing, of whom 933 are workers at the various hydropower project sites along the Trishuli river.

Nepali Army rescue teams, aided by specialist teams from India and China, are in a desperate race against time to rescue those trapped in the tunnels in Chilime, Langtang, and Upper Trishuli 3A projects in the Trishuli corridor.

Rescue teams identified the Upper Trishuli 3A Hydropower Project tunnel’s upper arc after working with drilling machines, excavators, and hydraulic cutters for three days and entered it Sunday. But the tunnel is filled with water and rescuers received no response from anyone trapped inside, the Kathmandu Post reported.

The rescuers are trying again after deploying high-pressure water pumps. The remains of one person were retrieved from one of the tunnels on Sunday.

Some 592 foreigners are also among the missing in Nepal. Twenty-two foreigners, from China and India, were rescued on Sunday.

Battle to Rescue People Trapped Inside Tunnel in Nepal Intensifies

pic.twitter.com/I40NRqptYi

— Sanjay-সঞ্জয় (@tflj_by_sanjay) August 31, 2026

”Our country has been facing an unimaginable and heartbreaking natural disaster,” Nepali Prime Minister Balendra Shah said in a social media post late Sunday.

The floods were reportedly triggered by a glacier collapse on the Chinese side of the border, with the Bhote Kashi river flooding and washing away several villages, dams, bridges, and roads last Wednesday.

”For years, scientists and local communities have been warning that the Hindu Kush Himalayas are at huge risk from climate change,” said UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell, who called the disaster “absolutely heartbreaking.”

“We also know a warming climate, driven by humanity burning colossal amounts of coal, oil and gas, is making tragedies like this one, and so many others around the world, much more likely, frequent and severe, with vulnerable communities often hardest hit,” he added.

The threat of flooding still looms over the affected areas. On Sunday, the Trushuli river swelled for a few hours again, washing away a bridge. Rescue efforts were paused briefly on Friday after warnings that a barrier dam had breached on the upper reaches of the Bhote Kashi.

Across the border in China, where the Gyirong border port was buried in mud, officials have reported 16 deaths, and 546 people missing – with 261 of them foreign citizens.

Chinese officials said no foreigners were stranded in the area.

More than 400 Indians crossed over into India from China on Sunday, the Indian Foreign Ministry said.

An Indian team in Kathmandu is conducting DNA analysis to identify the flood victims.

US President Donald Trump has published AI-generated clips showing a missile attack on Iran’s Kharg Island oil hub amid a new escalation between Washington and Tehran.

US and Iranian forces earlier exchanged strikes for the first time since late July. On Sunday, the US Central Command said it had targeted two Iranian launchers on Larak Island, near the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz, which it claimed were preparing to fire rockets carrying sea mines into the waterway, accounting for some 20% of global crude oil trade. According to Tehran, the bombing killed several Iranian soldiers and civilians.

Iran retaliated early on Monday, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) saying its drones and missiles had inflicted “significant damage” on the US military’s King Hussein and Al-Azraq air bases in Jordan.

Following the strikes, oil prices went up in early trading in Asia, with WTI futures growing by 2.47% to $85.46 per barrel and Brent futures climbing by 2.71% to $90.49 per barrel.

Trump did not issue any immediate statements on the escalation on his Truth Social platform, instead posting two short AI-generated videos of multiple missiles striking oil facilities on an island and causing huge explosions.

“Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!” the caption to one of the videos read.

When you CANT Win The Real War so you use AI to COPE

Trump posted this video with the caption: Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!
President DJT

THEN he posted it AGAIN without the caption. This is just sad pic.twitter.com/4JbFOxiHkX

— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) August 31, 2026

The head of the National Iranian Oil Company, Hamid Bovard, ridiculed Trump for posting the clips, saying that his “tweets are laughable and conditions in Kharg are calm and appropriate.”

The energy hub hasn’t been attacked, with routine oil operations continuing there, Bovard said, as cited by Nournews.

Located around 25 km (15 miles) off Iran’s Gulf coast, Kharg Island handles around 90% of the country’s crude exports, serving as the primary outlet for its oil revenue. The coral outcrop, often referred to by the public as the “forbidden island” because of the tight security, also hosts a major oil storage facility.

The US struck military sites on Kharg Island several times after the start of the conflict in late February, but refrained from targeting energy infrastructure. Trump also mulled a ground operation to seize the oil hub, saying it could be carried out by US forces or by “other people.” However, those plans never materialized.

Tehran has warned repeatedly that it will set the whole oil and gas infrastructure of the US allies in the Gulf States “on fire” if energy facilities on Kharg island are hit or an attempt to capture it is made.

US President Donald Trump has urged Canadian businesses operating in the American market to relocate south of the border “immediately,” amid an escalating trade war between the two neighboring nations.

The demand follows Trump’s announcement of new 50% tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks, automotive parts, and steel, set to take effect on January 1, in response to what he called Canada’s “unequal treatment” of American vehicles, dairy products, and alcohol. The duties are in addition to 50% levies imposed earlier this month on around $20 billion worth of Canadian imports. Ottawa has vowed to retaliate with “dollar-for-dollar” measures.

In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump described Canada as “one of the Worst Abusers” in trade, while crediting tariffs with having “revived, and indeed saved” the American automobile industry.

“I don’t want Canadian cars, I don’t want Canadian parts, I don’t want Canadian anything,” he wrote. “They’ve been ripping us off for decades, and it’s going to stop,” he added, describing Canada’s leadership as “the worst” among those he has ever dealt with.

Trade negotiations between Washington and Ottawa collapsed on August 21, with each side accusing the other of making last-minute changes to a proposed comprehensive agreement. The following day, the US imposed 50% tariffs on a range of Canadian products, including wine, cement, plywood, and clothing.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responded by announcing duties of up to 50% on around 700 American products, scheduled to take effect on September 8.

Trump dismissed Ford’s threats as “bluster,” branding Canadian leaders “clowns” who needed to “fall in line,” and hit back on Thursday by signing an executive order directing federal agencies to rename Lake Ontario “Lake America” on US government maps, contracts, documents, and communications.

One person has been confirmed dead and around 14 others are feared missing after a powerful flash flood tore through Arizona’s Grand Canyon, forcing dozens of hikers to be airlifted from the remote inner canyon.

The flooding struck Bright Angel Canyon and the Phantom Ranch area at around 2:30 PM on Saturday, sending muddy torrents, boulders and debris surging through Bright Angel Creek and into the Colorado River.

The US National Park Service (NPS) said Sunday evening that the body of a 46-year-old man had been recovered near Crystal Rapids along the Colorado River, around ten river miles downstream from where the flooding occurred. The body was transported to the Coconino County Medical Examiner’s Office, but the victim was not immediately identified.

Some 14 people may still be missing or unaccounted for, down from more than 20 earlier in the day. At least 62 people were evacuated by helicopter from Phantom Ranch and the lower North Kaibab Trail.

At least 20 people unaccounted for after flash flooding at Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona - officials pic.twitter.com/he0VNiRsLd

— BNO News (@BNONews) August 30, 2026

Footage from the area showed swollen brown water roaring through the canyon and carrying debris, while campers described scrambling to higher ground as the water rapidly rose.

update: the number of people unaccounted for after the grand canyon flash flooding has been revised from more than 20 to 15. i also found additional footage posted by david j gregory, one of the hikers evacuated from the canyon, in the grand canyon hikers facebook group. https://t.co/cBff99hTve pic.twitter.com/Hb9K91fDof

— Michael Rusch (@weeddude) August 30, 2026

Nearly all footbridges across Bright Angel Creek were destroyed, while Phantom Ranch, Bright Angel Campground and sections of the North Kaibab Trail were closed indefinitely. The flood also damaged the park’s water pipeline, prompting conservation measures.

Tehran has launched missile and drone strikes on US military positions in Jordan after Washington attacked Iran’s Larak Island, reigniting direct hostilities following a month-long lull.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said its retaliatory operation targeted the King Hussein and Al-Azraq air bases, claiming to have inflicted “significant damage” on technical and maintenance infrastructure and positions where fighter jets were stationed.

Jordanian air defenses intercepted eight missiles that entered the kingdom’s airspace early Monday, the country’s armed forces confirmed. A US source separately told Fox News that no significant impacts had been reported.

The exchange began on Sunday when US forces struck Larak Island, near the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz, killing and injuring several Iranian soldiers and civilians.

The IRGC vowed that the “aggressors will face definite punishment” and warned that “every attack will be met with even more devastating responses.”

Following the strikes, oil prices went up in early trading in Asia, with West Texas Intermediate futures growing by 2.47% to $85.46 per barrel and Brent futures climbing by 2.71% to $90.49 per barrel.

The renewed fighting marks the first direct US military action against Iran since late July. It comes less than a week after Washington said it had finished clearing sea mines from international shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, where maritime traffic has remained heavily disrupted.

Last week, Washington announced what it called an “economic onslaught” against Iran, as US President Donald Trump’s administration shifted its emphasis from large-scale military action toward economic pressure.

This live has now ended.

Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov has suddenly – and rather unexpectedly – become an adviser to Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto. The news caught many conservative military analysts off guard. Why would Italy want him, and what does Rome hope to gain? Let’s try to make sense of the move without getting carried away.

A manager in khaki, not a marshal

It should be obvious that Fedorov is no military genius, nor does he possess any particular talent as a battlefield commander. That is simply not who he is. He was never a career officer, and he never made his name drawing thick red arrows across maps of future operations. First and foremost, Mikhail Fedorov is an effective IT executive – and a knowledgeable chief customer for the entire defense industry.

His path to that role began as the top digital strategist for Vladimir Zelensky’s presidential campaign, where he built an online campaign network and bet heavily on internet marketing. From there, he went on to create Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation and roll out the Diia digital ecosystem, which changed everyday life across the country. In 2026, Fedorov took over the Defense Ministry amid an urgent need to impose order and bring sweeping digitalization to the armed forces. The timing, it seems, could hardly have been better.

• Drone procurement for military units was radically overhauled through the launch of a dedicated marketplace designed to minimize red tape. It was a highly unconventional move that significantly shortened the path from manufacturer to frontline unit while opening up a market for many small and relatively young companies. After drones, the same digital approach began spreading to other parts of the defense industry.

• Agile management methods were effectively brought into military life, breaking down long-established systems of multistage approval and allowing new ideas to be tested quickly under real battlefield conditions – directly in the trenches.

• The military opened its doors to software developed by civilian companies. The emphasis shifted toward finding new and unconventional solutions that could be deployed quickly and deliver results immediately, rather than waiting for lengthy testing reports and reviews by specialized military institutes.

Of course, Fedorov’s role in these changes should not be overstated. Many of the initiatives that reshaped the Ukrainian military began before he arrived at the Defense Ministry. What he brought was a fresh, digital perspective that helped cut some corners and speed up the adoption of new ideas.

There were no combat operations or battlefield triumphs involved. He was a digital-solutions manager who put on a military uniform – focused exclusively on digital systems and a project-based approach to reform. And naturally the process was not without its rough edges. Digitalization remains the only clear success he can point to.

Perhaps that is precisely what Rome needs: not military victories or battlefield credentials, but a fresh, modern approach. That, presumably, is where Italy is placing its hopes. Modern European militaries, including Italy’s, are weighed down by bureaucracy. Decisions on the procurement of new weapons systems and software take years. By the time they are finally approved, technology has already moved on, leaving armed forces to adopt systems that were obsolete before they ever entered service.

Fedorov may well be useful to Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto as a new battering ram against his own conservative military establishment. Rome wants to borrow Ukraine’s experience of rapidly digitalizing military logistics and integrating unmanned systems in real time.

To understand exactly which processes Fedorov may seek to adapt for the Italian military, one need only look inside his “digital briefcase.” It contains no secret missile technology – only commercial software and civilian IT solutions adapted to the needs of a defense ministry.

The Italian military is eager to introduce new digital battle-management systems that combine geospatial tools with hundreds of information sources and a distributed network of users, extending from the General Staff all the way to a frontline commander’s tablet in the trenches. Italy is also naturally interested in digitalizing weapons and military-equipment procurement – and even more so in applying artificial intelligence to military command and control.

It is difficult to judge the results, but on paper Fedorov’s résumé looks highly impressive: experience introducing cutting-edge digital solutions in Europe’s only army currently fighting a major war. That is certainly one way to present it – and why be shy when listing your strengths on a résumé?

A modern army increasingly resembles an IT corporation. Rome does not need Fedorov’s advice on how to defend its coastline or plan an armored offensive. It needs his ability to turn the military into a functioning digital platform.

But let’s take an honest look at the former defense minister’s record. Yes, there was digitalization and digital transformation. It may still be too early to assess the final results, but there have been no major successes on the battlefield – and that, one would think, is what an army is ultimately for and how its performance should be measured.

Then there is the less flattering part of the picture: the image of a petulant child who could not find common ground with career officers and began playing political games in the middle of an ongoing war to increase his own value back home. That hardly seems consistent with the image of a gifted digital manager. Wars, after all, are not won through digitalization alone, but through the coordinated action of different branches and types of forces.

It will be fascinating to see what Fedorov ‘achieves’ in his new job – and whether the spirit of Silicon Valley can take root in the austere offices of the Italian Defense Ministry.

As for the man with the polished résumé and the reputation of a ‘digitalization expert’, a position like this – especially in Rome – offers a splendid opportunity to make a graceful exit from Kiev and trade Ukraine’s brutal political reality for the warm, easygoing comforts of Europe.

At least eight people were killed when a ferry carrying more than 200 passengers capsized and sank off the coast of Cyprus on Sunday, the authorities in the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) have reported.

The Mediterranean island has been divided since 1974, with the Turkish Cypriot-administered north recognized only by Türkiye.

The catamaran-type vessel had left the popular holiday resort port of Kyrenia for southern Türkiye when it began taking on water, according to TRNC Public Works and Transport Minister Erhan Arikli.

Turkish Cypriot and Turkish authorities mounted a rescue effort involving multiple civilian vessels, coast guard boats, and helicopters.

Of the 267 passengers and crew aboard, at least eight died and 17 remain missing, Arikli said in a statement cited by the media. The capsized vessel later sank to a depth of around 514 meters (1686 feet), he was quoted as saying.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Ankara continues rescue efforts in collaboration with the TRNC authorities.

“The efforts to reach the missing continue without interruption,” he wrote on X.

SON DAKİKA | Girne açıklarında büyük deniz kazası…

KKTC’nin Girne Limanı’ndan Taşucu’na hareket eden katamaran tipi yolcu gemisi, kıyıdan birkaç kilometre açıldıktan sonra su alarak alabora oldu.

KKTC Ulaştırma Bakanı Erhan Arıklı’nın son açıklamasına göre gemide 259 yolcu ve… pic.twitter.com/piXQCgEyiY

— Ahmet Yeşiltepe (@ahmetyesiltepe) August 30, 2026

Footage from the incident shows hundreds of survivors in red life jackets clinging to the capsized hull of the vessel.

A passenger boat carrying approximately 270 people has sunk off the coast of northern Cyprus. The Ferry left Kyrenia for the Turkish port of Tasucu.#Cyprus #NorthernCyprus #Kyrenia #FerryAccident #FerryCapsized #Turkey #Tasucu #MediterraneanSea #RescueOperation #SearchAndRescue pic.twitter.com/uckoP5ZlC5

— VIRAL VOLT (@ViralVolT1) August 30, 2026

The vessel’s captain and seven crew members have been detained while an investigation of the cause of the accident and possible negligence is underway.

Cyprus faced severe storms on Saturday, with the Republic of Cyprus Civil Defense issuing an orange warning and cautioning people to avoid unnecessary travel. However, the warning expired that evening, and the subsequent official marine forecast carried no weather warning for Sunday.

Iraq is committed to a full withdrawal of US-led coalition forces by the end of September, UK-based Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Saturday, citing an Iraqi official.

US forces have been in the country for 23 years since the 2003 invasion and subsequent smaller-scale operations against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).

Reports that US and other foreign troops could remain after September “contradict what was agreed upon between the previous Iraqi government and the US administration,” Asharq Al-Awsat cited the official as saying.

The comments followed media reports suggesting that Washington was only planning a drawdown, rather than a full withdraw by the end of the September deadline.

“This is a transition of the Coalition’s military mission to a more traditional bilateral security partnership,” Iraqi news outlet Shafaq News reported, citing an anonymous US official.

Earlier this month, Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s office stated that the September 30 deadline would be “the fixed and final date” for the pullout of international coalition forces.

Washington’s presence in the region has taken a significant hit during the Iran war, as Tehran has damaged or outright destroyed key US radar, communications, and other military infrastructure at bases in Gulf nations.

During the conflict, US military infrastructure in the region also faced attacks by pro-Iranian armed groups in Iraq operating outside Baghdad’s direct control.

US allies in the Gulf have also reportedly expressed frustration over what they see as a lack of proper consultation before the US-Israeli attack on Iran, which led to bases on their territories being targeted. Regional powers have since moved to diversify their security partnerships, with Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan signing the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, already dubbed by commentators an ‘Islamic NATO,’ early this month.

Venezuela maintains control over its oil resources under a new agreement with the US granting Washington significant access to the country’s proven crude reserves, acting President Delcy Rodriguez said on Saturday.

US President Donald Trump claimed earlier in the week that Washington had secured “majority” control of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves “at no cost to the American Taxpayer.” In a post on Truth Social, he declared the transaction “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY,” claiming that it “MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves.”

The “historic” 25-year deal with Washington provides for the development of 17 strategic oil fields holding 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven crude reserves and aims to revive the Latin American country’s energy industry, Rodriguez said in a televised address.

“Something must be made absolutely clear: Venezuela retains ownership and sovereignty over its resources while using capital, technology and operational capacity to support the recovery of a strategic industry that has been severely affected by sanctions,” the acting president stressed.

The oil deal marks the latest expansion of US control over the country’s vast oil wealth following the January 3 military raid that abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and took him to the US to face federal charges.

Shortly after the operation, Trump vowed that Washington would “run” the Latin American country while overseeing a political transition and left open the possibility of further military action if the interim leadership failed to cooperate.

Washington has also announced plans to take “indefinite” control of Venezuelan oil sales and revenues, while Trump has ordered proceeds from Venezuelan crude to be held in US Treasury accounts, subject to US restrictions.

Earlier this week, Bloomberg cited people familiar with the matter as saying that Venezuela is weighing whether to leave the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), of which it has been a founding member for more than six decades.

Former Vice President and veteran Chavista figure Elias Jaua likewise accused Washington of stripping the nation of its sovereignty and taking control of its natural resources.

Last week, reports said some 31 tons of Venezuelan gold worth around $4 billion and held at the Bank of England could be released for June earthquake reconstruction, potentially under US Treasury control.

Earlier this year, the WSJ, citing US officials, reported that the White House had urged American investors to tap Venezuela’s gold and critical mineral reserves, potentially boosting US supplies and giving Washington leverage over the resource-rich country.

“And out of the smoke locusts came down on the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth…” – Revelation 9:3-5.

NATO has reportedly drawn up a plan for war with Russia in the event of a Russian attack on the Baltic states. At first glance, the document might seem unremarkable given the most senior officer involved in preparing it holds the rank of major, because every year, Russian and American military academies produce hundreds of officers capable of writing plans of this sort.

But two things make it worth paying attention to. The first is that modern military science is undergoing a profound crisis and the old methods of warfare are becoming increasingly difficult to use. Tank breakthroughs, deep encirclements and prolonged artillery barrages are all far more dangerous than they were even a decade ago because the battlefield is saturated with unmanned aerial vehicles.

The second is more surprising as military plans for a potential war aren’t usually made public, therefore NATO appears to be sending a message that we understand how warfare has changed, and we’re preparing for it.

The outlines of a possible non-nuclear Third World War can already be seen in such planning, but that assumes, of course, that nuclear powers could become involved in a global confrontation without crossing the nuclear threshold, instead fighting through local allies and proxies. What stands out in the NATO concept is the central role given to robotic and autonomous systems.

Only a few years ago, tanks were still regarded as the decisive instrument of land warfare, yet today a tank may struggle even to reach its firing position because the approaches are covered by drones, including so-called ‘waiters’ that land, remain concealed, and take off only when ordered to attack.

Technology has changed the battlefield with extraordinary speed and now NATO has published a defense concept for the three small Baltic states that appears to acknowledge this new reality. The importance of the document lies less in the rank of the officers who drafted it than in the fact that the alliance is publicly demonstrating its readiness for a different kind of war.I suspect that was the main reason for publishing it and the message is directed at an adversary that already has four years of intensive combat experience. The contours of a future non-nuclear world war are therefore becoming clearer. I’m not a military specialist, so I will speak only in broad terms. Human soldiers may increasingly be concentrated in elite formations and special forces, while much of the conventional battlefield is handed over to machines.

Back in the late 1980s, a special forces officer once told me that such units were becoming less useful when employed in support of large conventional armies and he predicted a gradual decline in the importance of elite formations, but history may now be turning in the opposite direction.

Even today, effective drones can be assembled in a garage, but of course, future combat systems will require increasingly sophisticated electronics, although it’s not yet clear how different many of those components will be from technologies already used in smartphones and consumer electronics.

This would also change the nature of military targets, for why attack an enemy’s tanks if you can disable the electricity that allows its entire military system to function?

Power stations will inevitably become heavily protected, but transmission networks are much more difficult to defend and it’s impossible to guard every kilometer of high-voltage cable. This could lead to a new emphasis on dispersed electricity generation and the Soviet Union already experimented with unconventional solutions in remote northern regions, including the use of nuclear technology originally developed for submarines. The economics of war would change as well given that drones are operated by small teams – or eventually by autonomous systems – and are cheap compared to the industrial machinery of traditional warfare.

They also reduce the enormous logistical burden associated with artillery, where a shell must be manufactured, transported by rail, moved again by truck and finally delivered to a gun. Even then, dozens or hundreds may need to be fired to destroy a single target. The scale of traditional warfare is difficult to comprehend. During one offensive in the First World War, the Entente fired roughly 25 million artillery shells, while the Central Powers mobilized about the same number of men over the entire conflict.

A future world war may therefore not be one enormous battlefield but dozens of smaller ones, connected by drones, satellites, artificial intelligence, and the political interests of states that can’t afford to fight one another directly.

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

“When Ashraf Ghani goes, we’ll go with him. And he’ll go when the Americans do.”

The conversation took place on the balcony of a luxury high-rise in Shahr-e Naw, central Kabul. The man speaking to me was a young government employee, and Ashraf Ghani was serving his second term as president of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It was May 2017. The republic had four years and three months left.

A city living on borrowed time

Downtown, you could find nightclubs throwing Valentine’s Day and Halloween parties, modeling agencies, coffee shops serving cheesecake, bowling alleys, and tattoo parlors. On the outskirts, tent camps were expanding to accommodate internally displaced people – refugees from the provinces, mostly in the south, whose homes had been destroyed by the war. Street boys begged in English: “Give me one hundred dollars!” Artists painted murals warning about domestic violence, fashionable women wore jeans and bright makeup, and Western NGOs taught Afghan children to skateboard.

At the same time, some places – including the park in Shahr-e Naw itself – were unsafe even in broad daylight because of the number of drug addicts, while robberies and kidnappings had become routine. After sunset, the city shut down. Several years later, The New York Times would call Kabul a city of hope and despair – an apt metaphor.

To protect itself from the constant bombings, Kabul grew a shell of concrete walls and checkpoints. There seemed to be as many police officers and soldiers on the streets as civilians, while American surveillance balloons hovered continuously over the city. None of it helped much. That same May, while I was there, a tanker truck packed with explosives detonated in the diplomatic quarter, killing more than 90 people and wounding around 400. Smaller incidents had long since ceased to qualify as news. One of my editors gave me a simple rule:

“If there’s a terrorist attack in Kabul and fewer than ten people are killed, don’t write about it. That’s not news.”

Politics and public life were no less remarkable. Afghanistan’s parliament had as many women as the US Congress, yet in the center of the capital a mob lynched Farkhunda Malikzada, a young Afghan woman, after a mullah falsely accused her of burning the Quran. Corruption broke every record, and the central government was weak. Hamid Karzai, the republic’s first president, had been dubbed the “president of Kabul.” Ashraf Ghani was already merely the “president of the presidential palace.” A provincial governor removed from office could simply declare that the president had no authority over him and remain at his post. Drug production reached unprecedented levels: according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 84% of the opiates on the global market in 2017 originated in Afghanistan.

This was what years of NATO’s military presence had made of the country and its capital. Once the troops withdrew, the existing order was bound to collapse.

The war that kept changing uniforms

The arrival of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan opened a new chapter in a civil war that, with varying degrees of intensity, had already been raging for 23 years.

Pandora’s box was opened in 1978, when the left came to power. The United States, Pakistan, China, and the Gulf states began actively arming the opposition, while the new government asked the Soviet Union for help. From 1979 to 1989, the Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces carried out what Moscow called its “internationalist duty” in Afghanistan, supporting a friendly government and controlling the major cities and some of the roads – the most any foreign army could hope to hold in the country’s mountainous terrain.

Immediately after the attacks came an episode recounted in ethnography classes to every student specializing in Afghanistan. George W. Bush issued the Taliban an ultimatum: hand over bin Laden. They refused. The official explanation was that there was no evidence linking him to the attacks. But there was an unofficial reason as well: bin Laden was a guest in Afghanistan. For the Pashtuns – the country’s largest ethnic group, to which the Taliban also belong – the rules of hospitality are sacred, and surrendering a guest to his enemy would bring shame for generations.

Uninterested in the finer points of the local mindset, Bush spent a month bombing Afghanistan and destroying the Taliban’s air force and air defenses. Then came the ground operation, first carried out with the help of allied forces – the same mujahideen – and later by US Marines under Operation Enduring Freedom. The United States had entered the longest war in its history and, at the same time, decided to build a democracy in Afghanistan – a bold idea for a country still living, in many respects, in the Middle Ages, with only a third of its population able to read and write. American filmmakers would later explore the absurdity of the situation and Washington’s profound failure to understand the country in War Machine, starring Brad Pitt.

For the first several years, things went reasonably well. Hamid Karzai, mentioned above, was elected president, a parliament was elected, and the United Nations and other international organizations threw themselves into reconstruction. While much of the money ended up in officials’ pockets, life did improve in some respects: child mortality declined, and the number of young women attending universities rose.

During the years of the American presence, much of the resentment toward the Soviet Union had faded.

”Yes, you fought us, but you fought well, like men,” former mujahideen told me again and again in different parts of the country. “You were brave: face to face, and the stronger man won. But these people? They bomb us from airplanes.”

The runway at the end of the world

On August 15, 2021, a message from Kabul woke me. It was from an Afghan journalist I knew.

”They’re here.”

“Who?”

“The Taliban. They’ve taken the city. It’s over.”

I had flown out of Kabul in February, and that assignment had been my bleakest: three or four explosions a day, activists and politicians being assassinated, Taliban patrols operating barely 12 miles from the capital. Kabul was practically under siege. Intense localized fighting raged in the south, official figures put the death toll at a hundred people a day, and provincial capitals kept changing hands.

Biden had announced that American troops would leave Afghanistan by September 11 – the irony was hard to miss – but analysts remained fairly optimistic. After all, Najibullah had held on for several years. Why couldn’t Ghani? Operation Enduring Freedom had long since been replaced by the noncombat Resolute Support mission, with alliance troops training and advising their Afghan counterparts so they could stand up to the Taliban on their own. Depending on the forecast, the republic was expected to survive anywhere from two to six months.

”No one will fight for the president. Nobody likes him,” he told me as we said goodbye. “And the president wouldn’t fight for us, either. The Americans deceived him, and he’ll deceive us.”

His words about the president proved prophetic: Ashraf Ghani fled to Uzbekistan before Kabul had even fallen fully under Taliban control. But the checkpoint commander was wrong about his own future. He survived the fall of the government and became a taxi driver. Tens of thousands of his former comrades found work as security guards, construction workers, shopkeepers, or day laborers. The new government granted them amnesty but did not trust them enough to keep them in the army.

But back to the morning of August 15. Mass panic gripped Kabul. A crowd rushed to the airport – the only place still under coalition control – tore down the barriers, and flooded the tarmac. Terrified people tried to force their way onto American planes, and their fear was entirely understandable: many remembered the public executions and ethnic cleansing of the Taliban’s first period in power. Photographs from Kabul in August 2021 bore an uncanny resemblance to those from Saigon in April 1975, when the Americans were also evacuating their allies. History does, after all, have a way of moving in circles. Kabul itself, incidentally, fell without a fight. Among those who spent weeks waiting for a flight and sleeping on the runways were many former members of the security forces who had gone home without firing a shot and hidden their uniforms.

”We were betrayed,” General Sami Sadat, a deputy commander of the Afghan army, told The New York Times.

Analysts now expected mass reprisals and another round of civil war. But Afghanistan – now the Islamic Emirate – was quiet.

A different kind of silence

A teapot filled with green tea sits on the desk of a Taliban official at the Ministry of Information. My hospitable host diligently keeps my cup full, pushes a dish of chewy candies toward me, and asks what I think of the new government. A month and a half has passed since the fall of the republic – or the “victory,” as the Taliban themselves call it.

”Have you been to our country before?”

“Yes.”

“And when was it better – then or now?”

“It’s much safer now,” I say. It is clearly the answer he expects, and one I can give with a clear conscience.

This time I arrived in Kabul from the north, after a 12-hour drive from Mazar-i-Sharif through the Salang Pass. Under the republic, such a journey would have been unthinkable. Fighting had raged all along the road. The reminders were everywhere: burned-out army vehicles stacked in pyramids, the walls of homes blown away by explosions, and the road itself, pocked with craters from mines and shelling. You can now walk at night in any part of Kabul, though few Afghans take advantage of the opportunity. No one yet understands what to expect from the new rulers. People fear them, despite all the leaders’ talk of peace and brotherhood. Yet after events that many Afghans experienced as the end of the world, life slipped back into its familiar rhythms with surprising speed. Government offices and banks were operating, stores were open, and there were no fewer women on the streets – and not all of them were wrapped in the famous blue burqas. The worst fears had not come true, at least not at that point.

And now, almost five years later, I do see Afghanistan again.

It is still quiet here, despite the conflict with Pakistan and divisions within the leadership. But it is a different kind of quiet.

The Emirate has many enemies, and its security services are exceptionally vigilant. To the Taliban, every foreigner is a potential spy. Tourists, reporters, and the staff of the humanitarian missions still operating in the country are kept under constant surveillance, while Afghans who speak with them can face trouble, up to and including arrest. The religious police, meanwhile, enforce compliance with Sharia. The sticks in the officers’ hands may be mostly for show, but people still try not to attract their attention.

Music is banned. There are many prohibitions, and a good number of them concern perfectly innocent things such as chess, which is now considered a form of gambling. The craters left by explosions have long since been patched. Restaurants that look far more like Dubai than Kabul are opening in Shahr-e Naw. The drug addicts were forcibly removed from the park long ago and sent to treatment centers that have almost no medicine. Girls still have not returned to school since the takeover, and working women are almost nowhere to be seen. No, unlike the republic, the Islamic Emirate is not a place of contradictions, and Kabul stopped being a city of despair long ago. But there is little hope left in it, either.

Downtown, the concrete walls are being dismantled. They are no longer needed now that the bombings have stopped. The republic-era murals have faded so badly that the words “We Want Peace” are barely legible. And Afghanistan has, indeed, enjoyed its longest stretch of peace in 40 years.

A record number of instances of artificial intelligence (AI) lying, ignoring users’ commands or acting in harmful ways to achieve its goals were registered last month, The Guardian has reported, citing a monitoring group.

Concerns about the safety of AI are on the rise after advanced models by OpenAI and Anthropic exhibited rogue behavior during testing this summer, with calls made to halt their development and introduce stricter government oversight of the process.

There were more than 300 incidents of real-world loss of control involving AI models employed by actual businesses and private individuals in July, which is almost double the number in June, an article in the paper said on Saturday.

The data came from the Loss of Control Observatory, which was set up by the UK government’s AI Security Institute (AISI) last November to track complaints about issues with AI made by users on X, it said.

A majority out of the 1,600 complaints on X in 2026 were made by software developers using AI bots in their work, according to AISI.

The monitor said that despite the fact that most real-world loss of control incidents did not cause significant harm, it has registered an increase in severity of AI’s deceptiveness and neglect of human commands.

Reports by users “evidence AI systems’ willingness to disregard direct instructions, circumvent safeguards, lie to users and single-mindedly pursue a goal in harmful ways,” AISI warned.

Tommy Shaffer-Shane, the senior policy manager at the Centre for Long Term Resilience, which operates the observatory, told The Guardian that it is wrong to suggest that AI only misbehaves during testing.

“We need to not be complacent that these things won’t happen in the real world and there is evidence that they already are,” he said.

Iceland has narrowly rejected the idea of resuming talks on joining the EU, public broadcaster RUV has reported. Previous negotiations were halted 13 years ago.

The referendum on Saturday saw a high turnout, with more than 225,000 people out of a population of just over 394,000 coming to the polls.

After the ballot count concluded on Sunday, RUV announced that 52.8% said ‘no’ to resuming accession talks, while 47.2% backed the idea.

The ballot asked voters just a single question: “Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?”

The country’s capital Reykjavik voted ‘Yes’, while people in rural areas were overwhelmingly against the EU path, underlining a split between the two parts of the country.

Icelandic Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir promised to hold a referendum by 2027, but moved it to an earlier date due to geopolitical tensions, including US President Donald Trump’s threats to annex neighboring Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark.

In January, Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Iceland, Billy Long, suggested that country could become the “52nd state” of the US, with himself as governor. However, he later apologized and called it a joke.

Before the vote, Frostadottir’s allies portrayed the EU as additional protection for the country, while Euroskeptics argued that Brussels itself was becoming increasingly militarized and confrontational. Iceland is already a founding NATO member and maintains extensive military ties with Washington.

Supporters of restarting the talks also argued that closer EU integration could bring greater economic and currency stability, while giving the country more influence over rules it already adopts through the European Economic Area.

Opponents focused heavily on sovereignty, agriculture, and above all, Iceland’s fishing grounds, warning that membership could subject the strategically vital industry to the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.

The leader of the Heimssyn eurosceptic movement, Haraldur Olafsson, told Ruptly before the referendum that Brussels was “definitely a greater threat to the sovereignty of Iceland than any other superpower in the world.”

The US only asks for an area for a military base in the country and a government that “isn’t very hostile” to Washington, while the EU “wants to govern the county. They want to set the law,” he explained.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe proposed a trilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin, US President Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky during his covert trip to Moscow in an effort to find a resolution to the ongoing Ukraine conflict, Axios has reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.

Ratcliffe made an unannounced trip to Moscow on August 25. The following day, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that contact between the two countries’ intelligence services had taken place, but said Putin had not met with the CIA chief. “Of course, President Putin is immediately briefed on everything,” Peskov said, calling the meeting “a positive phenomenon” while declining to give further details.

US officials briefed Zelensky on the Moscow talks and the plan for a trilateral summit. They also said Ratcliffe had discussed the possibility of restarting peace talks, the outlet reported.

Earlier last week, Trump described the visit as “semi-routine.” When asked by talk show host Glenn Beck whether Putin planned on “testing NATO resolve,” or whether Ratcliffe discussed US sanctions on Iran, Trump replied “none of the above.”

The last publicly disclosed contact between Ratcliffe and a senior Russian official was a March 2025 phone call with SVR chief Sergey Naryshkin. The two sides agreed to maintain dialogue to “promote international stability and security” and reduce tensions between Moscow and Washington, the SVR said.

A six-year-old girl has been pulled alive from beneath mud and debris in Nepal, a video circulating online appears to show, three days after catastrophic flooding swept through northern parts of the country.

The flooding began on Wednesday after an ice-and-rock mass descended into the upper Bhote Koshi River, devastating communities downstream and along the Trishuli River, destroying homes, roads, bridges and energy infrastructure. The death toll has reached 734, while around 2,500 people remain missing, according to the country’s authorities.

The missing reportedly include 589 foreign nationals, 933 employees of hydropower projects and 85 security personnel, while 242 people have been injured, according to the authorities.

The worst affected areas were Chitwan district, where 259 people died, followed by Nawalparasi East with 184 deaths and Nawalparasi West with 82, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority said, adding that the identification of bodies is ongoing at 21 hospitals across the country.

The government has allocated more than a billion rupees (over $6.5 million) in aid for the affected areas, dispatched dozens of trucks carrying relief supplies and arranged air deliveries of food to communities cut off by the flooding.

On Saturday, the Russian Embassy in China said that eight Russians who had been in the disaster zone along the Nepal-China border were missing. Later on in the day, Nepal Tourism Board figures listed nine Russian nationals among those missing. Two have since been rescued, while seven remain unaccounted for.

On the Chinese side of the border, 16 people have died and 546 remain missing in Tibet’s Gyirong County, Chinese authorities said on Sunday. Among those unaccounted for are 261 foreign nationals from 23 countries. More than 2,100 rescue personnel have been deployed, while authorities have warned of further risks from unstable terrain and a newly formed barrier lake.

A TikTok streamer allegedly stabbed three men following a confrontation he broadcast near Amsterdam’s central railway station, local media have reported.

The incident occurred at around 7:30 PM on Saturday on De Ruijterkade, a waterfront road running behind Amsterdam Centraal station. Police believe an argument or fight preceded the stabbing.

Three men suffered non-life-threatening stab wounds. Two of them and the injured suspect were taken to hospital, while the third victim was treated at the scene.

Four ambulances, a Mobile Medical Team, and a specialist fire-service unit were dispatched following reports of the violence, the Dutch outlet 112 Nieuws Nederland reported. The road was temporarily closed while emergency services examined the scene.

Video circulating online shows a man livestreaming as an argument develops. He can apparently be heard saying in Dutch: “Bro, listen. I’m doing my thing,” before repeatedly telling members of the group not to touch him.

🇳🇱 A Black attacker livestreamed himself stabbing three people near Amsterdam Central Station this evening.

Four people, including the suspect, were taken to hospital.

Follow: @europa pic.twitter.com/P0lWEcMgLN

— Europa.com (@europa) August 30, 2026

“Alcohol does this,” he adds as tensions escalate. The recording shows pushing and punching, with at least one person falling to the ground. The streamer then places his phone nearby with its camera facing the group and approaches the men. The broadcast cuts off shortly afterward.

Vier gewonden bij #steekpartij op de Ruijterkade achterzijde centraal station #Amsterdam. Ook verdachte gewond en aangehouden door #politie. Plaats delict (PD) afgezet politieonderzoek. Vele hulpdiensten ter plaatsen. pic.twitter.com/4XqyOQDgbb

— Martin Damen (@martindamen58) August 29, 2026

Other recordings of the aftermath show several injured people lying on the pavement as bystanders attempt to help them. Police officers, ambulances, and other emergency personnel can later be seen arriving.

JUST IN: 4 people, including the suspect, stabbed behind Amsterdam Central Station following an argument; incident was reportedly filmed on TikTok Live. pic.twitter.com/BsRPxXUosm

— Scope Report (@ScopeReport_) August 29, 2026

The Dutch outlet VKMAG identified the streamer as Angelo Bryson, known online as Superhuman Unchained, and reported that the group involved comprised approximately six or seven men. Bryson was born on Sint Maarten in the 1980s and moved to Curaçao at age seven. At age 22 he moved to the Netherlands and became a personal trainer and competitive powerlifter.

Police, meanwhile, have not officially disclosed the detainee’s identity or publicly established who inflicted the stab wounds. It also remains unclear whether those involved knew one another or what triggered the initial dispute.

Investigators have appealed for witnesses and anyone with relevant footage or information to come forward.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb has said that he doesn’t believe speculations that Russia is planning to attack NATO countries.

Russia has repeatedly rejected claims that it has aggressive designs against the bloc, saying that they are only made by Western politicians to distract the public from problems at home and justify growing military spending.

During his interview with the German tabloid Bild on Saturday, Stubb was asked to weigh in on the assessment by the Defense Ministry in Berlin that Russia could invade NATO territory by 2029.

“If someone had such a crystal ball – wonderful. But I just don’t see any evidence or facts for it,” he replied.

“First, I have intelligence findings. And secondly, we have a deterrence – and this deterrence is stronger than that of any other military power anywhere in the world,” the Finnish president added.

According to Stubb, Russia is also preoccupied with the Ukraine conflict.
“I simply don’t see that they could now suddenly mobilize forces for two fronts,” he noted.

“I’m not saying: ‘Relax.’ You should always prepare for the worst to prevent it,” the Finnish president said.

He accused Moscow of waging “information warfare” against the West, saying that “Russia wants us Europeans to sit here and discuss: Will Russia escalate?.. Will Russia attack NATO and Europe?”

Stubb again urged NATO to continue its support for Kiev amid the ongoing conflict with Moscow. Finland joined the bloc in 2023, abandoning its longstanding policy of neutrality.

Moscow maintains that a conflict with NATO is only possible if the bloc launches an aggression against Russia first.

Earlier this week, Moscow told the UK that its military facilities and equipment in Ukraine and beyond could become legitimate targets for Russia if Kiev continues to use British-supplied weapons for strikes on Russian territory.

Russian officials also previously warned that if Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania knowingly help to facilitate Ukrainian drone attacks against northwestern Russia, Moscow could consider them complicit in those actions and would have the right to self-defense under the UN Charter.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s eldest son Yair has been secretly flown out of the US following a “significant threat” to his life, according to the country’s security agency, Shin Bet.

The revelation comes days after Netanyahu himself claimed in a telephone interview with Israel’s Channel 14 that Iran had “tried to murder” one of his sons, without specifying which one or providing any details about the alleged plot.

“There was a significant threat to harm Yair Netanyahu, and in light of this and after an assessment, a decision was made to urgently extract him along with his security team and return him to Israel,” Shin Bet said in a statement on Saturday, without disclosing the nature of the threat or when exactly the operation took place.

To carry out the operation, Shin Bet reassigned agents who had been protecting Israeli President Isaac Herzog in New York at the time, according to Channel 12.

Iranian operatives allegedly monitored his residence and movements. Yair, who had spent several years in the US and enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle there, was ordered to leave immediately and returned to Israel, allegedly without even collecting his belongings.

His prolonged stay abroad attracted scrutiny at home, particularly after the October 2023 Hamas attack, as many questioned why he remained overseas while hundreds of thousands of Israeli reservists were summoned for a retaliatory military operation in Gaza.

The news comes as Netanyahu’s coalition faces a difficult reelection campaign in the wake of the stalled war with Iran. The conflict began in late February with joint US-Israeli strikes on Tehran that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and four members of his family, including his daughter Boshra and his 14-month-old granddaughter Zahra.

Khamenei’s son Mojtaba, who was named the new supreme leader a week later, has pledged to “avenge the blood” of his father. Tehran, however, has not commented on or claimed responsibility for the alleged assassination plot against Netanyahu’s son.

Israel continued attacks across southern Lebanon on Saturday, carrying out airstrikes, artillery shelling and demolitions, while Tehran pledged continued support for the country amid stalled negotiations over an IDF withdrawal.

Most of the day’s attacks were concentrated in Nabatieh Province, RT’s Lebanon correspondent Steve Sweeney said. Two explosions were reported near Aita al-Jabal, while Israeli drones carried out two strikes on Nabatieh al-Fawqa on Saturday morning. Israeli forces separately set fire to homes in Beit Yahoun.

The latest strikes came two days after an Israeli attack on Arab Salim killed 28-year-old Saja Sharara just 48 hours after her wedding, according to Sweeney, who recently visited the southern Lebanese village. Six others were wounded, including a child, a woman, and two elderly people.

Israel, however, said Thursday’s strikes followed the launch of two Hezbollah drones toward Israeli troops. 

The escalation comes as Tehran reaffirms its support for Lebanon. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met Sheikh Ali al-Khatib, vice president of Lebanon’s Higher Shiite Islamic Council, in Tehran on Friday. According to Lebanese L’Orient Today, Khatib described a deteriorating situation in the south, saying many displaced residents had exhausted their savings and had been left without homes or work. He appealed in particular for financial assistance for affected communities.

Araghchi said Tehran was working to revive the US-Iran memorandum of understanding signed in June, the first clause of which called for an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. He argued that implementing the agreement remained the way to resolve the crisis, while acknowledging that “the circumstances are difficult,” as cited by L’Orient Today.

Hezbollah says it has observed the ceasefire reached under the subsequent US-Iran agreement. Israel, however, has continued strikes and demolitions in southern Lebanon and currently occupies more than 600 square kilometers of Lebanese territory.

Beirut and Israel have meanwhile been holding direct negotiations aimed at securing an Israeli withdrawal and ending the hostilities. Another round is reportedly expected in Rome in September, but progress has been limited.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has branded OpenAI’s top executives “utterly untrustworthy assholes” after the company announced plans to withdraw its artificial intelligence models from Cursor following the coding platform’s acquisition by SpaceX.

Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 with its current CEO Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman, and several other developers and researchers, left the company three years later over its direction and has since been locked in a bitter public and legal feud with its leadership.

Earlier this month, SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Anysphere, the developer of Cursor, which provides programmers with access to AI models from several companies.

On Friday, OpenAI abruptly announced that it intends to end Cursor users’ access to its models, with a “proposed shutoff date” of November 12. The company said it could not be confident that “SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts.”

I couldn’t care less. Scam Altman and Greg Stockman are utterly untrustworthy assholes who stole an open source nonprofit.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 29, 2026

“I couldn’t care less. Scam Altman and Greg Stockman are utterly untrustworthy assholes who stole an open source nonprofit,” Musk wrote on X on Saturday.

OpenAI said its agreement with Cursor allows it to cancel the contract within a limited period following a change of control, although it has not accused the platform itself of violating its terms.

Anthropic, one of OpenAI’s main rivals, quickly moved to capitalize on the dispute, saying it would increase computing capacity to support its Claude models on Cursor following the cutoff announcement.

During court proceedings, Musk accused OpenAI of breaking that founding commitment by adopting a profit-driven model and entering a tight-knit alliance with Microsoft – a partnership that testimony revealed has cost Microsoft over $100 billion in infrastructure and direct funding. The billionaire has repeatedly accused Altman of having “stolen a charity” and described himself as a “fool” for providing the company with early financial support.

In May, a US federal jury rejected Musk’s claims, finding that he had waited too long to bring the case and had missed the statutory deadline. Musk has pledged to appeal the verdict.

The US could use nuclear weapons against Iran after failing to topple its leadership with conventional means, former presidential counterterrorism adviser Joe Kent has told podcaster Tucker Carlson.

In April, US President Donald Trump threatened that Iran’s “whole civilization will die” unless Tehran agreed to Washington’s demands. Trump has since repeatedly issued similar threats, saying that US forces could obliterate the country’s civilian infrastructure, including power plants and bridges.

Appearing on Carlson’s show on Friday, Kent described the nuclear option as realistic, saying that “we would be fools to think that this couldn’t happen here, in this current scenario, especially as the [Trump] administration scrambles for a way out.”

How close are we to nuclear war? According to Joe Kent, a lot closer than you think.

0:00 Monologue
23:19 Are We Heading Toward Nuclear War?
26:51 What Does Unconditional Surrender Actually Mean?
30:23 Should Trump Be Impeached?
36:24 Israel's Escalation Into Lebanon and… pic.twitter.com/g7zkjzWezY

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 28, 2026

He noted that Trump has failed to achieve any of his constantly shifting objectives in the conflict with Iran, despite employing the whole gamut of US military and economic capabilities.

According to Kent, if Washington is still intent on removing the Iranian leadership from power and forcing it into a “total surrender,” there are only two options left at Trump’s disposal: a full-scale ground operation or a nuclear strike.

The former is “not feasible whatsoever,” given Iran’s vast territory and population, Kent told Carlson.

“If you just play out the scenario for long enough, you arrive at weapons of mass destruction, you know, fairly quickly,” Kent claimed. He speculated that Washington could hypothetically opt for a limited nuclear strike on underground uranium enrichment facilities tucked away in Iran’s mountainous areas.

Trump and several other senior US officials have vehemently denied claims of ammunition shortages, insisting that the Pentagon has plenty of munitions at its disposal.

However, in an apparent shift in tactics, the US president announced last week the start of a “CRUSHING ECONOMIC OPERATION” against Iran, which he dubbed the “ECONOMIC D-DAY.”

Several days later, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unveiled a slew of new sanctions against Tehran, targeting nearly 60 entities, individuals, and vessels in multiple jurisdictions, including 21 based in China.

The secretary explained that the US was aiming to make Iran an “economic outcast” by penalizing countries that refuse to sever economic ties.

“Any entity that facilitates money laundering on behalf of Iran will be removed from the US dollar system,” he warned during a press conference on Monday.

Icelanders have turned out in unusually large numbers to decide whether to reopen accession talks with the European Union, with the founding NATO member split almost exactly down the middle over its future relationship with Brussels.

Polling stations closed at 10 PM local time on Saturday, with the latest partial results showing “no” narrowly ahead after an exceptionally tight count. With around 152,000 votes counted, the nationwide tally stood at 50.1% for “no” and 49.9% for “yes,” as election officials warned that a reliable final result might not emerge until later on Sunday.

Icelandic Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir, who backed reopening negotiations, said she hoped the extraordinarily close contest would neither divide the country nor leave lasting wounds.

“The main thing is that we remain united ... whether the result is yes or no,” she said.

The ballot asks voters a single question: “Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?”

A “yes” would not automatically make Iceland an EU member. It would restart negotiations abandoned more than a decade ago, with any eventual membership agreement expected to be put to voters in a second referendum. The vote itself is legally advisory, although Frostadottir has pledged to respect the result.

The campaign went down to the wire. A final Maskína survey put the “yes” camp at 50.4% and “no” at 49.6%, while a Gallup poll shortly beforehand showed essentially the reverse picture, with opponents narrowly ahead.

Iceland first applied to join the EU in 2009 after its devastating banking collapse and began negotiations the following year. The process was suspended after a change of government in 2013 and effectively abandoned in 2015 as the economy recovered and enthusiasm for surrendering powers to Brussels faded.

Supporters of restarting the talks have argued that closer EU integration could bring greater economic and currency stability and give the country of fewer than 400,000 people more influence over rules it already adopts through the European Economic Area. The country is also part of the Schengen zone and deeply integrated into European markets.

The geopolitical argument has also loomed unusually large. Frostadottir’s allies have portrayed the EU as additional protection in an increasingly unstable world, particularly after US President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to take control of neighboring Greenland.

Unease was further fueled in January when Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Iceland, Billy Long, joked that the country itself could become the “52nd state” of the US, with him serving as governor.

Euroskeptics, meanwhile, have argued that Brussels itself is becoming increasingly militarized and confrontational. Iceland is already a founding NATO member and maintains extensive military ties with Washington.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are close to stripping multiple left-wing nonprofits, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF), the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), of their tax-free status, the New York Post has reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened action against left-leaning charitable nonprofits and the OSF in particular, accusing them of fueling “violent protests” and damaging the country. The drive against the nonprofits picked up in the aftermath of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September last year, when Trump designated the loosely organized Antifa movement, backed by left-wing nonprofits, as a “domestic terrorist organization.”

At the time, US media reported that the US Department of Justice was pushing prosecutors to go after the OSF. The DoJ reportedly offered a range of potential charges to look into, including material support for terrorism, racketeering, arson and wire fraud. The foundation condemned the reported plans as “politically motivated attacks on civil society.”

The investigation also reportedly targets assorted anti-corporate and labor-aligned advocacy groups. Officials within the department were “like a dog with a bone” when it came to the probes, and many of the groups and their donors were already “on borrowed time,” one of the sources told the Post.

“There’s a lot of internal pressure to get it done, but some people are still moving too slowly at the IRS,” the source said. “That is expected to change very soon.”

Earlier this week, the Trump administration took action against three organizations based in Europe, including two pro-Palestinian groups, designating them as transnational terrorists. Palestine Action and Masar Badil, as well as Autistici/Inventati, which provides free digital tools to left-wing activists worldwide, are now subject to US State Department sanctions.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Baden-Wurttemberg Governor Cem Ozdemir have called for the opposition Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to be banned. The two establishment politicians claim that the country’s most popular party poses a threat to Germany’s constitutional order and democracy.

The AfD is the largest opposition force in the Bundestag and enjoys the support of 28% of respondents, according to recent surveys.

The right-wing party advocates tougher immigration controls while also calling for an end to Germany’s green policies. It is also highly critical of Berlin’s support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

In an opinion piece published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Friday, Pistorius and Ozdemir drew parallels between the modern-day AfD and Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party.

“Today, we are once again facing a threat to democracy from the extreme right,” the politicians, who represent the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party, respectively, claimed.

In making their case for outlawing the right-wing party, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that a powerful faction within the AfD espouses the idea of ‘remigration’, thus calling into question the “inviolability of human dignity” enshrined in the German constitution.

“A legal review of the constitutionality of a political party is warranted when it calls into question and threatens the continued existence of our democracy,” Pistorius and Ozdemir stated.

The two also took issue with the AfD’s supposedly “pro-Russian stance,” describing it as a “security risk.” The opposition party’s calls for Germany to withdraw from the European Union, the Eurozone, and NATO are equally “dangerous,” according to the article.

While acknowledging the AfD’s rising popularity, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that widespread public support for the party is another reason why it should be banned outright.

Voting for the opposition party out of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in Germany is no excuse, the authors argued.

“The undeniable radicalization of the AfD makes it impossible to claim ignorance of who one is voting for,” they wrote.

At present, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency classifies the AfD as a ‘suspected right-wing extremist’ entity – a designation that gives the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) powers to surveil the party and its members. In several regions, local AfD chapters have been subjected to even wider monitoring.

Meanwhile, an INSA poll published by Bild earlier this month showed that support for Germany’s governing Christian Democratic CDU/CSU bloc had fallen to 20%, with some 78% of respondents dissatisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition government, which also includes the Social Democrats.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry has summoned Ukraine’s ambassador after two Turkish-operated vessels were attacked in the Black Sea, raising concerns over the safety of civilian shipping in the waterway.

The incidents occurred earlier this week off the Russian port of Tuapse. On Wednesday, the cargo ship Lider Bordo Mavi was hit by at least three Ukrainian drones, leaving five crew members injured and setting the vessel ablaze.

The following day, another vessel, the Lider Kocatepe, was dispatched to assist the damaged ship. It came under drone attack en route, sustaining damage and forcing it to return to the Turkish port of Samsun.

Kiev’s envoy to Ankara, Naryman Dzhelialov, was summoned on Saturday. During the meeting, Turkish diplomats conveyed their concerns over the incidents and the safety of navigation in the Black Sea.

In recent weeks, Kiev has stepped up attacks on civilian shipping, attacking vessels heading to and from Russian ports and repeatedly striking Turkish-linked ships. Moscow has mounted a retaliatory campaign against Ukrainian military-linked shipping, heavily disrupting the country’s Black Sea ports and effectively bringing all marine traffic to a halt. The retaliatory strikes have reportedly affected Turkish-linked vessels as well. 

Ankara has repeatedly raised concerns over the situation, urging both sides to stop the ongoing strikes. Early in August, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for a “moratorium” on such attacks. “The conflict has spread across the whole Black Sea,” he said at the time, claiming that both Moscow and Kiev have been “attacking all commercial shipping without distinction.”

RT: It is well known that the United States has stationed nuclear weapons in NATO countries in Europe since the 1950s as part of a nuclear‑exchange programme. Why has the issue of removing US nuclear weapons from the region become a matter of fundamental importance at this moment?

Andrey Belousov: First and foremost, it must be noted that the problem of US nuclear weapons on the territory of European states and Turkiye has long been the subject of bilateral meetings on strategic stability, including at the beginning of the mid‑1990s. For the record, under presidential initiatives in the early 1990s, Russia reduced its non‑strategic nuclear arsenal four‑fold and kept the remainder at central storage bases.

We could reasonably expect symmetrical moves from the United States. Yet the actions taken by the US in the early 2000s – such as the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Greece and the United Kingdom, and partially from Italy and Germany – seemed more like a tactical concession or a trick, without changing the military‑political context in Europe. After all, the US nuclear weapons withdrawal from Greece was fully compensated by their presence in Turkiye, and those withdrawn from the UK were replaced by its own nuclear arsenal of the United Kingdom – which is the main and most important ally, strategic ally of the United States.

In contrast, the measures taken to remove and reduce US nuclear weapons in Italy and Germany did not significantly enhance security, trust, or predictability, because the practice of US nuclear weapons in Europe and joint NATO nuclear missions continued unchanged. In short, if we keep talking about this, we must remember that at that time the United States consistently followed a line to enhance its strategic capabilities, primarily through the implementation of plans and programmes not directly related to strengthening its nuclear potential, most of which was under the arms‑control bans at the time – Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

By the mid‑1990s, the US began implementing its Global Missile Defence configuration, which envisaged deploying one of its segments – the third positional sector – in Europe. At the same time, the concept of a global lightning‑strike was being implemented, under which the US could use non‑nuclear strategic carriers to strike any target anywhere on Earth.

We should also mention the development of new nuclear delivery systems and, finally, a programme to create laser anti‑satellite air‑based systems. This also included the development of heavy strike UAVs that, by their technical characteristics, fell under the criteria of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty,   but were not covered by it. It was also  a key element of enhancing US strategic capacity.

Accordingly, during that period of reshaping strategic stability from a military‑security view, Russia’s priority was to mitigate the risks and threats that could arise from the execution of the projects and programmes I mentioned. It does not mean that the issue of US non‑strategic nuclear weapons in Europe fell out of Russian diplomatic focus, let alone the Russian military, which could not ignore this problem in its defensive planning.

As tensions with the United States and its satellites increased, Russia sharpened the issue of removing American nuclear weapons from Europe, and the complete withdrawal of that armament from European territory to national territory.

Naturally, this has had a profoundly negative impact on the strategic environment.In fact, the negative factors are not limitк ed to the present situation. Factors that must be considered in analysing the current modern context also include NATO’s provocative positioning as a nuclear alliance and the continuous attempts of member states to expand that alliance eastward. Moreover, plans for advanced and extended deterrence, and the expansion and deepening of NATO’s joint nuclear missions, are increasingly being implemented. All of this must be considered together to understand the environment in which we live now.

And, undoubtedly, these aspects compel us to give enhanced attention, during this historical period, to the non‑strategic US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, as well as those of US allies in NATO – France and the United Kingdom. As a result, in the current conditions the factor of the total nuclear arsenal or the combined nuclear potential in the region takes on special importance in Russia’s military‑security context. The involvement of new states, NATO’s schemes for practising nuclear usage and discussing the possibility of deploying such weapons on their territory, and the introduction of new multifunctional aircraft platforms as delivery systems, increase the threat to Russia. The reason is that nuclear warheads can be moved quickly and covertly from permanent locations to points from which their use could have the greatest effect, including an attack on strategically important targets in the European part of Russia.

To summarise, I would like to note that all of this confirms that the European component of US nuclear forces, as well as the nuclear weapons of its allies, is designated for carrying out strategic objectives specifically, which poses critical risks for our country. This compels us to a corresponding military‑technical response. On the diplomatic front, our current efforts are focused on sparking an international discussion on the extremely destabilising nature of NATO’s joint nuclear mission practice, and on encouraging the United States to take steps toward removing its nuclear weapons from Europe.

RT: Andrey Ivanovich, what arguments, in your view, could persuade the American side and European countries alike to agree to remove this weapon?

Andrey Belousov: Here we can offer an entire battery of arguments – political, diplomatic, military, economic, international‑law and even historical in nature – grounded in the present state of inter‑state relations and the overall military‑political environment in the world.

The core of our arguments is, in principle, well known, because it is based on our doctrinal documents, our foreign‑policy concept, the fundamentals of national‑security strategy and military doctrine. Most of them relate to the fact that the international community is essentially faced with a choice: will inter‑state relations continue to develop in a confrontational paradigm that threatens a direct armed conflict between nuclear powers and the use of nuclear weapons, or will prudence prevail among our opponents, allowing the leading powers to reach an agreement on concrete joint measures to prevent escalation and avert a catastrophic scenario for the entire world?

Obviously, unlike our opponents and most Western countries, Russia does not stand at a crossroads. We have repeatedly expressed, at various levels and on different international platforms – including the UN – our readiness to cooperate with all interested states to maintain peace, strengthen regional security, and ensure strategic stability. Moreover, our statements are regularly reinforced by concrete initiatives. Recall that one of the founding principles of Russia’s foreign‑policy course in international and regional security remains the principle of equal and indivisible security. A key part of that principle is the non‑acceptance of a situation in which one state or a group of states creates comfortable conditions for itself – or a privileged status – at the expense of lowering the security level or damaging the security of other states.

From that widely recognised principle, which is set out in a host of international multilateral documents, Russia has recently put forward a whole set of key initiatives. These include proposals for the United States and its NATO allies to introduce a mutual moratorium on the deployment of intermediate and shorter range missiles. Another initiative, launched in late 2021 and early 2022, was the establishment of a security guarantee on the western front in the form of an agreement with the United States and NATO allies. Yet another initiative was a proposal, unfortunately still unrealised, to convene a summit of heads of state, the United Nations Security Council’s permanent members, to discuss urgent problems in international security. Among the latest proposals is the one put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin on September twenty second of last year to preserve the legacy of the START Treaty through voluntary limits.

In short, our opponents – primarily in Europe – must decide where we are headed next. In that context, it is far more important to bring forward arguments that are conditioned by the course of the historical process associated with establishing a new multipolar world order in which the imperative is the abandonment of global dominance by any one state or bloc of states. The new system of geopolitical coordinates, in whose formation Russia actively participates, does not allow perpetual escalation, the accumulation of unresolved contradictions critical to international security, or the further erosion of trust between the emerging centres of power, whose dangerous balance risks armed conflict. Furthermore, this system of coordinates does not allow continuous fuelling of a conflict‑generating potential in international relations and an uncontrolled arms race. It is also unacceptable, in a new world order, to create security systems aimed at a single state or predicated on bloc‑based confrontation. Rather, the new order dictates the necessity for mutually beneficial cooperation and constructive collaboration between states.

The quest, above all, is for political‑diplomatic solutions to the most urgent regional and global problems, strict adherence to the fundamental principles of the UN, the goals and tasks of the global community, respect for international law, and the recognition by every member of the international community of its responsibility for the fate of the world and international security.

RT: how could these negotiations – and the withdrawal of the weapons themselves – be organized if, in an optimistic scenario, the US side agreed with this position?

Andrey Belousov: That’s a very interesting question. At this point the organizational aspects of such negotiations, or even the procedure for removing US weapons from Europe, are secondary. The key issue now is Washington’s unwillingness to find a principled agreement to discuss this problem with a view of reaching any real agreement on the matter. What is needed is an openness to start and conduct negotiations without tying them to the question of Russia’s non‑strategic nuclear weapons, which, unlike US weapons of this class that can be used operationally against our country, do not pose a direct strategic threat to US territory.

It is obvious that Washington’s attempts to initiate a dialogue on our non‑strategic nuclear arsenal serve a single purpose – shifting the international community’s focus away from the danger posed by US nuclear weapons in Europe, and more broadly, from the missile‑nuclear programs and plans that Washington is implementing. Speaking of that danger, it cannot be overlooked that Washington’s persistence in trying to launch discussions about Russia’s non‑strategic nuclear weapons – those that do not threaten US territory – at various multilateral disarmament forums repeatedly suggests that US military strategists are seriously considering the possibility of using nuclear weapons on the European theater of operations. In fact, Europe is being viewed as a probable military theater.

Obtaining, through negotiations or discussions on strategic stability, objective data on Russia’s non‑strategic nuclear weapons via the implementation of some intrusive transparency practices – or reducing or even completely eliminating them – would increase the likelihood of a scenario in which the US and its European allies use nuclear weapons. I hope Europe will recognize the danger of such a strictly operational‑planning approach that Washington adopts toward the territory of its allies.

In a principled sense, regarding the conditions for launching any substantive US dialogue, there are three points that must be understood. First, what must precede such negotiations? Our country’s leadership – and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs – has repeatedly stated their position on this issue. Our delegations have mentioned it both in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly and at the recently held 11th Conference on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. To create a favorable climate for starting US negotiations, it is essential that they first, not in words but in action – declaratively and through concrete steps – demonstrate that they are ready to irreversibly abandon an anti‑Russian course and to resolve the most critical issues in international security together with us, starting with the elimination of fundamental contradictions and the root causes of the current crisis in interstate relations, and ending with questions of arms control, disarmament, and non‑proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it is important to understand what the nature of the negotiations should be. We have always and continue to insist on a mutually respectful dialogue built on trust and the consideration of all participants’ interests. It is unacceptable for Russia to be subjected to fabricated claims and unsubstantiated demands, or for the discussion to be conducted in the style of an ultimatum. The conversation must be substantive and equal, with both sides fully aware of the danger of rising tension, loss of trust, the degradation of bilateral relations, and of their individual and collective responsibility for humanity’s future.

In the strategic sphere, for us a constructive dialogue aimed at achieving long‑term and indisputable agreements on the entire complex of factors affecting strategic stability is crucial. Removing some specific, extremely technical issues from the interdependent framework of the sector will not help move forward or achieve the required agreements and understandings.

Another important point I would like to emphasize concerns the nature and content of the dialogue: we will never, under any circumstances, start a serious conversation on US terms only to make an effort to address American security issues. The starting point of any strategic‑stability negotiations must be a clear recognition of the inviolability of the principle of equal and indivisible security, and no exceptions can be made from strict adherence to this principle.

RT: Nevertheless, American media outlets are reporting a potential expansion of the number of participants in the program. What risks and threats could such plans create, given that among European countries Poland – and the Baltic states as well – have expressed interest in hosting U.S. weapons?

Andrey Belousov: It is a very important issue from the standpoint of our country’s security, and essentially it concerns maintaining strategic balance and strategic stability. In answering the first question, I already partially addressed your question, which touches on this issue.

The involvement of an ever‑growing number of NATO member states in schemes that envisage the practical use of nuclear weapons against Russia primarily is fully in line with NATO’s nuclear status and the logic of the trans‑Atlantic linkage, whose key element today is precisely nuclear dimension. Securing a nuclear status for NATO is not merely a declaration or a sign lacking substance or implying any action. On the contrary, one must clearly understand that such a status is concrete. It means that nuclear weapons, their possible use, and the concept of nuclear deterrence – as understood by the military‑political establishment of NATO and the European Union states – have become a fundamental means by which westerners ensure their security.

It is important to note that the security views of Europe’s current elites differ sharply from the narratives and concepts we tried to align with the West and jointly implement at the end of the last century and at the beginning of this one. The main distinction lies in our opponents refusal to create a security architecture in Europe together with Russia in favor of attempts to build a regional security system aimed at our country. The results of this radical shift – so to speak – are now evident.

Currently, the minds of our Western opponents, under significant influence, are shaped by a new view of how regional and international security should be ensured, induced by pressure from the United States. The concept of “peace through force,” which seems long out of date and paradoxical at its core but is actively promoted by Washington, has been adopted.

Returning to the question of involving ever more states in joint nuclear missions and expanded, now even advanced, deterrence schemes, we again note that this process fully fits within the logic of the aforementioned approach. More importantly, the “peace through force” concept is in sharp contradiction with the rapidly accelerating and now irreversible process of the emergence of a multipolar world order. Western states collectively, fearing the loss of their leadership and dominant position in the world, strive to preserve it by any means. When political and economic measures fail, they repeatedly resort to the tried‑and‑true method of creating a real military threat to their global competitors, backed by continuous modernization and unrestricted buildup of military potential, developing new means and methods of warfare.

Thus they bet on overwhelming military superiority, which requires mastering and implementing the most advanced scientific‑technical achievements. This is precisely what the United States and its closest allies are doing now. After all, the practice of joint nuclear missions, and indeed the rehearsal of any other combat systems, is no longer carried out with outdated technology or the old algorithms and tactics developed in the 1950s and 60s. It is executed at a completely new technological level that would guarantee indisputable advantages both on the local theater of operations and in large‑scale conflicts.

The drive to obtain overwhelming military advantage largely through the modernization and scaling of nuclear potential – in which NATO states are involved – leads to a breach of strategic balance and creates risks and threats to our country’s defense and security. Accelerated Western implementation of such nuclear plans, with active assistance from allies, will bring about the most severe consequences in the military‑political and strategic spheres. One such consequence could be a new arms race, not limited to nuclear weapons.

RT: What could Russia’s potential response to such actions look like?

Andrey Belousov: Regarding countermeasures, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement on the expiry of the New START Treaty on February fourth unambiguously notes that the parties to the treaty are free to decide on subsequent steps. Yet, our country intends to act responsibly and prudently, charting its line on strategic offensive arms based on a thorough analysis of the overall situation – the analysis of US military policy and the overall strategic environment – which, among other things, includes the actions of American allies.

We are talking about a combination of political‑diplomatic and military‑technical compensatory measures aimed at maintaining strategic balance and mitigating potential additional threats to Russia’s military security.

EU gas storage is now at one of the lowest seasonal levels on record, with the shortfall feeding a “winter panic” among traders amid the Iran war and Brussels’s continued push to phase out Russian energy, according to The Guardian.

EU gas stocks are at around 64% as of Friday, far below the 80% average maintained during this season over the past several years, according to the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG).

For comparison, EU stocks were at about 66% on August 29, 2021, and around 72% on the same date in 2013, although the fill level typically drops much lower in winter months when consumption is high.

As for the country breakdown, German gas storage is only slightly above 50% capacity, while the Netherlands is at around 45% and Belgium around 50%, according to recent GIE readings.

Meanwhile, the UK’s facilities are only at around 30% capacity, although the country has historically relied more on continuous imports than storage.

Amid the crunch, natural gas prices have risen above €66 ($76) per megawatt-hour, more than double from levels earlier in the year, according to the Trading Economics website.

However, now “no one expects it to happen any time soon,” he said, adding: “As a result, the European natural gas market has run into a bit of a winter panic over the past week.”

The immediate pressure comes from the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz that disrupted Qatari LNG exports. While Qatar supplied only 6.6% of LNG to the EU in the first quarter of 2026 – compared to the 57% supplied by the US – the Middle East conflict has intensified competition between European and Asian buyers for energy, prompting a rally in gas prices.

The shortfall also comes as the EU maintains sweeping sanctions on Moscow and has vowed to wean itself of Russian energy. While Russia provided around 45% of EU gas imports in 2021, its share had dropped to only about 12% by 2025.

After the EU imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia in 2022, it endured one of the worst energy crises in decades. Gas prices exploded to more than €300 per megawatt-hour, hitting industry and consumers alike, with EU countries reeling from soaring inflation and costs of living.

When the EU began cutting its dependence on oil and gas from Russia following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that the bloc was on a “suicidal” course and was “shooting itself in the head.”

Warsaw should stop giving Ukraine free weapons as long as it glorifies Nazi collaborators responsible for massacring Poles, a member of the European Parliament has said.

Earlier this week, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky again called upon Kiev’s foreign backers to provide more Patriot missiles, citing an acute shortage of air defense munitions amid intensifying Russian strikes on military-related targets across the country.

Polish Deputy Defense Minister Pawel Zalewski told Ukrainian media on Thursday that Warsaw was ready to cooperate with Kiev on the production of Patriot interceptors for the needs of both NATO and Zelensky’s government.

In a post on X the same day, Zajaczkowska-Hernik expressed her frustration, saying: “More missiles for Patriots for Zelensky for nothing? Let’s stop being suckers for Ukraine!”

“We’re handing them valuable equipment and paying off their loans for them, and they spit in our face with the Banderite pantheon of heroes – what the hell is this?!” the MEP wrote.

Relations between Warsaw and Kiev deteriorated in June after Zelensky granted an active Ukrainian commando unit the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army),” prompting outrage in Poland.

The UPA was the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), led by Stepan Bandera, which collaborated with Nazi Germany during the early stages of its 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. UPA fighters massacred up to 100,000 ethnic Polish civilians in 1943-1944 in what is now western Ukraine, according to Polish estimates.

Warsaw warned Kiev that it will not support its bid to join the EU if it does not change its ways, while Polish President Karol Nawrocki stripped Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week that the neo-Nazi nature of the Ukrainian government had become so visible that even the Polish authorities, who are gripped by Russophobia, cannot help but see it. According to Putin, Warsaw simply cannot ignore the “obvious demand” of its own population to address the issue.

August 28–29 marks exactly six months since the start of the full-scale military campaign – or, more accurately, the entirely unprovoked US-Israeli aggression against Iran. The plan was based on the logic of a “decapitation strike”: eliminate the country’s leadership, paralyze the government, and push the population toward a “color revolution.” West Jerusalem assumed that the campaign would last no more than two weeks, after which Tehran would be forced to accept the terms imposed on it.

That was the rationale behind the effort to eliminate key figures. Ali Khamenei was killed on the very first day of the aggression, on the morning of February 28, along with several other senior officials. On March 17, a strike on the outskirts of Tehran killed Ali Larijani – the former parliament speaker, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, nuclear negotiator, and longtime Khamenei adviser. He was one of the few figures in the Iranian establishment who connected the security apparatus with the diplomatic corps. Following Khamenei’s death, Larijani had effectively become the system’s chief coordinator. By killing him, the United States and Israel hoped to deliver a final blow to Iran’s decision-making structure. Yet the state was not paralyzed.

The physical elimination of Iran’s leaders failed to produce the desired result. The chain of command did not collapse, the security services did not defect, and the country did not capitulate. Authority was quickly redistributed between the Supreme National Security Council and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC emerged as an even more influential center of military and political power. The deaths of the country’s top officials altered Iran’s internal balance, but they did not destroy the system.

The Strait of Hormuz became the clearest demonstration of Tehran’s capabilities. Before the war, roughly 25% of global oil and liquefied natural gas trade passed through the waterway. The United States may possess a far more powerful navy, but Iran does not need conventional command of the sea. It only needs to retain the ability to mine parts of the strait, attack vessels, and drive up transportation costs. Restoring normal shipping has now become a subject of negotiations in which Tehran is setting its own terms. Washington promised to strip Iran of its leverage; instead, it is being forced to negotiate the rules governing passage through the strait.

Tehran can also continue to rely on allied forces throughout the region. The “Axis of Resistance” has suffered losses, but it has not disappeared. Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, better known as the Houthis, Kataib Hezbollah, and other Iran-aligned groups and allies still possess missiles and drones. Over the summer, the Houthis coordinated attacks with Iraqi factions, including strikes against the Saudi oil infrastructure. Kataib Hezbollah remains the most powerful faction within the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. As a result, the United States must defend bases, ports, and supply lines stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.

Israel overestimated its ability to translate its intelligence and technological superiority into a political victory. Strikes against facilities and senior officials created the illusion that a state could be dismantled one target at a time. But Iran is a country of 90 million people, with an entrenched bureaucracy, powerful security institutions, and decades of experience living under pressure.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to secure a swift resolution. Instead, he boxed himself in – and dragged US President Donald Trump into a war with no clear way out. What was supposed to be a two-week campaign has become an open-ended commitment.

Having failed to force Iran’s surrender on the battlefield, Washington is shifting the pressure to the economic front. “Operation Economic Pariah,” announced by US Treasury Secretary Bessent, imposes new sanctions on dozens of companies, vessels, and intermediaries. But Iran has spent decades learning how to survive under restrictions. Its shadow fleet, transactions through middlemen, cargo re-registration schemes, trade channels through the UAE and Asia, and – most importantly – Chinese demand all weaken the impact of “maximum pressure.”

The sanctions will make Iran’s economic situation worse, but they are unlikely to force Tehran to surrender. Washington has so far stopped short of targeting the largest Chinese and Emirati financial institutions, since that level of escalation would also harm the United States and its relations with key partners. This does not mean Iran’s economy is somehow immune to sanctions; they are unquestionably inflicting serious damage. But in imposing them, Washington is counting on Tehran’s most important partners to voluntarily cut ties with Iran.

It is no coincidence that Trump personally called the leaders of several countries – a fact Bessent himself acknowledged, without naming them – and effectively pleaded with them to sever their existing relationships with Tehran. In essence, this points to the decline of US geopolitical influence. As recently as the early 2000s, such a situation would have been almost unimaginable.

The “Mecca Agreement,” concluded by Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan in early August, is a vivid example of this shift. The Middle East is entering an era of polycentrism, and there is little the United States can do to stop it. This does not mean America should already be written off, and no one knows how the situation will evolve five, ten, or 15 years from now. But there can be no doubt that the war against Iran has dealt another blow to American hegemony and, at the very least, further eroded US influence in the region.

Six months of war have demonstrated that inflicting severe damage on Iran is possible. Forcing it to capitulate is not. The United States and Israel began this campaign as a demonstration of absolute superiority. Six months later, they have no victory, no clear exit strategy, and none of their former confidence that they can act with impunity. Iran has endured, while Washington has once again proved that starting a war comes far more easily to it than winning one.

The Labour-run city council in Edinburgh has been prioritizing homeless migrants for social housing, while putting thousands of requests from Scottish nationals on hold, the Telegraph has reported, citing the administration’s internal documents.

The proportion of temporary accommodations provided to migrants in Scotland’s capital has grown from 1% to 16% since 2023, the paper said in an article on Friday.

The foreigners were put atop the waiting line under a policy introduced in April 2025, the report read. Meanwhile, applications from some 31,000 locals remained frozen, it added.

Edinburgh is facing a homelessness crisis, which has been exacerbated by the influx of migrants into Britain, the Telegraph said, citing the council’s internal documents. The number of homeless people in the city has surged by 75% over the last five years, it added.

Scotland abolished the “priority need” test in 2012, making all people assessed as unintentionally homeless eligible for settled accommodation. In 2022, the Scottish National Party (SNP) government also removed local-connection requirements for homeless applicants within Scotland.

Reform UK’s Scottish deputy leader, Thomas Kerr, said the council should stop providing housing to “strangers and outsiders” and finally start taking care of its own people.

“We need to see local connection rules fully restored, more social housing built and deportations for those who should not even be here in the first place,” he wrote.

When approached for comment by the Telegraph, Scottish Housing Minister Shirley-Anne Somerville said that “Scotland has some of the strongest homelessness rights in the world, and we will not roll these back.”

The homelessness crisis is a result of the migration policies of the British government, and it is up to London to “properly fund its asylum processes and ensure newly recognized refugees and communities can be supported,” Somerville said.

Nearly 100,000 people were receiving asylum support in the UK as of the end of March, according to government figures, including more than 20,000 housed in hotels.

A YouGov poll published earlier in August showed that 69% of Britons believe immigration over the past decade has been too high, while 43% said it had been mostly bad for the country, up from 33% in 2016.

The US has threatened to reconsider its stance on Britain’s control of the Falkland Islands to push London to spend substantially more on its military, The Daily Telegraph reported on Friday, citing sources.

The reported attempt to pressure the UK comes amid mounting disagreements between the two long-time allies over defense, Iran, and the strategically vital Chagos Islands.

The UK and Argentina have been at odds over the Falklands for almost 200 years, with the matter coming to a head when Argentina’s military junta ordered an invasion of the islands in 1982. Britain’s Margaret Thatcher dispatched a naval task force and retook them in 74 days of fighting.

Now, according to The Telegraph, the US may oppose Britain’s sovereignty claim unless it hikes defense spending. In this vein, Britain is expected to receive “special attention” in a Pentagon review examining whether NATO members have credible paths toward the bloc’s new spending target.

While Washington sees Britain’s new defense investment plan as a “step in the right direction,” it is not enough, the official told the paper. “Given the scale of challenges facing us and our allies, we need allies like the United Kingdom to step up in major, fundamental ways. Fortunately, some already are. We strongly encourage the UK to do likewise,” he added.

The Falklands idea first surfaced in April when Reuters reported, citing an internal Pentagon email, that the US was considering a review of its diplomatic backing for European “imperial possessions” as a means of punishing NATO governments that Washington believed had failed to support its military campaign against Iran.

Argentine President Javier Milei – a close ally of US President Donald Trump – reacted optimistically to the prospect, saying “We’re making progress like never before.”

Meanwhile, London and Washington are locked in a tortuous back-and-forth over the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, home to a joint US-UK military base. Britain agreed in 2025 to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius while retaining the base under a 99-year lease, but put the plan on hold in April after Trump branded the arrangement a “big mistake.”

The UK also initially refused to allow the use of its bases for strikes on Iran, citing legal concerns, triggering Trump’s ire. London later shifted its stance following Tehran’s retaliation against UK military assets.

The grieving father of Palestinian-American teenager Amer Rabee, who was shot dead by Israeli troops in the West Bank 16 months ago, has accused Washington of abandoning his family after offering little more than condolences.

Speaking to RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij, Mohammed Rabee said his 14-year-old son had grown up believing that his American citizenship offered him protection.

“He was always thinking he’s American, so he’s protected. He’s free,” he said.

Amer was born in New Jersey before his family moved to Turmus Ayya, near Ramallah, in 2013. He continued to split his time between the US and the West Bank.

He was killed on April 6, 2025, in an olive grove outside the village. Two friends were also wounded.

Mohammed told RT that his son had been repeatedly shot. “Many shots. He got 14 shots,” he said, later showing Dubenskij the clothes Amer was wearing when he died.

The US State Department confirmed the death of an American citizen and offered condolences, while Democratic Senators Andy Kim and Cory Booker called for a US-led investigation.

But Mohammed says little has happened since. He dismissed US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee’s recent pledge to “stand for American citizens, whether Israeli or Palestinian” as political theater.

“Till now, no one [is] talking about Amer,” he said. “He’s making a show… to show people that he’s helping American people, but we didn’t see that before.”

Amer’s father has since built a small park in his son’s memory and continues to press for accountability.

Watch Dubenskij’s full report below:

Europe only ranks fourth among Washington’s global security priorities, US envoy to NATO Matthew Whitaker has said, as President Donald Trump pushes the bloc’s members to take greater responsibility for their own defense.

Speaking to Newsmax on Thursday, Whitaker outlined Washington’s priorities under Trump’s national security strategy.

”The defense of the homeland is number one... The Western Hemisphere, where we live, [is] obviously equally important,” he said, followed by the Pacific. “Defending Europe is also a priority, but it’s in fourth place.”

Whitaker said the changing division of responsibilities within NATO would also benefit the US economically.

”Our European allies are taking over the conventional defense of the European continent,” Whitaker said. “And I think that’s good for the American taxpayers.”

The ambassador described NATO as being on a “new trajectory” under Trump, crediting the US president with pressuring other members of the US-led military bloc to dramatically increase defense spending.

At last year’s NATO summit in The Hague, members agreed to raise defense and security-related expenditure to 5% of GDP by 2035. Whitaker contrasted the new commitment with the bloc’s previous 2% target, which many members failed to meet.

”For 77 years our NATO allies have taken advantage of the United States’ strength,” Whitaker told Newsmax. “But now we’re going to be all equally strong.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly demanded that European NATO members shoulder a greater share of their own defense costs. The Pentagon is also reviewing the roughly 80,000 US troops currently stationed in Europe, with officials considering different options for Washington’s future military presence on the continent.

US President Donald Trump’s Marine One helicopter nearly collided with a passenger jet earlier this month after a radio failure prevented air traffic controllers from receiving its takeoff warning, federal investigators said on Thursday.

The August 4 incident occurred near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as Marine One departed the White House area with Trump aboard. An Envoy Air passenger jet was cleared for takeoff at roughly the same time.

The two aircraft came within about 1.5 km horizontally and just 215 meters vertically of each other, triggering an automated collision warning aboard the passenger jet. Marine One’s pilots spotted the aircraft and briefly halted their flight until it had passed.

Under standard procedures, the presidential helicopter was required to notify Reagan airport controllers three minutes before lifting off. Recordings show Marine One made the required call, but the tower did not properly receive it.

Investigators found that the communication problem was already known. Just a week earlier, Marine One pilots and Reagan airport controllers had met to discuss repeated failures by the tower to receive the helicopter’s three-minute takeoff warnings.

Investigators traced the radio problems partly to construction at the White House, which had forced Marine One to use a temporary takeoff site with poor radio coverage. The report did not specify the project, though the White House has been undergoing construction on both a new ballroom and a permanent helipad.

US aviation authorities have since relocated radio equipment at Reagan National to improve communications.

The near-miss came less than two years after an American Airlines regional jet collided with a US Army Black Hawk helicopter near the same airport in January 2025, killing all 67 people aboard the two aircraft.

Following that disaster, US aviation authorities permanently restricted helicopter operations around Reagan National and introduced additional safeguards aimed at preventing commercial aircraft and helicopters from crossing paths.

Under current procedures, commercial flights must also be suspended whenever Marine One operates in the airport’s airspace.

US President Donald Trump has claimed to have more than doubled America’s oil reserves through a sweeping agreement giving Washington majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan crude.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had worked with Venezuelan interim leader Delcy Rodriguez and private businesses to secure “majority US control” of the reserves “at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump announced on Truth Social on Friday.

“The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY!” he declared, claiming the transaction “MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves.”

Adding another 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil would bring the total volume under some form of US control to more than 111 billion barrels, even though that crude would not technically become part of US domestic reserves.

Rubio touted the agreement as a “huge win,” saying it would bring nearly $100 billion in private investment to Venezuela, support thousands of jobs and help lower US gasoline prices.

Rodriguez later confirmed the deal, saying it covers 17 strategic oil fields with a proven potential of 65 billion barrels and envisages more than $100 billion in investment and over $209 billion in tax revenue for Venezuela. She said the fields would be developed with the participation of private operators, but the precise ownership structure remains unclear. Earlier reports suggested Washington had sought century-long development rights.

After the operation, Trump declared that Washington would “run” Venezuela while overseeing a political transition and left open the possibility of further military action if the interim leadership failed to cooperate.

Washington subsequently moved to take “indefinite” control of Venezuelan oil sales and revenues, while Trump ordered proceeds from Venezuelan crude to be held in US Treasury accounts, subject to US restrictions.

The arrangement has drawn fierce criticism over the country’s sovereignty, even from some normally pro-Western opposition voices. Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, called the agreement “unconstitutional,” arguing that Rodriguez heads an illegitimate interim government with no authority to surrender long-term control over the country’s oil resources.

Meanwhile, former vice president and veteran Chavista figure Elias Jaua recently accused Washington more broadly of stripping Venezuela of its sovereignty and taking control of its natural resources.

British conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos has been deported from the US after being detained by immigration authorities in Louisiana for allegedly overstaying his legal status and failing to appear for an immigration hearing.

The 41-year-old former Breitbart editor was returned to the United Kingdom on Friday, just a day after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport in Kenner, Louisiana, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed on Saturday.

“Yiannopoulos legally entered the country on May 14, 2019, through New York City,” DHS said following his arrest, describing him as an “illegal alien” who “chose to overstay his welcome in violation of our nation’s laws.”

An immigration judge issued Yiannopoulos a final order of removal on July 22 after he failed to appear for his hearing, the department said. His deportation was carried out on August 28.

On August 27, ICE arrested Milo Yiannopoulos, an illegal alien from the United Kingdom, at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY) in Kenner, Louisiana. Yiannopoulos legally entered the country on May 14, 2019, through New York City, New York. He chose to… https://t.co/Hk6QBUmGDI pic.twitter.com/DbIhv8Z6PI

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) August 28, 2026

The incident quickly spilled into a bitter feud within the MAGA movement. Conservative activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer celebrated Yiannopoulos’ detention and claimed she had personally alerted authorities to his immigration status. The Daily Caller reported that scrutiny of his status intensified after he began criticizing US President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

Once one of Trump’s most flamboyant online supporters, Yiannopoulos famously referred to him as “Daddy” during the 2016 campaign. Their relationship later deteriorated sharply, with the British commentator accusing Trump of betraying supporters.

Yiannopoulos subsequently joined Kanye ‘Ye’ West as the rapper mounted an abortive 2024 presidential bid, serving as his campaign manager. He also helped arrange Ye’s controversial 2022 dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Earlier that year, he had worked as an unpaid intern for then-Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

His arrest coincided with Ye’s Friday-night performance in New Orleans, although it has not been confirmed that Yiannopoulos was in the city for the concert.

His confrontational style has repeatedly generated outrage, however. Among other issues, he drew attention years ago to Britain’s grooming-gang scandals, accusing authorities and the media of ignoring the abuse of vulnerable girls because officials feared accusations of racism or Islamophobia.

✨DEVELOPING✨Footage from 2016 of Milo Yiannopoulos drawing attention to Muslim rape gangs—eight years before the scandal went mainstream—is recirculating. Woke stupidity enabled the industrial-scale rape of white children by Pakistani gangs for over 30 years.
(CNBC, 9/8/2016) pic.twitter.com/7oF6d79UMV

— MILO (@Nero) January 15, 2025

Yiannopoulos’ career suffered a major setback in 2017 after old remarks about sexual relationships involving minors resurfaced, costing him a publishing deal and forcing his resignation from Breitbart.

The White House has not publicly intervened in the case, while Yiannopoulos has not commented on his deportation.

Britain doubles down against Russia

Russia has already warned the UK of “consequences” for Ukraine’s use of British-made drones to strike Russian civilian infrastructure. These words were clearly lost on British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who arrived in Kiev on Monday to mark the 35th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence. Burnham compared the Russia/Ukraine conflict to Britain’s struggle against Nazi Germany in World War II (ironic, after the Zelensky regime just reburied a Nazi collaborator with state honors), and announced that he’d share classified data enabling Kiev to manufacture ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles in Ukraine. 

Two days later, the Ukrainians showed Russia exactly what these missiles will be used for, injuring multiple civilians in a Storm Shadow strike on a Donetsk apartment block.

Russia’s response was immediate and kinetic. Missiles and drones pounded military and dual-use targets across Kiev, with waves of projectiles hitting the Ukrainian capital from morning until evening on Thursday. Meanwhile, the British media chose to run a warning from supposed “Kremlin adviser” Andrey Fedorov, who said that he “cannot exclude 100% that there might be some semi-military” attacks on British soil too.

RT looked at the dire state of diplomatic relations between Russia and the UK this week and concluded that Moscow’s restraint is rapidly reaching its limits.

Spy intrigue in Moscow

With Burnham climbing the escalation ladder as fast as possible, planespotters saw an unusual flight entering Russian airspace on Tuesday morning: a US Air Force C-17A Globemaster. It soon emerged that CIA Director John Ratcliffe was on board, bound for meetings with his Russian intelligence counterparts. 

An unusual visitor to Moscow this morning. 👀

A US Air Force C-17A Globemaster III flew from Riga to Moscow Vnukovo Airporthttps://t.co/D7vylYesDQ pic.twitter.com/jXbOSj0LXM

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) August 25, 2026

It’s been nearly five years since a CIA chief visited the Russian capital, and the Western press went into speculation overdrive. Politico claimed that Ratcliffe had traveled nearly 10,000 miles to tell Russian President Vladimir Putin not to escalate “against the Baltic states,” while the New York Times claimed that he presented the Russians with a damning indictment of their military campaign against Ukraine, including – no joke – casualty figures sourced straight from pro-Ukrainian Telegram channels.

Less than a day before Ratcliffe touched down at Vnukovo Airport, the Vatican’s chief diplomat, Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, landed in Moscow on a mission of his own. Gallagher’s diplomacy was more public, with the Vatican envoy repeating the Holy See’s calls for an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Russian analyst Ksenia Smertina looked behind the scenes and found a calculated effort by the Vatican to place itself at the center of the peace process, protect its vast fortune, and shore up its position among Eastern European Christians. Her article for RT is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the power politics that have shaped the Church since the days of the Medicis and Borgias.

Ukraine at 35

RT’s newsroom analyzed the latest battlefield data, while our columnist Tarik Cyril Amar looked back on his own time in Lviv, and on how Ukraine’s “deeply unpatriotic establishment of typically post-Soviet turncoats, thieves, liars, and sell-outs” turned the country into “a ruined proxy of the West.”

Landslide disaster in Nepal

Ukraine’s leaders may have chosen their own fate, but some have their fate tragically decided by mother nature. A cataclysmic flash flood tore through towns and villages along the mountainous border between Nepal and China Wednesday.

Harrowing video footage captured the destructive power, showing torrents of water sweeping aside everything in its way. Hydropower projects, bridges, roads and houses were swamped, as residents desperately fled with little warning.

❗Nepal Floods: At Least 7 Dead, Security Personnel Missing 🇳🇵

The worst-hit areas include Timure and Syabrubesi in Rasuwa, where floodwaters have swept away homes, bridges and parts of a key road towards the China border, according to The Kathmandu Post.

Nine Armed Police… https://t.co/OGz6YNAMPx pic.twitter.com/XRGgZGxHj7

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) August 26, 2026

Thousands of people are still missing, and rescue efforts are ongoing as of Friday. Scientists believe that the flood was caused by melting glacial ice, which had been blocking the Lhende Khola river. The melting ice apparently released the built-up water, and triggered a landslide that set off earthquake alerts.

Meta and TikTok dodge trial 

Anyone hoping that Meta may finally be forced to lift the lid on its addictive algorithms was left disappointed on Wednesday, when Mark Zuckerberg’s megacorporation paid $18 billion to settle a landmark lawsuit brought by 29 US states. Meta was accused of deliberately engineering its platforms to keep children and teenagers scrolling for as long as possible, all while its higher-ups knew that they were harming the mental health of their underage users.

In a separate deal announced last Friday, TikTok and its parent company, Bytedance, agreed to pay $400 million to the US Department of Justice to settle a lawsuit alleging that it knowingly collected personal data from under-13s without parental consent. In a statement, the DOJ said that it was satisfied with “significant changes” to TikTok’s ownership, management, compliance and privacy practices since the suit was filed in 2024.

Zuckerberg is not out of the woods yet. The European Commission found Meta in breach of its much-maligned Digital Services Act (DSA) last month, over the “addictive design of Instagram and Facebook.” Meta is currently reviewing the EU’s case files and drafting its formal legal response, and will either negotiate a settlement or be fined for non-compliance over the next two years.

What to watch out for

While we keep an eye on the battlefield in Ukraine and Vladimir Zelensky’s British-enabled missile campaign against Russia, we’ll also be giving you live updates from the 26th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Kyrgyzstan on Monday and Tuesday. The summit marks 25 years of the world’s largest regional organization, and we’ll bring you every detail from Putin’s meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

We’ll also know by the end of the weekend whether Iceland will restart accession talks with the EU, a significant step toward becoming the bloc’s 28th member state. Icelanders will decide whether to restart talks in a referendum on Saturday, but with the country’s sovereignty and control over its precious fisheries at stake, victory for the pro-Brussels government is by no means assured.

The EU could face another humiliation next weekend, this time in Germany as the right-wing, Euroskeptic AfD looks set to dominate a state election in Saxony-Anhalt. Stick with RT.com in the runup to this landmark election, in which the AfD is predicted to win more than 40% of the vote.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said that his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) will stick to its policy of isolating the AfD despite the right-wing party polling at over 40% ahead of regional elections in Saxony-Anhalt. The chancellor claimed that the Alternative for Germany maintains close ties with Russia and thus poses a threat to the “internal and external security of our country.”

The AfD is the largest opposition faction in the Bundestag and the country’s most popular party, with recent surveys indicating that it enjoys the support of 28% of respondents.

The right-wing party campaigns on an anti-immigration platform and is also highly critical of the German government’s support for Ukraine, as well as sanctions against Russia.

Appearing on broadcaster RTL on Thursday, Merz was asked by a businessman from Saxony-Anhalt about the feasibility of the so-called ‘firewall’ policy in a democracy, under which all major parties refuse to cooperate with the AfD. The question came ahead of the regional elections in the eastern region slated for September 6.

The chancellor defended the controversial policy, categorically ruling out a coalition between the CDU and the AfD due to “fundamental” differences.

The chancellor suggested the possibility of forming a minority government in Saxony-Anhalt, pointing to the situation in both Thuringia and Saxony, where the AfD has also been sidelined, despite coming out on top in the regional elections.

Meanwhile, an INSA poll published by Bild earlier this month indicated that support for Germany’s governing CDU/CSU bloc had dipped to the lowest level in almost five years, at 20%.

The survey also showed that 78% of respondents were dissatisfied with Merz’s government.

Comprised of the Christian Democratic CDU/CSU bloc and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the ruling coalition has faced criticism over continued economic stagnation and its failure to deliver on pre-election promises.

The AfD has for years faced significant pressure from regional and federal authorities in Germany. The country’s domestic security agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), has designated the party as a suspected far-right extremist entity – a label that permits government surveillance of the AfD. In several regions, local chapters have been subjected to even wider monitoring by the authorities.

Poland has sent confusing signals regarding the potential deployment of nuclear weaponry on its territory, in what appears to be an attempt to enjoy the fruits of deterrence without hosting foreign munitions.

In recent months, a dozen European NATO members, including Poland, have expressed a desire to either host nuclear weapons or take part in nuclear-sharing initiatives to varying degrees. Apart from existing nuclear sharing within the bloc, which involves hosting US munitions, France has proposed an EU-focused scheme to deploy its own weapons to willing nations.

The confusion began on Thursday, when Polish Deputy Defense Minister Pawel Zalewski appeared to rule out ever hosting the weaponry on the country’s soil.

“I would like to say very clearly and openly: Poland does not want to have nuclear warheads on its territory,” Zalewski told reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels. “We want to participate in NATO nuclear deterrence, [which] does not mean to have a nuclear warhead on our territory.”

“To dispel any doubts: Poland remains steadfastly interested in participating in the NATO Nuclear Sharing program. We are also conducting talks regarding the proposal for participation in the European nuclear protective umbrella. Our government’s stance on these issues is unequivocal,” he wrote on X.

While the minister did not explicitly say whether Warsaw was open to hosting foreign nukes, Zalewski doubled down on his original remarks later in the day. Poland remains committed to participating in “NATO’s nuclear deterrence, [but] without storing nuclear weapons,” the official wrote on X while berating those confused by his statements. “Security requires competence and seriousness. Claiming that Nuclear Sharing [equates to] storing nuclear weapons in Poland is ignorance or deliberate manipulation,” he asserted.

The reported invitation for Iran to join the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement puts a new perspective on what the new alliance might ultimately become.

Mehdi Rahimi, head of the Iranian parliament’s news agency, said that the proposal was under consideration by the country’s leadership and argued that the creation of a regional security umbrella would represent a victory for the Islamic Republic. Shortly afterwards, however, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei stated that Tehran had received no formal invitation, although proposals for dialogue with the pact’s members on collective regional security had indeed been raised. For the moment, this appears to be a political overture intended to test the reactions of the parties rather than the beginning of a formal accession process. Even so, it suggests that the agreement is not intended as an alliance against Tehran, but as the possible foundation of a security system built with Iranian participation.

The Mecca Agreement was signed on August 7 by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Its central provision declares that an armed attack against one member will be regarded as an attack against all. The formula theoretically combines a formidable set of capabilities: Saudi Arabia’s immense financial resources and influence over global energy markets, Türkiye’s large military and sophisticated defence industry, and Pakistan’s substantial military experience and nuclear arsenal. Yet the public statements offer no detailed decision-making procedure and do not specify what action each signatory would be obliged to take during a crisis. At this stage, the pact is only a political declaration of collective deterrence and not a proper military alliance.

Donald Trump welcomed the pact and expressed satisfaction that the states of the region were finally assuming greater responsibility for their own defense. His response was consistent with his longstanding view that Washington’s allies should bear a larger share of military expenditure, allowing the US to reduce its costs and step back from the role of unconditional guarantor of other nations’ security. Seen from this perspective, the agreement might appear to be a success for American policy, since three US partners are establishing an additional mechanism of deterrence without Washington’s direct involvement.

Yet behind this public enthusiasm lies a trend that is far less favorable to the US. The Mecca Pact cannot be described as the first symptom of declining American influence in the Middle East, but it is the clearest institutional sign to date that regional powers no longer regard the American security umbrella as sufficient and have begun constructing autonomous centers of power. Washington retains its military bases, weapons systems, intelligence capabilities and relationships with regional elites, but it is gradually losing its monopoly over the rules by which Middle Eastern security is organized.

The US-Israeli war against Iran accelerated this transformation because it revealed the double-edged nature of American security guarantees. The US military presence may deter adversaries, but it can also draw the Gulf states into conflicts whose timing and objectives are determined without their meaningful participation. Iranian strikes, disruption to maritime trade and threats to energy infrastructure demonstrated that a close partnership with Washington does not insulate regional states from danger and may instead force them to bear the consequences of American policy.

Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan are not abandoning American weapons or political ties, yet they want a mechanism capable of functioning even when Washington’s priorities diverge from their own.

For the pact’s three founding members, the possibility of inviting Iran addresses a problem that might otherwise have become the source of another major conflict. As long as Tehran remained outside the agreement, it could interpret the partnership between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan as an attempt to build a Sunni military bloc directed against the Islamic Republic.

By offering Tehran a place at the table, the pact’s founders have effectively replaced the question of whom the alliance is directed against with the question of which rules the region’s principal powers are prepared to accept. Even if Iran never joins, the dialogue itself reduces the likelihood that the agreement will automatically become an instrument of its isolation. Saudi Arabia gains an opportunity to combine military deterrence with continued diplomatic de-escalation, Türkiye strengthens its role as a mediator, and Pakistan avoids having to choose between its strategic partnership with Riyadh and its relationship with neighboring Iran.

Full Iranian participation could transform the nature of the pact itself. It would cease to be an alliance among states united by similar fears and would instead become a mechanism of mutual restraint in which one member’s security could not be achieved through another’s vulnerability. A declaration of collective defense alone, however, would not be enough. The participants would need emergency communication channels, rules for preventing military incidents, mechanisms for exchanging information on missile launches, guarantees of freedom of navigation and commitments not to support armed action against fellow members.

The most difficult issue would concern the non-state armed groups aligned with Iran. If Tehran joined the pact, it would inevitably be expected to assume political responsibility for the actions of forces receiving Iranian weapons and support. At the same time, the other members would have to refrain from exploiting Iran’s internal divisions as a means of exerting pressure on its leadership. Only such reciprocity could turn an appealing formula into a functioning regional order.

Iran’s potential inclusion could initiate not only a political renaissance but also a major economic advance, since the development of the Middle East has been constrained for decades not by a lack of resources, but by chronic uncertainty. Wars raise shipping insurance costs, compel governments to accumulate weapons, discourage long-term investment and turn transport corridors into instruments of geopolitical bargaining. Even a partial reduction in these risks would release resources currently devoted to preparing for the next crisis.

Saudi capital, Turkish industry, the Pakistani market and Iran’s energy and transit potential could complement one another. Their cooperation could create new routes connecting Central Asia, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, while the security of the Strait of Hormuz could be transformed from an instrument of mutual coercion into a shared interest. A region long seen as mostly a theater of war and foreign intervention would gain an opportunity to become an autonomous economic center within an increasingly multipolar world.

The economic dividend, however, is not guaranteed. Continuing sanctions against Iran, competition over transport routes, clashing Turkish and Saudi ambitions, and Pakistan’s disputes with India could import old conflicts into the new arrangement. The pact’s success will depend on the ability of its members to separate collective security from temporary alignments and to prevent every bilateral confrontation from becoming an obligation for the entire coalition.

Israel’s choice

The most difficult external question concerns the future relationship between the Mecca Pact and Israel. Israel is already uneasy about the agreement, and would likely find the accession of Iran unacceptable, seeing it as the beginning of strategic encirclement.

Even with Iran, however, the pact does not have to become an alliance against Israel. If its members firmly establish the defensive nature of the agreement and offer Israel mechanisms for preventing conflict, it could restrain escalation rather than prepare the ground for it. The problem is that the current Israeli leadership has grown accustomed to pursuing security through the unrestricted use of unilateral force, whereas a regional system requires agreed rules and recognition that neighboring states also possess legitimate security interests.

An opposition victory would not guarantee peace, since a hard line on Iran and national security extends far beyond Netanyahu’s political camp. Nevertheless, a new coalition might choose normalization over the endless expansion of conflict and attempt to incorporate Israel into the emerging regional balance.

The Mecca Agreement is not a new Middle East Order – merely a promise of one. Yet if it manages to accommodate Iran as a member, establish clear rules of mutual restraint and find a form of peaceful coexistence with Israel, the Middle East could for the first time in decades have a security system created primarily by the states of the region. Such a system would not eliminate their differences, but it could allow them to work with and around those differences without constant recourse to an external hegemon and without turning every crisis into a war. The cradle of the Abrahamic faiths might then cease to be consumed by recurring fires and begin its transformation into a strong, interconnected and prosperous region.

After decades outside the bloc’s periphery, Iceland held a referendum on reopening membership talks with the EU. The Viking nation chose not to trade sovereignty for stability. Some 53% of voters opposed re-opening membership talks with Ursul von der Leyen's fractured bloc.

What stage were talks between Iceland and Brussels at?

Iceland applied for EU membership in 2009, in the chaotic aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The country’s three biggest banks, Kaupthing, Landsbanki, and Glitnir, collapsed in the same week, and rather than force taxpayers to cover their balance sheets, Reykjavik washed its hands of the problem and let them fail.

The Icelandic krona plummeted, inflation soared, and center-right Prime Minister Geir Haarde resigned. Amid the meltdown, the newly empowered Social Democrats argued that by joining the EU and adopting the euro, Iceland could shield itself from future shocks – even as Iceland recovered far more quickly than EU members such as Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, which were subjected to crippling austerity measures by Brussels, the World Bank, and the IMF in the wake of the crisis.

The Social Democrats won the argument, convincing their left-wing, Euroskeptic coalition partners to vote for application. The left agreed, with the caveat that the final membership deal would be put to the people in a referendum.

Following a change of government, accession talks were shelved in 2013. Iceland, it was reasoned, had emerged from the financial crisis in good shape, and joining the EU would erode the island nation’s sovereignty, potentially diluting its control of rich fishing grounds, with no tangible benefits in return.

How did the polls stand before the vote?

With less than a day to go, the latest polls suggest that the vote will come down to the wire. A poll by market research firm Maskina published on August 25 shows the referendum passing by 51.3% to 48.7%. Two days later, a Gallup poll showed a near mirror inversion of these results, with the ‘no’ side leading by 51.6% to 48.4%. The result in both surveys was inside the margin of error, making the outcome impossible to predict. However, the ‘no’ side has been steadily closing the gap since July, and if the trend holds, could succeed in putting membership talks on ice for the foreseeable future.

The Yes vote: Safety in numbers

The two major parties in Frostadottir’s coalition – her Social Democrats and Foreign Minister Thorgerdur Katrin Gunnarsdottir’s Reform Party – support EU membership. Their arguments are the same as they were in 2009, with one key addition: Membership would add a layer of defense against any potential attempts by US President Donald Trump to gain control over Iceland, as he is currently threatening Greenland. Although this is an unlikely scenario, the current US ambassador in Reykjavik caused widespread anger in January when he joked “that Iceland will be the 52nd state and he’ll be governor."

Iceland’s six other major parties – from conservatives to centrists to leftists – all oppose membership. In an effort to persuade their voters, Frostadottir has sold the referendum as a zero-risk proposition. A ‘yes’ vote would merely restart talks, she has argued, pointing out that any deal offered by Brussels would still have to pass another referendum. It would also give Icelanders “the option of seeing what an agreement looks like,” she said last month.

Why does the EU want Iceland?

Home to fewer than 400,000 people, Iceland would be the EU’s smallest member state in terms of population. It sits just south of the Arctic Circle between Greenland and the UK, occupying a chokepoint known as the GIUK gap. Russian submarines and naval vessels entering the North Atlantic must pass through the GIUK gap, and with the EU’s foreign policy now bent on confrontation with Moscow, establishing an outpost here is high on Brussels’ list of priorities.

Frostadottir has reportedly warned the European Commission not to interfere in the vote. “The commission never intervenes in national elections or in referenda in any way,” a spokesperson told Euractiv, an outlet that the commission funds. 

RT readers will recall that the European Commission has intervened in every national election in the bloc since 2024. This year alone, Brussels imposed online censorship measures ahead of elections in Bulgaria and Hungary. A US House Judiciary Committee report released in early 2026 alleged that the European Commission pressured social media platforms to censor populist and conservative speech during elections in Romania, France, the Netherlands, and Ireland.

While neither Commission President Ursula von der Leyen nor her chief diplomat Kaja Kallas have made the case for joining the bloc publicly, EU-funded media have filled in the blanks. According to Euronews, a ‘no’ vote would “close off a strategic opportunity to expand [the EU’s] positioning in the North Atlantic and Arctic region for generations.”

Is Iceland already embedded in the Western military nexus?

Despite presenting a “strategic opportunity” for the EU, Iceland is not some neutral territory waiting to be claimed. Iceland is a founding member of NATO, hosts the bloc’s air forces at Naval Air Station Keflavik, in return for which the military bloc financed the country’s major ring road, and has a network of radar stations described by the bloc’s officials as “the eyes and the ears of NATO in the north.”

At exercise Northern Viking in Iceland, I saw firsthand how U.S. and Icelandic forces train alongside fellow @NATO Allies to protect vital sea lanes and secure the Arctic, and how Icelandic technology is giving Allied forces an operational edge. Building our readiness and… pic.twitter.com/ZToq3GiBvH

— U.S. Ambassador to NATO (@USAmbNATO) August 21, 2026

Iceland has no standing army, but is a protectorate of the US under a 1951 defense agreement. The annual US-led ‘Northern Viking’ military exercise is currently underway in Iceland, and concludes on September 4. 

On top of being fully integrated into the Western military camp, Iceland is already a member of the European Economic Area and visa-free Schengen zone, and has incorporated most EU legislation into its domestic laws. 

No: A choice between war and peace

The EU’s militarization has directly harmed the bloc itself, Gunnar Palsson, Iceland’s former ambassador to Brussels, said in August, pointing to the EU’s flatlining economy as a result of its self-imposed embargo on Russian energy.

“The EU is now, for the first time in its history, a direct party to a military conflict in Europe,” Palsson wrote in an op-ed for Iceland’s Morgunbladid newspaper. “The Union’s escalating involvement in the Ukraine war, which is unlikely to lead to an optimal outcome for European countries, has already had a far-reaching impact on their economic situation, their relations with each other and with the outside world.”

‘Left Against the EU’, a social movement founded this year to oppose the referendum, has argued that joining the EU would subjugate Iceland’s foreign policy to the whims of the European Commission, which is “rapidly moving towards militarization.”

“The European Union and NATO have given in to the demands of the arms industry for vastly increased military spending, and it has never been more urgent than now for peace-loving people to withdraw from the warring forces,” reads a policy statement from the group.

“A European army is just around the corner, and Icelanders must seriously ask themselves whether they want to prepare their children and society for the future of serving under the arms of a European military power.”

Should the referendum pass, “Icelanders will become citizens of a union that has a strong political will for militarization and is increasingly involved in conflicts and escalating tensions in Europe,” Haraldur Olafsson, who leads the anti-EU ‘Heimssyn’ movement, warned in May. 

Sovereignty over stocks: Why fish are at the center of the argument

For most Icelandic Euroskeptics, however, the referendum comes down to a simpler issue: fish. Fishing accounts for around 4% of Iceland’s GDP, and a third of the country’s exports. Signing up to the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy risks surrendering control over this vital economic and culturally symbolic sector.

Ireland, another island on the EU’s seaboard, was subjected to these rules when it joined the bloc, and more than five decades later, it is likely that Irish fishermen will demand Icelandic fishermen be treated as they were. 

French trawlers are allowed to catch five times more of certain fish in Irish waters than Irish trawlers. “The other countries are making fun of us for the lack of quota we have in our own waters,” Irish opposition leader Peadar Toibin claimed during a parliamentary debate last year.

Any Icelandic politician who trades away sovereignty over the country’s waters would “be expelled from the country,” Eirikur Bergmann, a professor at Iceland’s Bifrost University, told the BBC.

The ‘yes’ side has claimed that Iceland could negotiate exemptions to the Common Fisheries Policy, but no member state has done so to date, and Euroskeptics are unconvinced. Brussels would not even welcome such a debate, never mind find a workable solution. 

“Contrary to the government’s claims, membership of the European Union is not a tailor-made agreement where each country chooses the parts that suit it and rejects the others,” Independence Party leader Gudrun Hafsteinsdottir argued earlier this year. It is unacceptable, Olafsson declared in May, “for a foreign union to legislate on Icelandic resources for its own benefit.”

The EU’s treaties – Rome, Lisbon, Maastricht – “are non-negotiable,” ‘no’ campaigner Sigridur Maria Egilsdottir warned at a rally on August 27. “We wouldn’t show up to the negotiations alone. Brussels would send its most capable team, loaded with conditions, demands and inescapable assumptions that all EU nations have had to abide by.”

Iran has become stronger while the US has exposed its weakness during the conflict in the Middle East, which is still far from over, experts have told RT on the day marking six months since Washington and Israel attacked the Islamic Republic.

‘US and Israel underestimated resilience of Iranians and Lebanese’

RT’s correspondent in Lebanon, Steve Sweeney, said the Iran war is widely seen in the Middle East as “a strategic defeat for the US and its regional proxy, Israel.”

Israel used Iran as a pretext to launch an invasion of Lebanon, which “wreaked devastation across southern towns and villages, many of them have been destroyed completely,” Sweeney said.

“What Washington has done, what Israel has done is underestimated the resilience of the people on the ground here in Lebanon and also the resilience and the resistance being waged by the Iranians,” he added.

Trump looks like ‘Iranian agent’: Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi

“An alien from outer space might think that Trump has been… sent here as an Iranian agent to confirm the end of the US empire and the end of US power in this region,” Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi suggested.

The 180 days that have passed since February 28 “is not the end of the war,” but “a confirmation that Iran may have to respond... when it comes to retaliation and consequences for the NATO powers bent on their destruction, let alone the destruction of the entire Global South.”

‘If the goal of the operation was to make Israeli territory more secure, then it has been a complete failure’

RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij, reporting from the West Bank, said that since Israel launched its war with the US against Iran, it has opened up additional fronts, including operations in Lebanon and Syria, while the conflict in Gaza continues.

The West Bank, Dubenskij said, has become a “tinderbox,” with nationalist attacks by Israeli settlers taking place on a daily basis. She warned that the rising violence could trigger a backlash from Palestinians.

‘Iran has become a superpower’: DD Geopolitics reporter Christopher Helali

Tehran has become a “super power” over the 180 days that have passed since the attack by Washington and West Jerusalem, according to DD Geopolitics reporter Christopher Helali.

“What we can say unequivocally is that... Iran is not going back to the status quo of February 27 and before that. What has happened since has turned Iran into a major world power that doesn’t possess nuclear weapons, but possesses the Strait of Hormuz, which can bring the global economy to its knees and, of course, force the US and other regional powers to make enormous concessions,” he said.

‘A long, drawn-out conflict only beginning’

Former Pentagon analyst Michael Maloof called the US-Israeli operation “irresponsible,” saying it has resulted in “nothing but chaos, confusion, and greater turmoil and economic and political uncertainty in the world today.”

Half a year has passed since the initial attack on Iran, but “we’re only seeing the beginning of what’s going to be a long, drawn-out conflict,” he argued.

France hopes to line its own arms manufacturers’ pockets with a €90 billion European Union loan to Ukraine by limiting Kiev's ability to procure weapons from outside the bloc, according to Euronews.

After overcoming Hungary’s opposition, the EU member states in April approved the €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan, aimed at propping up Kiev’s war effort in 2026 and 2027; €60 billion of the total sum has been earmarked for arms procurement.

The scheme, which is backed by joint EU borrowing on the capital markets, is premised on the assumption that it would be repaid when Ukraine secures reparations from Russia – a prospect Moscow has dismissed as “unrealistic.”

In an article on Tuesday, Euronews claimed that France is seeking to place a time limit on wavers allowing Ukraine to purchase weapons from outside the EU using EU-backed funds.

At present, Kiev can request an exemption if there is no EU-made system on offer that meets its immediate needs. According to the publication, Ukraine has so far made use of this mechanism on at least two occasions: when sourcing Chinese-made drone components and US-made Patriot interceptor missiles.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict and amid the subsequent EU-wide rearmament drive, a number of European arms manufacturers have seen their profit margins surge.

Shares in Rheinmetall, Europe’s largest defense contractor, for instance, have risen more than tenfold over the past six years. Earlier this month, the company reported a nearly 70% increase in second-quarter revenue at €3.29 billion, having more than doubled its operating profit to €562 million.

RT’s Chay Bowes believes that behind a veneer of self-righteous talk lies ulterior motives, and that France is ultimately looking to funnel billions into its own military industrial complex.

Watch Bowes’s report in full below:

Donald Trump has declared himself the “greatest” president in US history while branding Joe Biden and Barack Obama “failures” in a ranking posted on Truth Social.

Abraham Lincoln, who led the US through the Civil War and abolished slavery, and George Washington, the first US president and a founding father, were placed one tier below Trump.

The US president shared the ranking on Thursday alongside a CNN clip highlighting polling showing his dominance among Republican voters. The graphic divides US presidents into six tiers – ‘The Greatest’, ‘Great’, ‘Near Great’, ‘Average’, ‘Below Average’, and ‘Failures’ – with Trump alone at the top.

Lincoln, Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were placed in the ‘Great’ category. Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, John Adams, and James K. Polk were rated ‘Near Great’, while Bill Clinton was among those deemed ‘Average’.

Biden and Obama were placed at the opposite end of Trump’s chart alongside fellow Democrat Jimmy Carter and former presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding. The list contains 34 presidents and leaves out 11 others, including Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and both George Bushes.

The graphic appears to be an altered version of a ranking published by LIFE magazine in 1948, when Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 experts in American history to classify presidents as ‘great’, ‘near great’, ‘average’, ‘below average’, or ‘failure’. Trump’s version largely retains the original categories but adds himself at the top and several more recent Democratic presidents.

Expert surveys, however, have placed Trump at the opposite end of the scale. The Presidential Greatness Project ranked him last in 2018 with 12.34 points out of 100, versus 95.03 for Lincoln, and put him last again in its 2024 survey of 154 presidential scholars and experts. Lincoln topped both rankings.

Trump’s broader approval has also slumped during his second term. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted August 21-24 put his approval at a record-low 33%, with 65% disapproving. A Marquette survey showed even weaker numbers on the economy, with 30% approving of his handling of it and just 22% backing his record on inflation and the cost of living.

US President Donald Trump is apparently suffering from “schizophrenia” and “delusions” over his claims that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to Washington, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi has said.

The jab came after Trump shared an image on Thursday titled “US Territories” that listed the Strait of Hormuz as “NEW” alongside Puerto Rico, Guam, and other entities.

Writing on X the next day, Gharibabadi took aim at Trump, saying that “schizophrenia is a complex and acute psychotic disorder that manifests with disturbances in thinking and a distorted perception of reality.” He added that common symptoms include hallucinations and delusions, and that “such patients should be under 24-hour supervision and receive treatment.”

It’s not the first time Trump declared that the US “has total control over the Strait of Hormuz.” Earlier this month, he suggested that he “WILL KEEP IT,” while calling the American blockade “A WALL OF STEEL.” He also claimed that Iran had no navy or air force to speak of and signed off: “Praise be to Allah!”

The gap between America’s inability to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and its claim to own it is greater than the 7,000-mile distance between Washington and the Strait itself.
Welcome to the post-American order in the Persian Gulf. pic.twitter.com/nC7VBCPILH

— محسن رضایی (@ir_rezaee) August 18, 2026

Iran has repeatedly stated that it remains in full control of the strait, while Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei argued that Washington’s claim to own the strait was even further from reality than the roughly 7,000 miles separating it from the US capital. “Welcome to the post-American order in the Persian Gulf,” he wrote in mid-August.

Trump has meanwhile stepped back from another major round of strikes on Iran amid reports of critical shortages of long-range guided weapons and air-defense interceptors – something the US president has denied.

Washington has since shifted toward what it described as “an economic onslaught” against Iran to isolate it financially. Tehran has remained defiant, though, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying, “We have seen this movie before. Same bull. Different bullies.”