Almost two out of three violent attacks against politicians in Germany in 2025 targeted members of Alternative for Germany (AfD), government data shows. An MP from the right-wing party blamed the development on what he called a years-long defamation campaign.

AfD politicians were targets in a total of 121 cases last year, almost twice as many as all other major German political parties combined, the federal government said in a response to a parliamentary inquiry by AfD MP Martin Hess. The party was also the most frequent target of non-violent politically motivated offenses, the data suggested. The total number of crimes committed against the AfD in 2025 surpassed 1,800.

Around 60% of violent politically-motivated crimes were committed by left-wing suspects, Nius media outlet reported, citing police data provided by the government. Only 11% of offenses were reportedly attributed to right-wing suspects.

Hess, the MP and a former police officer, blamed the “unacceptable development” on what he called a targeted effort to discredit his party.

“Those who constantly defame, delegitimize and dehumanize the AfD and its supporters shouldn’t be surprised when enemies of democracy see in this a call to violence,” he said. The government maintained it saw no indication that the attacks on the AfD were “systematically planned,” according to Nius.

The right-wing party professes an anti-immigration platform and opposes Berlin’s sanctions on Russia. It has faced a boycott from the mainstream German parties, with some of its opponents labeling it “unconstitutional.” The AfD has nevertheless surpassed the CDU in terms of public support, becoming the most popular party in Germany, according to a poll last month.

Chinese President Xi Jinping hosted an official welcoming ceremony for Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing on Wednesday, opening a packed day of talks and events aimed at further deepening ties between the two countries.

Putin arrived in the Chinese capital on Tuesday night for a two-day official visit at Xi’s invitation. The trip coincides with the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Russia-China Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation, a landmark document that laid the foundation for their strategic relationship.

The Russian leader’s schedule in Beijing includes one-on-one and expanded-format talks with Xi, and several events highlighting the political, economic, and cultural dimensions of relations.

Putin is accompanied by a high-level delegation that includes senior Kremlin officials, government ministers, and the heads of major Russian companies and financial institutions, including Kremlin investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev, Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina, and Russian space chief Dmitry Bakanov.

The agenda is expected to cover trade, energy, security, investment, technological cooperation, and global affairs. Around 40 bilateral documents are expected to be signed during the visit, including a joint statement on deepening comprehensive strategic ties.

In a video address to the people of China ahead of the trip, Putin described Russia and China as a stabilizing force in global politics that seeks “peace and universal prosperity.”

Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates.

The US Senate has advanced a resolution aimed at curbing President Donald Trump’s authority to continue military operations against Iran without congressional approval or a debate on the rationale, cost, strategy, and clear end goal.

The chamber voted 50-47 on Tuesday to take up the war powers resolution, which would require Trump to end the hostilities against Iran, marking the first time either chamber has moved this measure forward since the conflict began in February.

Four Republicans – Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – joined almost all Senate Democrats in supporting the eighth attempt to advance the measure. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to vote against it, while three Republicans did not vote. Cassidy, who previously opposed the measure, switched sides after losing a primary race in which Trump endorsed his opponent.

Even so, Democrats say the vote is politically significant, arguing that it forces Republicans to go on record over an increasingly unpopular and costly conflict. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged lawmakers to back the resolution, accusing Trump of acting “like a toddler playing with a loaded gun.”

The push comes after the 60-day deadline set by the 1973 War Powers Resolution expired on May 1. The law requires the president to obtain congressional authorization within 60 days of introducing US forces into a conflict or end their involvement, with a possible additional 30 days for withdrawal.

Critics have rejected this argument, pointing to the continued US naval blockade of Iranian ports and the fact that US forces remain positioned for possible renewed strikes. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has also told lawmakers that the administration believes the ceasefire pauses or stops the 60-day clock, an interpretation that Democrats and some Republicans have questioned.

The administration of President Donald Trump is reportedly set to tell European NATO members that the US will reduce the military capabilities available to the bloc in the event of a major crisis, including an attack on a member state.

Although the composition of the forces assigned under the NATO Force Model is classified, the Pentagon has decided to “significantly scale down” its commitment, Reuters reported on Tuesday.

The plan is expected to be announced at a meeting of defense policy chiefs in Brussels on May 22, according to three anonymous sources familiar with the matter. The US is expected to be represented at the meeting by Alex Velez-Green, a senior aide to Undersecretary of War Elbridge Colby.

The adjustment of the NATO Force Model has reportedly become a key priority for Colby’s team ahead of the next NATO leaders’ summit, which will take place in Türkiye in July. Despite pushing the Europeans to take the lead on conventional forces, Colby previously said the US would “strenuously oppose” them in developing nuclear weapons to replace the US nuclear umbrella.

The White House has reportedly drawn up a NATO “naughty and nice” list to reward those who supported the US-Israeli war against Iran and punish those who did not, including by shifting troops, scaling back exercises, or redirecting military cooperation.

Earlier this month, the Pentagon canceled the planned rotation of 4,000 troops into Poland, shortly after announcing the withdrawal of 5,000 soldiers from Germany. US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has also reportedly canceled the deployment to Germany of a battalion specializing in long-range missiles.

Moscow has condemned the militarization of Europe, arguing that Western governments are using “ostentatious Russophobia” to justify turning the EU into a military bloc and to divert attention away from domestic issues.

Beijing stands as Moscow’s “most powerful strategic partner,” with Russia’s massive natural reserves and cheap energy making it a perfect fit for cooperation in artificial intelligence development, Kremlin investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev has said.

Speaking to journalists at Tsinghua University in Beijing on Tuesday, Dmitriev, who heads the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), said that Russia and China maintain “a comprehensive investment partnership.”

“Russia has a number of very strong competitive advantages” as it is “a leader in the world in terms of resource reserves” and “can provide the cheapest energy for artificial intelligence in the world,” he said. “We communicate with Chinese partners on projects in the fields of AI, logistics, and infrastructure.”

Speaking to Tsinghua University students on Tuesday, Dmitriev estimated that Russia could fuel AI development and operation ten times cheaper than any other source.

“It was a smarter, more intelligent, more efficient way to think about AI,” including regarding “open sourcing models,” he said. DeepSeek “broke the monopoly of some of the countries who tried to create technology monopoly,” he said.

China and the Global South are now the drivers of global growth, but certain nations are still “not willing to give up constructs that they have to protect their position,” Dmitriev added.

Brussels should strip fighting-age Ukrainian men of “temporary protection” status, Ylva Johansson, the bloc’s special envoy for Ukrainians in the EU, has said.

A total of 4.33 million Ukrainians were living under temporary protection status in the EU as of March 31, 2026, according to the bloc’s statistics agency, Eurostat. Around a quarter of them were men aged between 18 and 64, the data showed, indicating that the bloc could be hosting up to a million of men Kiev deems to be of fighting age.

Ukraine announced a general mobilization shortly after the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, barring men between the ages of 18 and 60 from leaving the country. Last year, Kiev relaxed the restrictions, allowing men aged 18 to 22 to cross the border.

“It does not seem quite logical that many fighting-age men, who have no right to leave Ukraine, immediately get temporary protection once they cross the border, maybe even illegally,” Johansson told the German state-funded DW broadcaster last week. “I think this is a bit of a controversial signal that we are sending to Ukraine, because we are also supporting Ukraine in a military way,” she added.

Ukraine has had to rely on mandatory – and often forced – mobilization to replenish its military ranks amid chronic troop shortage and mass desertions as well as draft dodging.

The recruitment drive has grown increasingly brutal over the years, with hundreds of videos showing draft patrols abducting men from streets and even shops. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians have fled to the EU to avoid being conscripted.

CNN reported in December that over 30,000 people had crossed into Romania alone since the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022. Moscow has previously accused Kiev’s Western backers of waging a proxy war “to the last Ukrainian” against Russia.

President Donald Trump and pro-Israel groups have helped unseat Representative Thomas Massie, a hardline conservative who broke with the president over Israel, Iran, and the Epstein files, in what became the most expensive US House primary in history.

Ed Gallrein, a retired Navy SEAL and farmer who previously ran unsuccessfully for the Kentucky state Senate in 2024, defeated Massie after pro-Israel groups poured more than $10 million into Tuesday’s Republican primary.

Massie is firmly in the latter camp. In his 14 years in Congress, Massie has opposed every gun control measure that has come before the House of Representatives, pushed to abolish the Department of Education, and voted to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. On foreign policy, he has backed the withdrawal of US troops from the Middle East, voted against multiple military aid packages for Ukraine, and in October 2023 was the only Republican to vote against a resolution guaranteeing American support for Israel’s war on Gaza.

Why does Trump want Massie out?

Trump endorsed Massie in the 2022 Republican primary, calling him a “conservative warrior” and a “first-rate defender of the Constitution.” However, the two had an uneasy relationship, with Trump branding Massie a “third rate Grandstander” and suggesting he be thrown out of the GOP for opposing the president’s $2 trillion Covid-19 bailout bill in 2020.

The relationship worsened during Trump’s second term. After Massie opposed Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ spending package last year, Trump described the Kentuckian as a “negative force who almost always Votes ‘NO’,” and promised that “we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary.”

Massie’s opposition to Trump’s war on Iran and his insistence that Trump release the full, unredacted Epstein files further angered the president. At a rally in March, Trump gave Gallrein his “complete and total endorsement,” describing him as a “true American hero.”

Ed who?

Trump’s endorsement of Gallrein is illustrative of the president’s recent embrace of the ‘Never Trump’ neocons who despised him a decade ago. Gallrein left the Republican Party after Trump secured the presidential nomination in 2016, vowing not to rejoin the GOP until the party was rid of him. Now, with Trump cozying up to the interventionists, Gallrein is once again content to associate himself with the president.

Gallrein is a relatively unknown figure. His campaign website lists a series of generic Republican policy priorities – “unleash our economy,” “secure the border once and for all,” “end the woke agenda” – and Trump seems to have chosen him not on any specific virtues, but because he is anyone but Thomas Massie. At the endorsement rally in March, Trump devoted more time to attacking Massie than promoting any of Gallrein’s policies, telling the crowd “he’s got to be voted out of office as soon as possible.”

How is Israel involved?

Massie’s persistent criticism of Israel has made him a target of wealthy pro-Israeli donors, who have spent more than $9 million bankrolling Gallrein’s campaign. According to Massie, more than 95% of Gallrein’s donations have come from pro-Israel lobbyists and interest groups. Beyond direct donations to Gallrein, these megadonors have spent a total of $15.5 million on the primary, with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pitching in more than $4.1 million, the Republican Jewish Coalition’s ‘RJC Victory Fund’ spending $3.9 million, and MAGA KY – a super PAC funded by pro-Israel philanthropists Paul Singer and Miriam Adelson – spending $7.9 million, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.

“Their position is more war, it’s more strife, it’s more bombs, it’s more foreign aid, and those are the things that I’ve been voting against,” Massie told Tucker Carlson earlier this month. “So the real reason that this race is a serious race, and I may lose, is because a foreign lobby has fully funded, to the extent that they’ve never done in any Republican race ever before, my opponent.”

Massie has accused AIPAC of controlling Congress, telling Carlson in 2024 that every US lawmaker “has an AIPAC person… like a babysitter” who works to ensure that they vote in line with Israel’s interests. He has since voted against military aid to Israel, boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, and introduced legislation that would force AIPAC to register as a foreign agent.

Who won?

Massie had easily defeated every primary challenger in his 14-year career in Congress. However, he had never faced such a concerted campaign against him, and several late polls showed him neck and neck with Gallrein.

However, after polls closed, early results showed Gallrein leading by a growing margin, prompting Massie to concede.

“I would have come out sooner but I had to call my opponent and concede and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv,” Massie told a crowd of supporters, as the race neared a 55% to 45% result.

With the results in, two key questions remain: Are Republican voters more loyal to Trump than to ‘America First’ principles? And can the Israel lobby buy whatever congressional seats it wants?

Croatian President Zoran Milanovic has refused to approve Israel’s new ambassador to Zagreb, citing disagreements with the Israeli government’s actions.

The presidential office announced the decision on Monday.

“The proposed Ambassador of the State of Israel has not received, nor will he receive, the consent of the President of the Republic Zoran Milanovic due to the policies pursued by the current Israeli authorities,” it said in a statement.

Israel deviated from established diplomatic norms by announcing their proposed ambassador before he was approved by the Croatian president, it added. “Public or political pressure, in this case from the Israeli side, will not alter the President of the Republic’s decision.”

The term of Israel’s current ambassador to Zagreb, Gary Koren, expires at the end of the May. Israeli diplomat Nisan Amdor, whom West Jerusalem last year selected to replace him, will instead arrive in Croatia next month as charge d’affaires, a post not requiring presidential approval, Ynet reported on Monday.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar responded by accusing the president of using “hate-filled language about Israel and Zionism.”

Moscow has also been critical of the Israeli blockade and bombing of the Palestinian enclave, likening it to collective punishment of both Hamas and the local civilian population. The only way out the crisis is to enact a two-state solution, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

A senior official from the administration of US President Donald Trump personally intervened to help former Polish Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, wanted by Warsaw on criminal charges, flee to the US, Reuters has reported.

US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau instructed senior US State Department officials to facilitate and approve a visa for Ziobro, the outlet wrote on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Landau reportedly learned of Ziobro’s case earlier this year from US ambassador to Warsaw Tom Rose and believed the ex-minister was being unjustly prosecuted. Landau reportedly described the matter as “a national security issue,” Reuters added.

Granting a visa to a politician facing criminal charges in a US-allied country is “highly unusual,” the outlet noted. Poland’s current Justice Minister Waldemar Zurek expressed surprise at the report on Tuesday, saying that Warsaw expected its American allies to discuss such a matter. He insisted that Warsaw will “do everything” to bring Ziobro to justice in Poland.

Ziobro faces multiple criminal charges tied to alleged abuse of power while in office. Prosecutors accuse him of leading a criminal group that diverted public money to purchase Israeli-made Pegasus spyware, which was allegedly used to surveil political opponents and journalists. Ziobro could face up to 25 years in prison if convicted.

Poland issued an arrest warrant for Ziobro last November while he was in Budapest. The politician remained in Hungary after then-Prime Minister Viktor Orban granted him political asylum.

Following his election victory in April, Hungary’s new prime minister, Peter Magyar, pledged to extradite Ziobro to Poland upon taking office. On the day of Magyar’s inauguration, Ziobro flew from Milan to New Jersey, according to Polish media reports.

Riot police clashed with anti-government protesters in Bolivia’s administrative capital, La Paz, on Monday. The massive rallies sparked by rising costs of living and fuel shortages escalated into calls for Bolivian President Rodrigo Paz to step down just six months after taking office.

A centrist Christian Democratic Party conservative, Paz scrapped decades-old fuel subsidies that had drained Bolivia’s foreign reserves but has so far failed to stabilize fuel supplies. Thousands of farmers, miners, teachers, laborers, and indigenous activists have spent weeks protesting over rising living costs, stagnant wages, economic instability, and alleged plans to privatize state-owned companies.

Video footage showed riot police firing tear gas as protesters hurled projectiles, firecrackers, and homemade explosives near government buildings. The footage also captured arrests and a burning vehicle.

Local media have reported that more than 100 people were arrested during the Monday unrest.

Supporters of socialist former Bolivian President Evo Morales joined the protests, marching through major streets and avenues while calling on the government to prevent what they described as US interference in the country’s internal affairs.

“The US gives Rodrigo Paz instructions, and Rodrigo Paz uses military police to carry out massacres,” Feliciano Vegamonte, leader of the Confederation of Peasant Workers said during the march, adding that “the current president has been bathed in the blood of Indigenous people.”

The political crisis in Bolivia deepened after the 2019 turmoil, when Morales was ousted following a disputed election in which he secured a highly controversial fourth consecutive term. Prior to that, he had narrowly lost a referendum on removing term limits, which at the time capped the tenure of both the president and vice president at two terms.

On Sunday, Morales supporters occupied an airport in Chimore to prevent his alleged arrest by what he described as US-backed forces. The move reportedly led to 57 arrests and came shortly after Morales claimed that Washington was planning to detain him.

More video footage captured hundreds of demonstrators loyal to Paz marching through La Paz on Monday night condemning the anti-government protests and calling on the authorities to declare a state of emergency.

The EU will turn to a long-term strategy involving cow dung to stave off a looming fertilizer shortage, rather than supporting farmers with immediate measures like suspending tariffs on Russian and Belarusian imports, Politico wrote on Monday.

The US-Israeli war on Iran disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles an estimated one third of the global fertilizer trade, and a fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) – a commodity important in the production of nitrate fertilizers. The key waterway was blocked during planting season in the Northern Hemisphere, with analysts warning of a potential global shortage of crucial crop nutrients and a delayed world-wide food shock.

As the EU had already secured fertilizer supplies this crop season, any knock-on effect for the bloc’s farmers and consumers is likely to be delayed, Politico wrote.

The European Commission’s latest roadmap to parry the upcoming shortage is a long-term plan that has been around for years, with just a few emergency additions such as state aid for affected farmers, the designation of fertilizers as a crisis-relevant commodity and a promised boost for the EU farm budget, the outlet wrote.

“Manure can be a contribution, but it can never substitute the urea-based, the nitrogen-based fertilizers,” Politico cited Italian MEP and AGRI Committee member Herbert Dorfmann as saying.

Fast-acting measures to aid farmers, such as suspending taxes on carbon-intensive imports or tariffs on Russian and Belarusian fertilizers were dismissed as “too politically toxic,” the outlet said.

Since 2021, Russia has increased sales of mineral fertilizers to BRICS countries by 71%, and now holds first place worldwide in exports of the commodities and second place in output, Russian Association of Fertilizer Producers head Andrey Guryev said earlier this year.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has arrived in Beijing. He has travelled to China for a two-day official visit at the invitation of Chinese President Xi Jinping. The trip coincides with the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Russia-China Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation.

The visit comes less than a week after US President Donald Trump’s trip to China. The American president arrived in Beijing for a two-day state visit last week but did not achieve any major breakthroughs in talks with Xi.

The Kremlin has dismissed speculation that the timing of Putin’s trip is linked to US-China contacts, saying that there is “no connection whatsoever.” Preparations for the visit began shortly after Putin and Xi held a video call in February, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said earlier this week.

The Russian president was met on the tarmac by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, as well as an honor guard and a group of children waving Russian and Chinese flags. Some of the honor guard members drove to the tarmac on motorcycles ahead of the Russian president’s arrival.

The presidential delegation includes senior officials, ministers, and the heads of major Russian companies. Around 40 bilateral documents are expected to be signed during the visit, including a joint statement on deepening the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries, according to Ushakov.

Meetings between the two presidents are scheduled for Wednesday. According to Moscow, Putin and Xi will hold both one-on-one and expanded-format talks focused on “the most important and sensitive issues” in bilateral relations, as well as major international developments.

The government of Greenland has condemned an unofficial visit by a US doctor to assess the island’s healthcare system during an American diplomatic trip to Nuuk.

The controversy comes amid US President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to take over the autonomous Danish territory.

The four-day visit by a US delegation, including US Ambassador to Denmark Kenneth Howery and Trump’s special envoy to Greenland, Jeff Landry, began on Sunday. The stated goal is to attend a business forum and open a new US consular office in the capital, Nuuk.

The controversy erupted after physician Joseph Griffin, part of the delegation, told Danish broadcaster TV 2 on Monday that Landry had personally invited him to Nuuk to help “assess the medical needs” of Greenland.

Griffin insisted he was acting as a “volunteer” and planned to speak with Greenlanders to learn “how healthcare is practiced here.”

Landry has become a controversial figure in Greenland after repeatedly criticizing the island’s healthcare system and backing Trump’s February proposal to send a US hospital ship to the territory, a plan firmly rejected by officials in Nuuk.

He also previously vowed to be “very aggressive in delivering healthcare to remote parts” of the island, while stating that the hospital ship proposal had been discussed with the Pentagon.

The dispute comes amid Trump’s push to bring Greenland under greater US control, supposedly on national security grounds. The president has described the mineral-rich Arctic territory as strategically vital for countering Russia and China, while White House officials earlier this year said military force to acquire the island was “always an option.”

In an apparent snub to the US delegation, Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has refused to participate in the opening of the new US consulate.

In 2018, on the day the 2026 FIFA World Cup was awarded to the US, Canada, and Mexico, I vowed that under no circumstances would I work at it in any capacity, from commentator to host, journalist to presenter.

The reason was simple: five years of non-stop lawfare against the sport’s global governing body (FIFA) and the bullying of delegates to vote against the preferred candidate, Morocco. I stayed true to the promise I made live on air with Capital Sports, by saying no to a match commentator and host contract in February this year. A couple of weeks after turning down the gig, the US and Israel unleashed an unprovoked war on Iran, with Canada giving active support. Using FIFA’s own logic that was applied to Russia and Belarus, this summer’s event has to be postponed.

Not all are equal

Having been party to the process of freezing Russian football clubs and teams from international competition in the days following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, I took zero pleasure from being the person to break the news that UEFA (Europe’s governing body) had ‘pulled the trigger’. At that moment, Capital Sports was live on air with the then CEO of the All-Russian Footballers Union. The deal, worked out between the Russian Football Union (RFU), UEFA, and FIFA, gave us all a sense of relief.

It was sensible, pragmatic, and based upon the safety of players, officials, and fans. That Russian troops had gone into a neighboring nation was, to football officials, a secondary concern. Were war ever an actual concern, then the nations of the Coalition of the Willing, part 1, who took part in the illegal and actual full-scale invasion of Iraq 23 years ago this March, would be all out in the cold. Italy and Spain would not have won their World Cups in 2006 and 2010 respectively, and the US would not have been awarded hosting rights for 2026. Yet the three aforementioned nations, plus another 48 including the UK, Latvia, Lithuania, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, have continued to be welcome in the football fraternity.

However, this is not 2003 and the idea of staging a mega-event in two nations up to their knees in blood is not just reprehensible from a moral standpoint, or appalling from a human one, it’s patently unsafe. Award-winning sportswriter Andrew Flint told Capital Sports in December: “It’s a fact that football grounds are too wide open for attack… safety cannot be guaranteed for players and fans alike.”

‘The Washington Candidate’ runs FIFA

In November 2010, two good things happened to football: Russia and Qatar were awarded World Cup hosting rights for 2018 and 2022 respectively. At the time I warned, live on Irish state broadcaster RTE Radio 1, that it would be bad for FIFA and Russia. Bad enough that England lost the race to host the 2018 jamboree, but Washington was infuriated at losing to Qatar. The pair of crybullies couldn’t accept that the world’s most popular sport was not theirs to rule. Moscow, immediately, landed in the crosshairs of the Anglosphere and their European lackeys, with constant attacks on Russia – from doping scandals to regime change pushes and everything in between – that lasted until the tournament kicked off at Luzhniki Stadium. Qatar’s ‘punishment’ continued throughout its well-received event. However, by 2018, football’s global governing body had been gutted. The US had its people in charge of FIFA after a decapitation strike by Donald Trump’s first predecessor, Barack Obama.

To those of us working in and reporting on sport, it was clear that Obama used lawfare to bring FIFA to heel. As well as the FBI arresting or detaining dozens of FIFA officials, they forced out the president, Switzerland’s Sepp Blatter, and UEFA’s top dog Michel Platini. France’s Platini, one of the sport’s all-time great players, was universally accepted as Blatter’s heir apparent for the FIFA top job. By the end of 2015, Obama had effected a complete clearout of anyone willing to stand up to the US, and in February 2016 UEFA Secretary General Gianni Infantino, the Swiss-born son of Italian immigrants, took over and immediately passed a raft of reforms handed to him from Washington. Infantino had been lockstep with Platini, but he was ready to ‘play ball’ with the new sheriff in town.

On the eve of the World Cup in 2018, delegates from national associations gathered in Moscow to vote for hosting rights of the 2026 tournament. The US-Mexico-Canada bid won despite the vast majority of delegates opposing it. Almost all wanted Morocco to win and the anger was such that Spain abstained, its delegate telling me: “It’s a sham. Washington got their man and he’s handed them this. It’s not the Manchurian Candidate, it’s the Washington Candidate.”

So who is this teflon man who runs the world’s game on behalf of the US?

“We’ve made it the cup of shame,” a caller to Britain’s Talksport radio wailed last December. This after the Trump administration removed visa bans on three of the seven Iranian delegates from attending the World Cup draw. Iran had threatened to boycott the high-profile gala in order to bring sense to the senseless. Trump was promised a “big shiny trophy” another caller opined. For his generosity, the US leader received the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, to compensate for not winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Football fans around the world groaned, but Infantino “had to pay homage to his boss,” according to former football club owner Simon Jordan.

Last May, Infantino arrived two hours late to the 75th FIFA Congress in Asuncion, Paraguay, having spent the previous days in Trump’s entourage during the US president’s trip to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Point of note, Infantino owns an apartment in Qatar and two of his kids go to school there. UEFA delegates, in a pre-planned display of theatrical strop, walked out. Arrive two hours late for a meeting and you raise the European ire, murder 150+ children in an Iranian school, silence. Flatten a country and kill tens of thousands, FIFA will send you money for the development of facilities on stolen land and UEFA will allow your clubs and teams in competition.

Infantino knew it was theater, nothing more. Because the UEFA delegates are still silent when citizens of Algeria, Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal, Tunisia, and Cape Verde, as well as Iran, all face visa discrimination. All six countries have qualified to play in this summer’s event, but some of their players and staff might not be allowed into the US. And just last month, Canada refused entry to Iran’s football federation president for the FIFA congress in Vancouver. The same congress where Infantino tried, and failed, to get the Israeli FA president and his Palestinian counterpart to shake hands. 

And yet, one FIFA insider told me that Infantino is a man “at war with himself.” Infantino has, in a private capacity, contributed to charities for refugees in Lebanon, Gaza, Jordan, and at least two other countries in the region. He has “gotten wealthy Qataris to send humanitarian relief to the West Bank. I have no time for the man, but give him this much,” the person told me on condition of anonymity. They reminded me that not only is Infantino’s wife Lebanese, but he is too, having received his citizenship this year. So, then, why are the US and Canada still allowed to host the World Cup and why is Israel still in UEFA competition?

Although some UEFA member nations have spoken out against the inclusion of Israeli teams and clubs in European competitions, not one has refused to play against them. Criminal hooligans attached to Maccabi Tel Aviv have been banned from many European stadia and cities, yet even common sense and public safety went out the window as British politicians cried anti-Semitism this year when local police in Birmingham wanted to reduce the chances of disorder at a game in 2025.

When Ireland was drawn to play Israel in the UEFA European Nations League, set to take place this autumn, the government and Football Association of Ireland (FAI) issued mealy-mouthed excuses that didn’t wash. “Sport should be above politics,” said the CEO of the FAI, an organization which three years earlier refused to allow Russian children to play in European competitions. A refusal that the head of UEFA said was “directly discriminating” against Russian kids. After parroting the government line on Israel, the FAI was duly rewarded by the government, with Dublin giving the debt-laden outfit ‘extra time’ to repay a €1.5 million loan. Complicity in war crimes paid off for Irish football.

If the global outrage at the continued devastation of Gaza, the invasion of Lebanon, and attacks on Iran are not enough reasons for FIFA to reconsider hosting a major event in the US this summer, then nothing will be. There has never been such a scandal-ridden, yet totally overlooked, World Cup in history. While Russia and Qatar were, rightly, scrutinized for a variety of reasons from human/workers rights to construction delays and corruption in the bidding processes, the US-Canada-Mexico version has skated completely free by comparison. Not a single mainstream football ‘writer’ has asked questions over fan safety in the US or Canada, in relation to the war on Iran. No nations, apart from Iran, have stated they will boycott the tournament. And Iran did so only after Trump threatened it.

Football lives inside an incestuous, self-obsessed, and isolated bubble. The sport is riddled with corruption on all levels, from doping to match-fixing, child abuse to money laundering, although there has never been a moment greater than right now for those who genuinely love the sport to make their voices heard. Allowing the US and Canada to host the World Cup this summer is peak football and peak insanity. Lives will be put at risk, legacies destroyed, and only the refusal of qualified countries to participate will make an impact. And the chance of that happening? About as much as my replacing Gianni Infantino as FIFA boss, zero.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has embarked on an official visit to China this week – the latest milestone in a relationship that Moscow and Beijing have described as a “no-limits partnership.”

Putin’s trip comes as the two countries celebrate the 30th anniversary of the China-Russia strategic partnership of coordination, and the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation.

Here is how three decades of pragmatism, Western pressure, and mutual economic need allowed China and Russia to build one of the world’s most consequential partnerships outside of the traditional Western-dominated international system.

Soviet chapter: From comrades to combatants

The relationship between the Soviet Union and Communist China kicked off in the late 1940s and early 1950s as a bond of ideological brotherhood. The Soviet Union acted as China’s ‘elder brother,’ helping the country to recover from devastating consequences of World War II and Civil War, with Soviet technicians pouring into the mostly rural country, helping build factories, railways, and the rudiments of an industrial base.

Beijing subsequently accused Moscow of “revisionism” – an apostasy from orthodox Marxism-Leninism, with the two countries descending into open rivalry. The stand-off culminated in 1969 as the two nuclear powers engaged in an undeclared war over the border island of Damansky (known as Zhenbao in China) on the Ussuri river.

The Long Thaw

Ties started to normalize in the mid-1980s as reformers Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping ascended to power in their respective countries. Moscow and Beijing held a series of grinding talks on mitigating border disputes, with relations improving due to the Soviet decision to start pulling troops from Afghanistan and end support for Vietnam’s presence in Cambodia.

The new era of rapprochement began during Gorbachev’s trip to Beijing in 1989 – the first visit by a Soviet leader in 30 years.

Partnership takes shape

The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 did not derail an upward trend in relations, with China swiftly recognizing nascent Russia. The tendency was supported by both countries needing one another: China wanted shipments of sophisticated Soviet-designed weaponry and access to Russia’s vast resources, while Moscow – which was undergoing a painful transition to a market economy – needed cash.

Trade boom

In 2001, the two sides signed the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, agreeing to cooperate on tackling common threats and improving global stability. A couple of years later, the sides extinguished the last remnants of the border dispute.

New era in energy cooperation

The start of the Ukraine crisis in 2014 and sweeping Western sanctions against Russia only drew Moscow and Beijing closer.

In May 2014, Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) signed a landmark 30-year $400 billion agreement to supply 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually through the Power of Siberia pipeline, which came online in December 2019.

“No limits partnership”

In early February 2022, less than three weeks before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping released a joint statement declaring that the “friendship between the two States has no limits” and that “there are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation.”

In addition, China continued to ship cars, electronics, trucks, and other goods to Russia while filling the market vacuum left by the exodus of Western companies.

In a video address to the Chinese people prior to this week’s visit, Putin said that Russia-China trade turnover had exceeded $200 billion, with most transactions being carried out in national currencies.

Estonia has shot down an alleged Ukrainian drone over its territory for the first time, the NATO and EU member state’s defense minister, Hanno Pevkur, has said.

Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of incidents related to Ukrainian UAVs targeting northwestern Russia, particularly energy facilities in Leningrad Region. Some of the aircraft eventually crashed in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Finland.

Moscow has warned that if it turns out that the Baltic States and Finland “deliberately provide their airspace” to Kiev’s UAVs, Moscow has the right to self-defense in response to an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Pevkur told the outlet Delfi on Tuesday that “this is the first time we have shot down a drone ourselves.”

The downed UAV had been deployed by Kiev to target Russian territory, the minister claimed.

“We activated the necessary measures, and a Baltic Air Policing fighter jet shot the drone down” over Lake Vortsjarv in the southern part of the country, he explained.

Baltic Air Policing is a NATO mission to guard the airspace of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

There is yet no information about possible injuries or damage stemming from the incident, Pevkur said. Various Estonian agencies are on their way to the site where the debris of the drone fell, he added.

On Tuesday, temporary flight restrictions were introduced at Pulkovo Airport in Russia’s second largest city, St. Petersburg, due to drone incursions.

“The easiest way for the Ukrainians to keep their drones away from our territory is to control their activities better,” the minister suggested.

Tallinn “will start dealing with this very quickly now,” he said of the drone incursions.

Earlier on Tuesday, Moscow’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) revealed that, according to its data, Latvia has given Ukraine permission to use its territory for potential drone attacks against Russia.

The SVR warned that “the coordinates of decision-making centers on Latvian territory are well known, and the country’s NATO membership will not protect the accomplices of terrorists from just retribution.”

A US federal jury has rejected Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and other tech executives, dismissing claims that they unlawfully enriched themselves by abandoning the company’s founding mission, several news outlets reported Tuesday.

Musk accused Altman, OpenAI president Greg Brockman and other executives of improperly turning the organization from a nonprofit research lab into a profit-driven business. According to the lawsuit, as cited by news agencies, the tech mogul said he had invested $38 million in the venture and sought $150 billion in damages, along with the removal of the company’s current leadership. He reportedly vowed to donate any compensation granted in the case to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm.

In a ruling delivered on Monday, the nine-member jury reportedly found that Musk had waited too long to file his lawsuit and missed the statutory deadline. Although the jury served in an advisory capacity, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers later adopted the verdict as the court’s own and dismissed Musk’s claims, according to reports.

According to the OpenAI defendants, as cited by Reuters, Musk only wanted to control OpenAI, and he was told in 2017 that the company would need financing that came with being a for-profit.

Commenting on the verdict, Musk once again claimed that “Altman and Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity.”

“The only question is WHEN they did it!” he said in a post on X, vowing to appeal the ruling, which he described as “incredibly destructive and creating a precedent to loot charities.”

The current choreography of great-power diplomacy has prompted a familiar round of speculation. Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives in China only days after his US counterpart Donald Trump’s own high-profile visit to Beijing, and commentators are already speaking of a new “great triangle” between Russia, China and the United States.

The timing, however, is largely coincidental because Putin’s visit was planned long in advance. Meetings between the Russian and Chinese leaders are now routine and form part of an increasingly institutionalized partnership. Trump’s trip, by contrast, had already been postponed several times, most recently because of the war with Iran. The American president was clearly reluctant to arrive in Beijing while trapped in the role of a wartime leader unable to control events. Even so, he didn’t manage to come to town as a triumphant statesman because Iran hasn’t yielded, and Washington’s position remains uncertain.

Yet from the perspective of the broader international system, the triangular comparison is understandable. Russia, China and the United States are today the three powers with the greatest capacity to shape global affairs. Their strengths differ as America retains unmatched military and financial reach, while China possesses industrial and economic weight on a historic scale. Meanwhile, Russia continues to wield enormous geopolitical and strategic influence far beyond the size of its economy. Thus, any interaction between the three inevitably affects the wider international balance.

Still, the similarities end there and, in practice, the relationships themselves are fundamentally different in character.

The United States and China are strategic rivals, and that rivalry isn’t temporary, and Trump’s latest visit to Beijing underlined how deeply the relationship has changed. For decades, both sides benefited from a kind of economic symbiosis in which commercial interests outweighed political disagreements but that era is now over.

As a result, the Trump–Xi relationship is becoming one defined by managed divergence rather than convergence, but tensions will rise and fall and escalation and partial stabilization will alternate. Neither side wants a catastrophic rupture, because the economic consequences would be enormous, but both now seem to accept that long-term competition is unavoidable.

The Russia–China relationship is built on an entirely different foundation.

Moscow and Beijing view themselves not primarily as rivals, but as strategic partners shaped by a shared geopolitical environment across Eurasia. Both countries see the Eurasian landmass as the central arena of 21st-century politics and the most dangerous military conflicts are already unfolding there, from Eastern Europe to the Middle East, while the most consequential future confrontation could emerge in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Against that backdrop, Russia and China increasingly regard stable cooperation as a strategic necessity.

That’s also why weakening that relationship has become a major objective for Washington. Many American strategists openly insist that the United States must drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing in order to preserve global primacy. In practice, however, US pressure has often produced the opposite result, pushing the two Eurasian powers into even closer alignment.

None of this means the relationship is free of friction and it’s clearly not. Russia and China are both major powers with long histories, strong national interests and their own strategic ambition which means disagreements over trade, investment, logistics and regional influence are inevitable. But the crucial difference is that these disagreements aren’t existential in nature.

Unlike US-China relations, where competition increasingly revolves around limiting and constraining the other side, Russia and China don’t fundamentally view each other as adversaries so while practical disputes may cause irritation, delays or bargaining, but they don’t threaten the relationship itself.

That stability is precisely why meetings between Putin and Xi generate less global drama than summits involving Trump. There’s little suspense because the basic direction of the relationship is already clear. The two countries have spent years building a relatively deep level of political trust, something increasingly rare in international affairs.

In today’s world, predictability has become an unusual commodity, yet that may ultimately be one of the greatest advantages of the Russian-Chinese partnership. While relations between Washington and Beijing are defined by uncertainty and suspicion Moscow and Beijing have constructed something far steadier: a relationship whose trajectory no longer depends on atmospherics or temporary political moods.

And in an increasingly unstable international environment, that alone makes it significant.

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

These days all the world is closely following the high-level international meetings in China. US President Donald Trump just completed his first state visit to China since his trip in November 2017. On May 19, another top foreign guest will arrive on a two-day state visit: Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

Unlike his American colleague, Putin has always regarded Beijing as one of his preferred international travel destinations; the last time he was here was less than a year ago, in September 2025. The two sequential trips symbolize the growing importance of China as a global player; Beijing has become an indispensable actor in critical dimensions of world politics and economy.

More than ‘business as usual’

The two summits are not a sudden and unexpected outburst of diplomatic activities. Since the beginning of the year, China has seen many top foreign statesmen, including South Korea’s President Lee Jae Myung, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, not to mention a long string of foreign ministers, defense ministers and other high-ranking officials.

While the sheer number of foreign leaders going to China is impressive, what is even more so is the diversity: Major powers and mid-size states, close neighbors and remote overseas lands, and Global North and Global South nations.    

The flood of high-level guests demonstrates the fast-growing breadth of China’s international connections and its principles of equal and open major-country diplomacy, featuring non-alignment, non-confrontation and non-targeting of third parties. It also reflects China’s clear stance: Managing differences through dialogue, pursuing stability through cooperation and promoting win-win outcomes through practical actions.

It sends a strong message to the world that China has been consistently acting as a builder of peace, contributor to development and defender of international order, fulfilling its responsibilities as a major country. China’s principles are reflected in the four strategic visions outlined by President Xi Jinping: The Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, Global Civilization Initiative and the Global Governance Initiative.

Overall China-US trade experienced a visible decline in 2025, but nonetheless accounted for $414.69 billion with a lot of potential for further growth. The China-Russia trade was more modest, but still impressive – $228.1 billion in 2025. From January to April in 2026, it demonstrated a nearly 20% increase and continues to grow. No wonder then that the May state visits of US and Russia’s presidents go beyond diplomatic “business as usual.”     

If we take a closer look at the current state of China-Russia-US relations, is a Beijing-Moscow partnership by definition hostile to US national interests? Does China have to choose between Russia and the US? Is late American diplomat Henry Kissinger’s approach to the global geopolitical triangle – maintaining good relations with China taking advantage of its then distance from the Soviet Union – still valid or should it be dismissed as archaic and misplaced?

No ‘zero-sum game’ anymore

Some claim that there is a natural affinity between China and Russia, nations opposed to US or other Western hegemony. Trump probably does not share this rather primitive world outlook personally, but it is nonetheless very typical for the US political mainstream, especially the segment closely associated with the Democratic Party. This rigid view of the world clearly does not hold water and contradicts the real-world picture.

The political and economic systems in China and in Russia are very different. China is a socialist country, while Russia has moved to capitalism since early 1990s. Russia’s political institutions have been created in the image and likeness of Western examples, not Chinese ones. Besides, social and political similarities have never guaranteed foreign policy unity.

Maybe, the real legitimate concern in the US should be about the deepening economic interdependence between China and Russia. But as mentioned, the China-US trade is almost twice the China-Russia trade; it is also much more diverse involving large numbers of small and mid-size enterprises on both sides. Beijing holds almost $700 billion of US Treasury bonds and is looking for a substantial increase in direct investment in America. Trump’s visit will undoubtedly be a major boost to bilateral cooperation between the two most powerful economies of the modern world. However, the political and business leaders in Russia expect that at some point, the China-Russia economic cooperation may fully match the current level of China-US interaction.

Around 1.5 million tourists from China visited the US in 2025, while about 834,500 chose to go to Russia. And one should not underestimate the powerful attraction of the US movie industry, pop music and the English language.

Are the US concerns grounded in the geopolitical proximity of Beijing and Moscow? The latter two nations often hold the same position in international institutions like the UN Security Council, they actively promote multilateral groupings like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and jointly call for a multipolar international system.

Still, this meeting of minds is not anything close to the monolithic Soviet-Chinese cooperation of 1950s. Beijing and Moscow have distinctly different nuclear doctrines and different attitudes to strategic arms control.

It would be wrong to conclude that the relations within the China-Russia-US triangle can be described as a “zero-sum game.” A degree of competition between Moscow and Washington for attention from Beijing is unavoidable and natural, but it does not mean that the Kissinger approach would work out half a century later in a completely different environment.

For instance, if China buys less from America, it does not necessarily mean that it will automatically buy more from Russia. If Moscow is successful in reaching out to Washington, it does not imply that it will lose its appetite for upgrading its ties to Beijing.

None of the three would be interested in global economic or financial instability. An economic tide is likely to raise all the three boats, while an economic storm might wreck all three. Even on the most sensitive and potentially divisive matters like the conflict in the Middle East, there is considerable overlap in China, Russia and US positions: None of them would like to see Israel wiped off the map, or the Strait of Hormuz staying closed indefinitely.

International affairs these days fit less and less into any of these theoretical frameworks; they represent a complex mix of unipolarity, bipolarity, multipolarity and no polarity. Academics might fight for the best theoretical frameworks explaining the contemporary international system and forecasting its future evolution, but politicians should focus on working together where there are even minimal opportunities for joint efforts.

It is all about trust

So, what is the most important difference between China-Russia and the China-US relations? In my view, what really matters is whether China, Russia and the US can trust one another. At the end of the day, it is trust that defines what is possible and what is not in relations between the three major powers.

Does trust exist in the China-US-Russia geopolitical triangle?

The answer is definitely positive in the case of China-Russia relations. The predominant public views of each other are essentially positive, especially among the younger generation. According to the most recent survey conducted in May by the Global Opinion Research Center at Renmin University of China, within the Russian and Chinese age group between 18 and 35, the overwhelming majority view bilateral relations as friendly (85.5% in China and 87.5% in Russia), have positive views of the other nation (76.4% and 78%) and are optimistic about future cooperation (73.7% and 77.7%). The strong personal relations between their top leaders also add to the stability and predictability of bilateral relations.

Regretfully, in the case of China-US relations, the answer is less encouraging. Although the recent survey by Pew Research Center shows that 27% of Americans now hold a favorable view of China, the figure suggests that considerable room for improvement still exists. There are many reasons why the two nations cannot fully trust each other. The trust, if it ever existed between Beijing and Washington, was badly damaged over the last couple of years by inconsistent and unpredictable US policies.

This is not only about the personality of Trump though his personal style, undoubtedly, brings more uncertainty into US foreign policy. However, the core problem is about the current state of American society and politics. As long as this society remains deeply divided, it is very hard to expect a predictable, consistent and trustworthy foreign policy to come out of the US.  

The odds are that due to these deep social and political divisions, the US will remain a difficult foreign policy partner in years to come. Still, it will remain an indispensable player in many areas of international life, which means that both Beijing and Moscow should keep trying to engage Washington wherever possible, short of yielding to excessive US demands or accepting inappropriate US ultimatums.

It will be a long and bumpy road for both China and Russia. However, as Confucius put it, “It doesn’t matter how slow you go as long as you don’t stop.”

This article was first published by CGTN.

Israeli forces have seized least 39 out of 51 at boats of the Global Sumud Flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, the organizers of the action have said.

Yachts with more than 420 activists from 39 countries aboard departed from the port of Marmaris in Türkiye last week, with the stated goal of breaking the Israeli naval blockade of the Palestinian enclave.

On Monday, the organizers of the flotilla issued a post on X, saying that “military vessels are currently intercepting our fleet and Israel Occupation Forces are boarding the first ⁠of our boats ⁠in broad daylight.” In a later message, they said Israeli troops had “illegally and violently” seized their ships and “abducted our volunteers.”

Among the hundreds of those detained was Irish doctor Margaret Connolly, the sister of Irish President Catherine Connolly, the organizers said.

The Israeli Navy has begun to intercept the activist mission sailing to the Gaza Strip to challenge Israel's naval blockade. pic.twitter.com/YXeSwxPDOd

— Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian (@manniefabian) May 18, 2026

Israeli servicemen boarded the vessels some 250 nautical miles (463 km) from Gaza, off the coast of Cyprus. According to the EU nation’s rescue services, the incident happened outside of Cypriot territorial waters. The country’s president, Nikos Christodoulides, said Israel had not informed Nicosia of its plans to act against the flotilla.

West Jerusalem denies withholding supplies for Palestinians in Gaza, almost 2 million of whom have been displaced since the outbreak of the conflict between Israel and Hamas in October 2023. It also earlier dismissed the flotilla as a stunt, saying that the activists had rejected an offer to pass the aid they were carrying to Israel or international organizations so that it could be delivered to Gaza via official channels.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan described the interception of the flotilla as “piracy and banditry” and demanded that Israel to release those detained, including more than 40 residents of Türkiye.

NATO should strike Russia’s Kaliningrad to make a point to Moscow, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys has said.

Kaliningrad Region is a Russian exclave of over a million people, which sits on the Baltic Sea coast and borders NATO member-states Lithuania to the north and Poland to the south.

In his interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung on Monday, Budrys insisted that the Europeans “need to turn our fear of the [Russian] threat into a sense of self-empowerment.”

“We must show the Russians that we can penetrate their small fortress that they have built in Kaliningrad,” he said.

The minister claimed that “NATO has the means to raze the Russian air defense and missile bases there to the ground in an emergency.”

The Kremlin has repeatedly reject claims of them harboring aggressive plans against Europe as “nonsense,” saying that they are only being made by Western politicians to distract the public from domestic problems and justify increased military spending. A clash with NATO is only possible if Russia is attacked first, they said.

Speaking about incursions into Lithuanian airspace by Ukrainian drones targeting northwestern Russia, Budrys complained that “we obviously lack air defense” and called upon NATO to fix that.

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

In the latter case, Moscow has the right to self-defense in response to an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Shoigu stressed.

Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Wednesday for talks expected to focus on expanding economic and strategic cooperation, as the two countries mark the 25th anniversary of a landmark friendship treaty.

Moscow and Beijing are expected to sign dozens of agreements during the two-day visit, highlighting the increasingly close alignment between the two powers on foreign policy, trade, and opposition to what they describe as Western unilateralism.

RT looks at where Russia and China align on global politics.

Multipolar world

Moscow and Beijing have increasingly aligned around the idea of a “multipolar world” – a global order they say should no longer be dominated by the West and the US in particular.

Both countries have accused Washington of abusing sanctions, military alliances, and the global financial system to preserve its dominance, while arguing that emerging powers should play a greater role in international decision-making.

Russia and China have promoted deeper cooperation through platforms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, presenting them as alternatives to Western-led institutions and as pillars of a more balanced global order.

Taiwan

Russia backs the One China policy, under which Beijing views Taiwan as an inseparable part of Chinese territory. While most countries formally adhere to the policy, continued US military support for Taipei has fueled rising tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Middle East

Moscow has condemned the US-Israeli attack on Iran as “entirely unprovoked aggression.”

China, the main buyer of Iranian crude, has lost much of that supply since the US and Israel launched attacks in February. Russia has since ramped up oil exports to China to help offset the shortfall.

Both Moscow and Beijing have repeatedly called for the conflict to be resolved through dialogue and a diplomatic settlement.

Ukraine

Russia has described the conflict as a NATO-backed proxy war triggered by the US-led bloc’s expansion toward its borders and growing influence over Kiev after the 2014 Western-backed coup.

Moscow has insisted that any durable peace deal must include Ukraine’s return to a neutral, non-aligned status, as well as its demilitarization and “denazification,” alongside the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from all territories that voted to join Russia in 2022.

I’ve been back in my hometown of Vancouver, Canada, for a few days now. The big wall-to-wall news story has been about a moron who was speeding around on a jet ski in the harbor off the downtown coast where pods of whales have been swimming around – and ended up using a grey whale as a jump ramp. The whale seems no worse for wear, while the jackass crashed out. I can’t remember the last time that I’ve heard such mass outrage.

This is Vancouver, after all. Home of “save the whales.” Greenpeace was literally founded here in 1971. People here have parked themselves in trees for days on end to save them from being chopped down for development. How could some jackass end up possibly slamming into a whale when anyone with working eyes can see that orcas are everywhere right now, putting on aquarium-like shows in their natural habitat. The answer is simple, really. The whims of a select few have been accommodated for far too long. That is, until something disastrous happens and jolts some people out of their slumber to notice that the institutions have failed to uphold even the most basic common sense. The incident is a metaphor for the whole place these days.

I remember when I was growing up here in the 1980s and wokeism used to mean fighting the good fight for the rights of the oppressed. Labor unions pushing back against creeping demands by the state and its corporatist cronies to give more for increasingly less. Defending animals and nature incapable of advocating for themselves. Equality of opportunity for all was the name of the game. And helping those who fell through the social safety net to get back on their feet.

But then, like the whale jumper, some folks took things too far in their own self-interest. Cottage industries of lobbyists and NGOs popped up to cash in on pushing grievances not towards any constructive resolution benefiting society, but instead to permanent profit for themselves.

And now, like the whale show spectators, average people are finally showing signs of being horrified by the results.

So after clinging to its failure for far too long, the same government has now thrown in the towel on decriminalization of drugs. The original goal was to “reduce stigma and fear of criminal prosecution that prevents people from reaching out for help, including medical assistance.” Turns out that giving them a safe place to shoot up, then when that didn’t work giving out free needles, then when that failed just giving them free drugs – all under the pretext that feeding their addiction at the public expense will get them clean – was a major bust. Now the mop-up job is more daunting than ever.

The mess is obvious to anyone without an agenda or a business model based on persistence of the debacle. Homelessness and drug carnage has now merged with the migrant crisis caused by the same woke institutions destroying their own longstanding immigration point system that was the envy of the free world. Because it wasn’t quite free enough, apparently. But now because they treated borders like an option, the borders and boundaries are left to everyday citizens to enforce themselves. Like when an Indian migrant was caught washing his clothes in a protected river, as onlookers yelled at him in a futile attempt to try to explain the concept to someone who could barely even understand the language itself.

Colony Farm is now “ƛ̓éxətəm Regional Park,” the public swimming pool built and named for the 1973 Canada Games, and where I trained as a young competitive swimmer, is now called “təməsew̓txʷ Aquatic and Community Centre,” and the Pattullo Bridge is now the “stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge.” Try plugging that into your GPS.

But the final straw seems to be indulging the natives to the point of making tribal leaders de facto co-governors of the province while doing nothing to repeal the provincial legislation that implements DRIPA – the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act – leaving the average citizen convinced that somewhere between “consultation” and “consent,” the average homeowner may eventually need three permits, two environmental assessments, and a hereditary chief’s blessing just to build a garden shed on their own property.

It’s all become so absurd that you have to wonder how anyone still defends it with a straight face. But sprawling ideological movements rarely collapse without a fight, and the modern alphabet bureaucracy is no exception. Too many people remain invested in propping it up, if only because admitting the excesses would require rethinking years of assumptions, social loyalties, and their own identities. Like the guy who launched his jet ski off a whale, the woke crowd spent years thinking that they could mow down everything without wiping out.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to China on May 19-20 is expected to mark a new milestone in the deepening partnership between Moscow and Beijing. The two sides are reportedly preparing to sign around 40 agreements, and issue a joint statement on expanding their comprehensive strategic cooperation.

Since Chinese President Xi Jinping took office in 2013, the two leaders have met more than 40 times, repeatedly producing major agreements and driving Russia-China ties to new heights.

RT looks back at some of the key meetings that have shaped relations between the two countries over the past decade.

March 2013

Russia became the first country visited by Xi after he took office. During talks with Putin, the two leaders discussed issues ranging from trade and technology cooperation to the crisis in Syria. Moscow and Beijing signed more than 30 agreements covering energy and humanitarian and cultural cooperation, including a deal to expand oil trade and an action plan under the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship, and Cooperation.

May 2014

Putin’s state visit to Shanghai marked a watershed moment in Russia-China energy ties. In the presence of the two leaders, Russian energy giant Gazprom and China’s CNPC signed a landmark $400 billion gas deal under which Russia agreed to supply China with 38 billion cubic meters of gas annually over 30 years.

May 2015

Xi visited Moscow for Victory Day celebrations marking the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II. The visit also produced a series of agreements linking China’s Belt and Road Initiative with the Eurasian Economic Union, a Moscow-led economic bloc of which Russia is a founding member.

September 2015

Putin traveled to Beijing for celebrations marking the end of World War II, with the visit also serving as a platform for extensive talks between Russian and Chinese officials. The trip resulted in nearly 30 signed documents, including 16 agreements between Russian and Chinese companies. Russian energy giant Rosneft alone signed deals with an estimated investment potential exceeding $30 billion, according to CEO Igor Sechin.

June 2016

Economic ties between Russia and China deepened further during another state visit by Putin to Beijing. The two sides signed a broad range of agreements covering energy, high speed rail development, aircraft manufacturing, and major investment projects.

July 2017

During Xi’s visit to Moscow, Putin awarded the Chinese leader the Order of St. Andrew, Russia’s highest state honor, in recognition of his role in strengthening the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between the two nations. Putin described Xi as a “big friend” of Russia who had consistently supported closer ties between Moscow and Beijing.

June 2018

Xi returned the gesture by awarding Putin the Chinese Order of Friendship, making him the first foreign leader to receive the honor. The Chinese president described Putin as a “founder” of modern Russia-China relations and the “most recognizable and respected” foreign leader in China.

June 2019

Russia and China declared that their comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation had entered a “new era” in a joint statement issued during Xi’s visit to Moscow. The declaration said the two countries had elevated bilateral ties to their highest level, setting an example of good neighborly relations and mutually beneficial cooperation.

Moscow and Beijing also pledged to deepen coordination on defending their core national interests, sovereignty, and long term development strategies.

February 2022

Russia and China described their relationship as a “no limits” partnership, emphasizing that their cooperation has “no forbidden areas” and is not constrained by traditional alliance structures. The phrase was formalized in a joint statement issued by Putin and Xi, in which the two sides pledged deeper coordination on security, economics, technology, and global governance while opposing what they described as Western dominance in international affairs.

March 2023

Russia became the first country visited by Xi after securing a third consecutive term as Chinese president. Beijing attaches “great importance” to ties with Moscow, Xi said at the time, describing the relationship as rooted in “historical logic” and driven by the two nations’ shared goals and interests.

Putin hailed the “major progress” in bilateral relations, noting that annual trade between Russia and China had surged from $87 billion to $185 billion over the previous decade.

May 2024

Putin chose China for his first foreign trip after securing re-election in 2024, describing ties with Beijing as a model of good-neighborly relations. Xi said the partnership had become a key pillar of global “strategic stability” and a driving force behind the democratization of international relations.

May 2025

Xi Jinping joined Russia’s Victory Day celebrations once again, a decade after first attending the commemorations in Moscow. During the visit, Xi said Russia and China had found the “right” model for cooperation and pledged to work together toward a more just and balanced system of global governance.

September 2025

Vladimir Putin traveled to China to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, describing the visit as a tribute to the sacrifices and heroism of the Russian and Chinese peoples during the conflict. The memory that “our ancestors paid an enormous price for peace and freedom” remains the foundation of modern Russia-China relations, he said.

Xi Jinping described ties between the two countries as a model of “eternal” friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation.

US President Donald Trump has postponed what he described as a “very major attack” on Iran, saying Gulf leaders had asked Washington to give negotiations with Tehran another “two or three days.”

Trump said the strike had been scheduled for Tuesday, but that he had ordered the Pentagon to stand down for now after Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and “some others” urged him to allow more time for diplomacy.

“We were getting ready to do a very major attack tomorrow,” Trump told journalists. “I’ve put it off for a little while, hopefully maybe forever, but possibly for a little while, because we’ve had very big discussions with Iran.”

The president claimed that the Gulf states believe Tehran is “getting very close to making a deal,” adding that any agreement must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Trump also instructed the US Department of War to remain ready for a “full, large-scale assault” at “a moment’s notice” if Washington does not receive what it considers an acceptable deal, according to his earlier post on Truth Social.

The announcement follows a series of threats by Trump, who warned Iran over the weekend that “the Clock is Ticking” and that “there won’t be anything left” of the country unless it accepts Washington’s demands.

Indirect talks between Washington and Tehran have remained stalled since a fragile ceasefire was established in early April, following a month of hostilities initiated by the US and Israel.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran enters into dialogue with dignity, authority, and the preservation of the nation’s rights, and under no circumstances will it retreat from the legal rights of the people and the country,” Pezeshkian wrote.

Iran previously accused the Trump administration of taking a “maximalist approach,” while insisting that its own nuclear program is peaceful and that it will not dismantle its enrichment capabilities entirely. Tehran has also demanded sanctions relief, reparations, an end to Israel’s campaign in Lebanon, and recognition of what it calls its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran is allegedly ready to hand over its highly enriched uranium stockpile to Russia, the Saudi news broadcaster Al Hadath has reported. The idea was floated as part of the latest peace proposal Tehran sent to the US via Pakistan, the outlet said on Monday, citing a leaked document it had obtained.

Indirect talks between the two sides mediated by Islamabad have been stalled since a ceasefire was established in early April. It followed a month of hostilities initiated by the US and Israel against the Islamic Republic in late February. Both Washington and Tehran have since repeatedly put forward proposals to end the conflict while dismissing each other’s demands.

According to the report, Iran is allegedly ready to freeze its nuclear program for a long period of time but only on the condition that its highly enriched uranium will be transferred to Russia instead of the US. Tehran still rules out dismantling its program completely, Al Hadath added.

Iran retains more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, according to International Atomic Energy Agency estimates. Weapons-grade levels typically require 90% enrichment and higher.

“Not only did we make such an offer; we already implemented it once before, back in 2015. Iran has complete trust in us, and not without reason,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told journalists earlier this month. Moscow has never violated its agreements, he stressed, and continues to cooperate with the Islamic Republic on its peaceful nuclear energy program.

Washington has reportedly already dismissed Iran’s latest proposal as insufficient, Axios reported on Monday, citing an unnamed American official briefed on the issue. According to the official, Tehran made only “token” improvements on the previous version.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that Iran’s highly enriched uranium should be handed over to America. Last week, he told Fox News that the issue was “more for public relations” and getting the Iranian stockpile would just make him “feel better.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin will travel to Beijing this week with a high-level delegation for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping focused on bilateral ties, trade, energy cooperation, and global affairs, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said. 

The May 19-20 visit coincides with the 25th anniversary of the Russia-China Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation, which Ushakov said reflects relations that have reached an “unprecedentedly high level.” 

Ushakov told reporters on Monday that the delegation will include senior ministers, top Kremlin officials, and the heads of major Russian state corporations and banks, among them Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina. 

According to Ushakov, Putin and Xi will hold both one-on-one and expanded-format talks focused on “the most important and sensitive issues” in bilateral relations, as well as major international developments. 

Around 40 bilateral agreements are expected to be signed, including a joint statement on deepening the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries.  

The two leaders are also set to adopt a separate declaration on promoting a “multipolar world” and “a new type of international relations,” Ushakov said. 

The Kremlin aide also dismissed speculation that the timing of Putin’s trip was linked to US-China contacts, stating that there was “no connection whatsoever” and that preparations for the visit began shortly after Putin and Xi held a video call in February. 

US President Donald Trump made a two-day visit to China last week, where he discussed Iran, Taiwan, trade relations and other issues with Xi. Despite both sides describing the talks positively, the visit produced no major breakthroughs on key disagreements between Beijing and Washington.

Three men were killed in a shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego on Monday, and two suspected teenage shooters are also dead, law enforcement officials said. The attack is being investigated as a hate crime, according to police.

Police responded to reports of an active shooter at the mosque, located at 7050 Eckstrom Avenue in San Diego’s Clairemont area, at about 11:40am local time. Officers later said the threat had been “neutralized” after a large emergency response around the Islamic Center.

One of the victims is believed to have been a security guard who investigators said played a “pivotal role” in preventing the attack from becoming “much worse,” according to FOX 9, citing law enforcement.

Graphic aerial footage from the scene showed a body lying in a pool of blood at the entrance to the facility.

🚨 NOW: ACTIVE SHOOTER situation at Islamic Center in San Diego results in 2 dead, more injured, and someone spotted laying in a pool of blood, aerial view shows

Absolutely horrifying.

Police have rushed the scene.

Pray for any victims 🙏🏻

h/t @RapidReport2025 pic.twitter.com/WjaEHWz0Ac

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 18, 2026

The mosque complex includes Al Rashid School, but officials said no students, teachers or school staff were injured. Aerial footage from the scene showed children being escorted away as police surrounded the area.

NEW: Children at a nearby school are escorted out by police after an active shooter was reported at the Islamic Center of San Diego.

2 teen suspects are dead from what appear to be self-inflicted gunshot wounds, according to police.

Officials say at least 3 adult male victims… pic.twitter.com/fTkpiHEas3

— Fox News (@FoxNews) May 18, 2026

San Diego Police Chief Scott Wahl said the two male suspects, aged 17 and 19, appear to have died from self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

“There were no officers involved in firing their weapons,” Wahl said at a news briefing, while cautioning that the investigation remains “still very preliminary at this point.”

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said emergency personnel were working to protect the community and secure the area, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said the governor had been briefed and urged the public to follow local authorities’ guidance.

European leaders have reportedly discussed appointing an envoy to Moscow since early 2025, apparently out of concern that the EU’s interests could be sidelined if the US and Russia draw up a peace deal for Ukraine without their involvement. In a report on Monday, Politico revealed that chatter in Brussels has focused on three potential candidates: former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, and former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi.

Notable for her absence from this list is EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who as the bloc’s chief diplomat would normally be a natural fit for the role. Kallas nominated herself for the position last week, boasting that she could “see through the traps that Russia is presenting.”

However, EU diplomats told Politico that Kallas’ open hostility toward Russia – she refers to Putin as a “terrorist” and has expressed support for the defeat of Russia and its dissolution into “many different nations” – makes her a non-starter for the job. “She’s ruled herself out for this one, unfortunately,” one diplomatic source told the outlet.

While Merkel, Stubb, and Draghi have not called for the outright dissolution of the Russian state, their track records will likely give the Kremlin pause before entering talks in good faith.

Merkel the deceiver

Merkel, who served as Germany’s chancellor from 2005 to 2021, has a long relationship with Putin, speaks fluent Russian, and in late 2021 proposed the establishment of a diplomatic format between the EU and Russia, which failed to find backing from other members of the bloc. Merkel has recently defended her support for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project, and on Monday criticized EU leadership for their refusal to engage with Moscow over Ukraine.

However, Merkel has also admitted that she negotiated the 2014 and 2015 Minsk accords – under which Kiev agreed to grant some autonomy to the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in exchange for a ceasefire with pro-independence forces – in bad faith. In 2022, Merkel admitted that the agreements were in fact an “attempt to give Ukraine time” to “create powerful armed forces” in preparation for a more intense conflict with Russia.

Putin has said that Russia was “simply led by the nose [and] deceived” by Merkel and the other European guarantors of the Minsk agreements.

Even if the Kremlin were to overlook Merkel’s deception, the former chancellor has ruled herself out as a potential envoy to Moscow. “We were only able to hold [the Minsk] talks with President Putin because we had political power, because we were heads of government,” she told German broadcaster WDR. “You need that power. And I, personally, would never have thought of asking a mediator to go to Minsk for me and talk to Putin.”

Stubb the hawk

Stubb has also repeatedly invoked the Second World War as a template for Finland to follow in dealing with modern Russia, telling US President Donald Trump last year that “we found a solution in 1944 – and I believe we can find one in 2025.”

His retelling of the Second Soviet–Finnish War left out the fact that Nazi-allied Finland allowed a buildup of German troops on its soil before declaring war on the USSR in 1941, and omitted Finland’s participation in the extermination of a million Soviet citizens during the siege of Leningrad.

On top of these grievances, Stubb has also lifted a ban on hosting NATO nuclear weapons on his country’s soil, and given Ukraine his blessing to use Finnish weapons in long-range strikes on Russia.

Draghi the no-show

Politico describes Draghi as “widely respected in Europe and seen as neither overly hawkish nor sympathetic to the Kremlin.” While the former Italian PM lacks Stubb’s belligerence and Merkel’s track record of betrayal, his record on Ukraine is broadly in line with his European counterparts. Before resigning in July 2022, Draghi declared it “impossible to have meaningful dialogue with Moscow,” sent military aid to Ukraine, and promised Kiev “whatever it takes” to defeat Russia.

Draghi served as president of the European Central Bank from 2011 to 2019, and returned to economic affairs after his tenure as Italian PM ended, currently working as the EU’s rapporteur on competitiveness. While his name has come up in Brussels for the envoy position, Politico conceded that “there’s been no public signal that the economically focused Draghi wants the role.”

Who does Russia want?

Earlier this month, Putin mentioned Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, as his preferred intermediary for talks with the EU. Schroeder served as chancellor from 1998 to 2005 and signed off on the Nord Stream 1 project, which buoyed Germany’s industrial output and economic growth during the Merkel years. A close friend of Putin, Schroeder worked as a director of the German-Russian consortium responsible for both Nord Stream pipelines after leading office, and served on the board of Russian oil giant Rosneft until 2022.

However, Schroeder is as unacceptable to Brussels as Kallas is to Moscow. Describing the former chancellor as a Russian “lobbyist,” she told reporters last week that it “would not be very wise” to side with Putin in choosing him.

Russia maintains that it is open to constructive dialogue, but Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stressed last week that any debate over who will lead the European delegation is meaningless until “a political decision to resume dialogue” is made in Brussels.

“How can you discuss anything with Kaja Kallas?” Peskov remarked to reporters earlier this year. Brussels, he added, is full of “semi-literate, incompetent functionaries.”

No matter who Brussels sends to Moscow, the EU’s vision for Ukraine remains fundamentally unacceptable to Russia. After the first iteration of Trump’s draft peace plan leaked to the media last year, Britain, France and Germany released a counterproposal that removes limits on NATO expansion, clears the way for Ukraine to join the military bloc, hands Ukraine security guarantees along the lines of NATO’s Article 5, and mandates that Moscow pay reparations to Kiev.

Top EU officials, including Kallas and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have endorsed all of these positions and insisted that Ukraine not be forced into making territorial concessions. With the US and Russia treating territorial concessions as a foregone conclusion, Brussels’ stubbornness all but guarantees that the EU will continue to be sidelined as the real powers draft a deal.

Last week’s Trump-Xi summit produced no dramatic declaration or historic treaty – yet its importance may prove far greater than any immediate deliverable. What happened in Beijing was not a breakthrough in policy but a breakthrough in recognition: the United States openly acknowledged China as an equal center of global power. That alone marks a historic turning point.

For decades, American administrations approached China from the assumption that Beijing was either a manageable challenger or a state that would eventually integrate into a US-led international order on American terms. The summit suggested something fundamentally different.

US President Donald Trump appeared compelled to recognize that China is no longer simply a rival great power but a central pillar of the emerging world order – one that Washington can neither isolate nor overpower. This was the true message of the summit.

The triumph of pragmatism

Neither Washington nor Beijing expected immediate breakthroughs. The summit was never realistically supposed to solve structural tensions overnight. Its purpose was to stabilize relations between two powers which are increasingly aware that prolonged escalation has become prohibitively costly.

The talks reflected the reality that the US now needs stable engagement with China as much as China needs stable engagement with the US. This mutual dependency is perhaps uncomfortable, but it is also unavoidable – neither full confrontation nor full separation is sustainable anymore.

For years, the Americans described China as a revisionist actor seeking to overturn the international order. But the Beijing summit demonstrated something more consequential: the international order itself is already changing. Many countries have begun treating China not merely as a competitor to the US, but as a parallel – and in some respects superior – center of global gravity.

That transformation explains Trump’s increasingly pragmatic posture. Competition with China remains intense, particularly in trade and technology, but the White House no longer appears interested in fantasies of regime change or direct strategic rollback against Beijing. More importantly, Washington may no longer possess the power necessary to pursue such ambitions successfully.

The summit also revealed the outlines of Trump’s evolving geopolitical doctrine. Contrary to alarmist rhetoric on both sides of the Pacific, Washington’s strategy increasingly appears less focused on destroying China’s rise than on managing coexistence while preserving maximum American leverage. The emphasis has shifted from ideological crusades to economic and technological competition.

At the same time, the US seems determined to tighten strategic control over the Western Hemisphere in a manner reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine. Recent developments in Panama and Venezuela, alongside growing pressure on Cuba, should be understood through this lens. Washington seeks uncontested primacy in the Americas while reducing external dependence and limiting Chinese penetration into its natural sphere of influence.

This strategy undoubtedly weakens Beijing’s position in Latin America. Yet paradoxically, it also reflects the logic of multipolarity. Trump’s America increasingly appears willing to accept Chinese dominance in certain areas, provided the US retains dominance in others.

The same applies in the Indo-Pacific. Washington continues to supply weapons to Taiwan, Japan, and other regional partners while encouraging broader militarization across the region. But this should not automatically be interpreted as preparation for direct confrontation. It may instead represent a rebalancing of strategic burdens – an effort to share military responsibility among allies while avoiding a catastrophic US-China war over Taiwan or other flashpoints.

The Iran exception

One major contradiction remains: the Middle East. Trump’s broader strategy points toward selective engagement, hemispheric consolidation, and managed competition with China. Yet the war against Iran appears strikingly inconsistent with that idea.

Strategically, it resembles an aberration – a costly diversion driven less by core American interests than by the influence of Israel and the priorities of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In many respects, it’s more Netanyahu’s war than Trump’s war.

Unlike Washington’s moves in the Americas, which constrained Chinese influence, instability in the Middle East may actually strengthen Beijing’s global position.

China benefits when the US gets trapped in expensive, open-ended regional crises. Every additional military commitment dilutes American focus and accelerates the redistribution of global influence. Beijing, meanwhile, continues to present itself as a comparatively stable economic partner with a mature and modern political system capable of engaging all sides simultaneously.

While Washington attempts to contain China economically and strategically, its own Middle Eastern entanglements may be helping Beijing expand its international stature far beyond the Gulf region.

This, in turn, reinforces Beijing’s confidence at the negotiating table. China now approaches talks with the US not as a rising power seeking acceptance, but as an established force convinced that time increasingly favors its long-term game.

Perhaps the clearest evidence of this transformation lies in official American doctrine itself. A comparison between Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy and the 2025 version released last November reveals a remarkable evolution in Washington’s thinking.

The 2017 document portrayed China as a strategic threat, a revisionist power undermining American security and prosperity. Beijing was grouped alongside Russia, Iran, North Korea, and jihadist terrorism as one of the principal dangers ostensibly facing the US. China’s political system and values were described as fundamentally incompatible with American interests.

The new strategy is dramatically different. The 2025 National Security Strategy focuses primarily on trade imbalances, economic competition, and maintaining strategic equilibrium. China is no longer explicitly framed as a security threat. Ideological language has given way to that of balance, competition, and coexistence.

This is not a cosmetic adjustment. It reflects a profound strategic recalibration. Washington increasingly understands that China cannot be isolated, economically decoupled, or politically transformed through pressure alone. The costs would simply be too high – not only for China, but for the US itself.

‘Constructive strategic stability’

The Trump-Xi summit therefore may represent the beginning of a broader search for what Beijing calls “constructive strategic stability.” Not friendship, and certainly not alliance. But a structured coexistence between two systems competing intensely while recognizing mutual limits.

In many ways, this also validates Chinese President Xi Jinping’s long-standing assertion that “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and making America great again can go hand in hand.” Until recently, such statements were dismissed in Washington as propaganda. Now it increasingly resembles the conceptual foundation of an emerging geopolitical compromise.

The next stage of this process may arrive sooner than expected. Xi will travel to Washington in September – a highly symbolic visit given that he never visited the US during Trump’s earlier presidency.

If that meeting takes place, it will confirm what the Beijing summit already suggested: the era when Washington could dictate the terms of the global order unilaterally is ending. A new world is emerging, shaped by negotiated coexistence between rival centers of power.

For the first time in decades, the United States appears ready to admit it.

The US-Israeli war on Iran has already cost businesses throughout the world at least $25 billion, with losses continuing to mount, Reuters reported on Monday, citing an analysis of corporate disclosures from companies listed in the US, Europe and Asia.

The outlet reviewed statements from businesses across major global markets and found that at least 279 enterprises have cited supply chain disruptions and soaring fuel costs linked to the Iran conflict as a reason for emergency measures.

Some have raised prices or cut production, while others have suspended dividends or share buybacks, furloughed staff, imposed fuel surcharges or have sought urgent government support.

Whirlpool CEO Marc Bitzer told analysts earlier this month that the downturn resembled the global financial crisis in 2008 after the appliance maker halved its full-year forecast and suspended dividend payments. “Consumers are holding back on replacing products and, rather, repairing them,” Bitzer said.

Most of them were based in the EU and the UK, where energy prices were already elevated since cutting back on Russian oil and gas imports after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict four years ago.

McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski said “elevated gas prices are the core issue we’re seeing right now,” while Newell Brands CFO Mark Erceg said every $5 rise in oil prices adds about $5 million in costs. Continental executive Roland Welzbacher said the impact would become “full-blown” in the second half.

Airlines accounted for the largest share of quantified war-related costs at nearly $15 billion, while Toyota warned of a $4.3 billion hit and P&G estimated a $1 billion post-tax profit blow, the report said.

The economic fallout from the Iran war has also spread across the US economy, pushing inflation higher and sharply increasing fuel costs for consumers. A separate report by Brown University’s Watson Institute estimated Americans have spent an extra $41.5 billion on gasoline and diesel since the start of US President Donald Trump’s war with Iran – about $316 per household.

US President Donald Trump has posted a glitchy AI-generated image of himself alongside a shackled alien in his latest flurry of space-themed Truth Social posts on Sunday.

The post came just over a week after the US War Department declassified a batch of government files on unidentified flying objects (UFOs), spanning more than a hundred historic documents, reports, photographs and videos of various unexplained phenomena.

In Trump’s post, the alien – portrayed as a tall grey-skinned humanoid with a bald head and large black eyes – is flanked by the president, several Secret Service agents and a US soldier. The restraints on its wrists appear to be only partially generated. Trump did not explain or caption the image.

In another set of AI-generated images, Trump is portrayed at a console in a space station, with images of satellites and missiles being shot down in the background. One post shows the US president five to six times larger than the officers that surround him as he holds his fingers on a big red button.

The images are labelled “Space Force.”

The Pentagon has characterized the program as urgently needed.

The US has “very limited capability” against ballistic missiles and “no defense against hypersonic weapons or cruise missiles today,” Assistant Secretary of War for Space Policy Marc Berkowitz told lawmakers in the Senate last month. Russia, China, India and some other nations have developed and deployed hypersonic missiles in recent years.

After US President Donald Trump’s state visit to China, Russian President Vladimir Putin will arrive on May 19 to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Given the flurry of visits by foreign leaders to Beijing this year, it is clear that Beijing has become the place to go to for resolving major problems which have become intractable for traditional international institutions.

Trump’s visit from May 13 to 15 has undoubtedly done more to reset China-US relations than all the discussions conducted over the last nine years between delegations and representatives of both nations. More than that, it presented a real possibility of reshaping the relationship from rivalry to genuine partnership.

”Great changes unseen in a century” is the phrase often used by Xi to describe the present period of world history. This characterizes the turmoil in the world today and the abject failure of traditional institutions to deal with that turmoil.

A war in the midst of Europe well into its fourth year, Israeli attacks on Gaza, and the unprovoked attack on Iran by the US and Israel have all been repeatedly debated and discussed in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the UN Security Council, but with no resolution.

Some nations are moving away from seeking multilateral solutions to overriding problems and showing greater unilateralism and protectionism in the realm of trade and investment. Some have increasingly decided to go their own way without considering the interests of their neighbors. And the resulting rise in political tensions has seen more nations seeking destructive weapons, jeopardizing the treaties put in place to limit the possession of nuclear weapons and prevent their use.

In many respects, the fabric of the international norms and principles established in the aftermath of World War II has been seriously undermined, creating a basis for greater conflicts, including even a possible conflict between nuclear powers. The failure of many nations this year to commemorate the end of WWII indicates the principles established in the past to prevent new wars are being increasingly ignored and abandoned.

In 2023, the Global Civilization Initiative was proposed during the Communist Party of China in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-level Meeting to protect and respect the cultural diversity of the world. Then in 2025, China introduced the Global Governance Initiative at the ‘Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Plus’ Meeting to strengthen the international institutions meant to preserve peace and harmony in the world.

In 2013, China launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Occurring at a time when the West had totally lost interest in development, it put the issue of global development firmly back on the agenda, creating tremendous excitement among the nations of the Global South that had despaired of working their way out of poverty and misery. The BRI has become the lodestar for the Global South, providing the needed infrastructure for them to move forward on the road to progress. This initiative alone has created a bond of trust among them and China.

During meetings between Xi and Trump, both leaders agreed on a new vision of building a constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability. This involves positive stability with cooperation as the mainstay, healthy stability with competition in proper limits, constant stability with manageable differences, and lasting stability with expected peace.

Such a guiding concept stands in stark contrast to the previous phase of the relationship, characterized by great power rivalry, strategic confrontation and decoupling. In the often-troubled relationship between these two great powers, Xi expressed the hope of moving it from rivalry to partnership.

Even in the face of disruptions of international supply chains and increase in energy prices worldwide, China has maintained a stable economy. China’s 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030) calls for greater opening up to foreign investment and in the area of hi-tech, China is open to international cooperation rather than shutting itself behind ‘high walls’ like some nations.

Putin will arrive in China at a time when Russia-Ukraine military operations are still ongoing. During the course of the conflict, China has maintained a close relationship with Russia, in spite of its concerns about the conflict, and maintains good relations with Ukraine too.

The China-Russia relationship has been strengthened during these years, thanks to the close relationship between the two presidents and their overall agreement on issues of the international world order. And both leaders attest to the fact that the relationship of their two countries has now attained its highest level ever.

Given China’s position on the unnecessary conflict in Iran, it was not surprising that Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi visited Beijing on May 6, a week before Trump, at a time when the US president was again threatening military strikes on Iran.

China has been working diligently to bring this conflict to an end. China and Pakistan put forward a five-point initiative for restoring peace and stability in the Gulf region. Those included respect for national sovereignty, rejection of force and regime change, protection of civilians and shipping, reaching a political settlement and upholding the principles of the UN Charter. China has also been supportive of Pakistani efforts to mediate peace negotiations between the US and Iran.

Amid the overall paralysis in many of our international institutions, this type of heads-of-state diplomacy, championed and taken to its highest level by the Chinese president, provides an alternative to increasing chaos. Putin’s visit will be another example in this genuine endeavor to bring order out of chaos. Given the important role the Chinese, US and Russian leaders play in determining the outcomes in a wide variety of areas, this new beginning could provide the impetus for restoring a just and lasting system of global governance.

This article was first published by CGTN.

The decoupling of the US and European armies within NATO is no longer theoretical – the process is already underway. American troop deployments are being canceled, and weapons deliveries – delayed.

The latest example came in early May, when the US canceled the rotation of 4,000 troops into Poland, a week after the announcement Washington is pulling 5,000 soldiers from Germany following German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s criticism of the US-Israeli war on Iran as misguided.

US War Secretary Pete Hegseth has also canceled the deployment to Germany of a battalion specializing in long-range missiles, according to a leaked memo.

The bigger picture: America in Europe 

US forces have been permanently stationed on the European continent since World War II. Up to 80,000 American troops were stationed there in 2025 under a “coupled” system that is now unravelling. 

Both US President Donald Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden have signaled that Washington’s commitment to European defense is on the wane.

Responses by NATO’s European members have ranged from outright rejection of US militarism, as in the case of Spain, to both verbal criticism and acquiescence.

What decoupling actually means 

Decoupling armies in practical terms means the withdrawal of most of the 80,000 US troops in Europe, ending the post-1945 tradition of combined territorial defense and deterrence.

NATO’s European capitals are thus waking up to the prospect of living without the US military umbrella. “For the first time in human memory, we are alone,” as ex-ECB chief Mario Draghi has put it.

The US-Israeli war on Iran has stretched American stocks of ammunition, artillery systems, and missile interceptors thinner than at any point since the end of the Cold War.

US officials have warned several NATO members – including Baltic and Scandinavian states – that crucial weapons deliveries through the Foreign Military Sales program will be delayed, citing the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Beyond Iran, China remains the Pentagon’s primary long-term concern. Every brigade kept in Europe is one less available for a potential Pacific conflict.

Europe has become a secondary theater where NATO’s Euro-bloc will be expected to fend for itself.

‘Big bang’ or non-starter – EU’s army plan 

Earlier this year, EU defense chief Andrius Kubilius called for a “big bang in defense” – a 100,000-strong standing army to operate independently of the US and NATO.

The idea is deeply controversial. It would violate the EU treaty, require a new intergovernmental accord, and force member states to cede sovereignty over their armed forces – a non-starter for many capitals.

France has long championed the plan, with President Emmanuel Macron arguing for “strategic autonomy” from Washington, though Paris insists its nuclear deterrent would stay outside any joint command.

But analysts say the idea faces insurmountable legal hurdles: the EU’s founding treaties explicitly rule out a common army, and defense policy remains the exclusive preserve of national governments.

Europe’s capability problem 

Europe’s armies however remain highly dependent on the US for spy satellites, long-range missiles, heavy airlift aircraft, and undersea warfare capacity.

Earlier this month, German defense experts and industry executives published a paper arguing that EU defense autonomy will cost around $59 billion per year for the next decade.

The dramatic rise in NATO’s European members military spending has not translated into greater operational autonomy, though that may come. Vast amounts have been and will be spent, but capabilities remain fragmented across the bloc.

The internal European scramble 

Across the continent NATO’s European members are arming themselves at a pace not seen since the Cold War, citing intelligence reports of a ‘Russian threat’ – despite Moscow’s outright rejection of such – in an apparent effort to consolidate the EU and to reboot their economies through militarization.

In total, European NATO members spent a combined $559 billion on defense in 2025, with Germany’s outlays rising 24% to $114 billion and Spain’s jumping 50% to $40.2 billion.

The Franco-German brotherhood is the obvious place to find dissonance. In March, French President Emmanuel Macron announced plans to expand his country’s nuclear stockpile to ensure a secrecy-obscured arsenal so that “no state, however powerful, could shield itself from it, and no state, however vast, would recover from it.”

Berlin remains deeply uncomfortable with Macron’s nuclear overtures, while German officials have started recalling their country’s past military forays in ways that are making neighboring countries nervous.

The view from Moscow 

For Russia, the militarization of European states and transformation of the EU into a military alliance resembling NATO, but without US defense and deterrence, presents a direct and growing threat. European elites have a historical tradition of ‘marching eastward’.

Russia has scorned the EU army idea, suggesting that the bloc should first tackle its internal problems – refugees, energy dependence, and lagging NATO contributions.

Moscow has also repeatedly condemned the EU’s militarization as “using ostentatious Russophobia” as a pretext to turn Russia into a “model external enemy” and divert attention from internal European crises.

For Moscow, any transformation of the EU into a military alliance would raise security concerns and upset an already fragile strategic balance in Europe.

Tehran will take the US and Israel to court over attacks on Iranian cultural sites, the Islamic Republic’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, has said.

A fragile ceasefire, which was established between the sides in early April after a month of intense hostilities initiated by the Americans and the Israelis, currently holds. However, there has been no progress in indirect peace talks, with both Washington and Tehran rejecting each other’s demands as unacceptable.

Gharibabadi wrote in a post on X on Sunday that at least 149 historical landmarks and museums in 20 Iranian provinces, including five UNESCO-registered sites, have been damaged by the US and Israeli bombardment.

The authorities in Tehran “will register, document, and pursue this assault on its cultural heritage within the framework of international responsibility; for it will allow no power to sacrifice the history of the great Iranian nation to its military and political objectives of today,” he wrote.

Cultural sites must be protected during conflicts in line with the 1954 Hague Convention and the fundamental rules of humanitarian law, the diplomat added.

“Iran’s cultural heritage is not merely a national asset of the Iranian people; it is part of humanity’s shared memory,” Gharibabadi said.

The attacks on historic landmarks by Washington and West Jerusalem constitute “a clear manifestation of the lawless behavior of the American regime and the Zionist regime,” the deputy minister insisted.

The Iranian Ministry of Culture previously estimated that repairing the heritage sites damaged during the conflict would cost some 70 trillion rials (nearly $39 million).

The American wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have led to damage or destruction of multiple cultural heritage sites since the 1950s, but Washington had never been held liable. It’s increasingly difficult for foreign governments to sue the US in domestic or international courts due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity and its refusal to recognize compulsory jurisdiction of global legal bodies.

In early April, US President Donald Trump warned that Iran’s “whole civilization will die” if it fails to accept American demands and faced instant international backlash, with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres saying that he was “deeply troubled” by the statement and Pope Leo XIV calling it “truly unacceptable.”

Smartphones and weaker face-to-face relationships could be contributing to plunging birth rates worldwide, particularly among young people, as global fertility is declining at a record pace, the Financial Times has reported, citing researchers and demographic data.

An analysis spanning population records and Google search data found that birth rates declined sharply across multiple countries following the widespread adoption of smartphones, regardless of earlier demographic trends, the outlet wrote on Saturday.

The FT cited Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde, an economics professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a researcher on demographic change, who described falling fertility as “the big question of our time.” He argued that many of today’s economic and social problems were “downstream” from collapsing birth rates.

Researchers are increasingly linking heavy smartphone and social media use as well as weaker face-to-face relationships to declining fertility in countries around the world, including the US, UK, Brazil and South Korea, according to the report.

The FT cited a recent paper by Nathan Hudson and Hernan Moscoso-Boedo of the University of Cincinnati examining birth rates during the rollout of 4G mobile networks in the US and UK.

Similar trends had been recorded across the world, the outlet said. France and Poland saw comparable declines from 2009, followed by Mexico, Morocco and Indonesia in around 2012, while Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal recorded steep drops between 2013 and 2015.

According to a Eurostat report published last month, the EU’s population is projected to shrink by 11%, or about 53 million people, over the next 75 years. The region’s population is expected to peak at 453 million in 2029 before falling below 400 million by the end of the century as fertility rates decline to around 1.3 children per woman.

As part of efforts to rebuild social connections, Russian policymakers in 2024 introduced restrictions banning students from using mobile phones in schools, with exceptions allowed only for emergencies.

Tehran could respond militarily to US naval forces enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports, a senior Iranian official has said, warning that the Gulf of Oman could become a “graveyard” for American warships.

Speaking on Iranian state television on Sunday, Mohsen Rezaei, who serves on a senior advisory body to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, said Iran’s patience with the ongoing maritime restrictions was running out after weeks of disrupted shipping activity.

“The longer they continue the naval blockade of Iran, the greater the damage to the world economy will be,” Rezaei stated. “We advise the US military to lift the siege before the Gulf of Oman turns into their graveyard.”

Rezaei, a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), argued that Tehran would be justified in responding militarily to an act of war, which he stressed the blockade amounts to.

US President Donald Trump announced the naval operation on April 13, undermining indirect diplomatic efforts mediated by Pakistan. Although Washington and Tehran declared a fragile ceasefire on April 8, both sides have continued to reject each other’s conditions for a broader settlement.

NOW: 🇺🇸 🇮🇷 TRUMP THREATENS IRAN

Trump just posted this to his truth social.

To me it looks like a clear threat of invasion or balkanisation, either directly or via proxy.

What a clown. pic.twitter.com/vhKOzPw7CD

— Adam (@adamemedia1) May 17, 2026

The crisis was triggered by a US-Israeli bombing campaign targeting Iran’s leadership and key infrastructure. Tehran responded with retaliatory strikes against the attacking nations and against regional countries hosting US military bases. Iranian authorities have also restricted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway linking the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

According to reports by Axios and CNN, Trump convened senior national security officials on Saturday to discuss possible next steps, including renewed military action. The meeting was reportedly held hours after Trump’s return from a state visit to China, and included Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and special envoy Steve Witkoff, sources have said.

Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te has defended purchases of American weaponry after US President Donald Trump characterized weapons deliveries to the island as a bargaining chip in talks with Beijing.

During Trump’s visit to Beijing last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping described the status of the self-governing island as the central issue in bilateral relations, warning that it could potentially lead to conflict. Beijing has repeatedly condemned US arms sales to Taipei as interference in China’s internal affairs and a violation of the decades-old One-China policy.

In a statement posted on social media on Sunday, Lai called the arms sales “the most important deterrent” against conflict in the region.

“We thank President Trump for his continued support for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait since his first term, including the continuous increase in the scale and amount of arms sales to Taiwan,” he wrote.

Lai added that Taiwan “will not provoke” a conflict, but would also not “give up national sovereignty and dignity.”

In December, Trump approved a record $11 billion weapons package for Taiwan that included missiles, drones, artillery systems, and military software. Last week, however, he raised doubts about future deliveries, telling Fox News that he had not yet approved a proposed new $14 billion package.

China considers Taiwan part of its sovereign territory – a position shared by the vast majority of countries, including Russia. Xi stated in 2022 that Beijing sought peaceful reunification, but warned that the People’s Republic would not rule out the use of force if provoked.

Although the US does not officially recognize Taiwan as a separate country, it maintains informal diplomatic ties with Taipei, which Beijing also regards as a violation of the One-China policy.

US President Donald Trump has threatened Iran with a new attack if Tehran doesn’t agree to make swift concessions to Washington.

Indirect talks between the sides have remained stalled since a fragile ceasefire was established in early April after a month of hostilities initiated by the US and Israel. Both Washington and Tehran have repeatedly dismissed each other’s demands, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi earlier this week singling out the Trump administration’s “maximalist approach” and provocative rhetoric as main obstacles to reaching a deal.

Meanwhile, disruptions continue in the Strait of Hormuz, which has heavily affected global shipping and sent oil prices soaring. While Tehran has announced its own mechanism to regulate maritime traffic through the waterway, which accounts for some 25% of global crude trade, the US has rejected the scheme and is enforcing a naval blockade on Iranian ports in retaliation.

Trump took to his Truth Social platform on Sunday to warn that “for Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

The new threat followed the president’s meeting on Saturday with top members of his national security team, including Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and special envoy Steve Witkoff, dedicated to the situation around Iran, CNN reported.

According to the broadcaster’s sources, the Pentagon has prepared a list of targets, including energy and infrastructure sites, if Trump ultimately decides to resume strikes on the country.

The New York Times reported on Friday, citing unnamed American officials, that the US and Israel are actively preparing for a renewal of hostilities with Iran and could launch “more aggressive bombing runs” as early as next week.

The UAE said an unidentified drone struck the territory of its only nuclear power plant on Sunday amid ongoing tensions in the Middle East.

According to the Emirati Defense Ministry, three drones entered the country “from the western border region.” While two UAVs were shot down, the third struck an electrical generator “outside the inner perimeter” of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in the Al Dhafra region. No injuries or radioactive contamination were reported.

While the Emirati authorities stopped short of directly accusing Iran, the country’s Foreign Ministry condemned the “unprovoked terrorist attack,” saying it threatened national security and risked further escalation.

Regional tensions remain high as US-Iran peace talks continue to stall, with both sides accusing each other of advancing unacceptable demands. Several media outlets have reported in recent weeks that US President Donald Trump is considering abandoning the fragile truce declared last month and resuming airstrikes.

Iran has accused Gulf states hosting US military bases of facilitating attacks during the US and Israeli bombing campaign launched against the country on February 28.

“The truth is that the UAE was directly involved in the aggression against my country. When the attacks started, they didn’t even issue a condemnation,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told journalists last week on the sidelines of a BRICS meeting in New Delhi.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the UAE had conducted covert strikes against Iran during the conflict.

Israel has approved plans to establish a new military complex on the site of the former UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) headquarters in East Jerusalem, Defense Minister Israel Katz has announced.

Israeli authorities have accused the agency of colluding with Hamas during the October 7, 2023 attack.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) seized and partially demolished the UNRWA compound in 2024 after lawmakers passed legislation banning the organization’s activities in areas under Israeli control.

In December, the Defense Ministry signed an agreement with the Jerusalem municipality to establish a new defense headquarters in the city and relocate several military colleges there.

According to Israeli media reports, the new compound will cover around nine acres near Ammunition Hill and include an IDF museum, recruitment offices, and facilities for the defense minister.

UNRWA head Philippe Lazzarini condemned the destruction of the office as “a new level of open and deliberate defiance of international law.”

While the UN denied any institutional support for Hamas, UNRWA said following an internal probe in 2024 that available evidence indicated that nine of its employees “may have been involved in the attacks of October 7.”

The agency operates schools, clinics, and aid programs for Palestinian refugees across Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. More than 2.3 million people have been displaced by Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and over one million are sheltering in UNRWA facilities. More than 72,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 2023, according to the UN.

UN agencies and humanitarian groups have repeatedly warned of catastrophic conditions in the enclave, including widespread hunger and overcrowded refugee camps. Israel has denied accusations of deliberately targeting civilians and argued that Hamas has stolen food aid and obstructed humanitarian deliveries to Gaza.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla has accused the US of fabricating a pretext for a potential invasion following an Axios report claiming that the island had acquired attack drones from Russia and Iran.

Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump had suggested that Cuba could become Washington’s next target after the conflict with Iran.

Rodriguez Parrilla described the Axios report as an attempt to concoct a “fraudulent case to justify the ruthless economic war against the Cuban people and, eventually, military aggression.” He added that Cuba “neither threatens nor desires war.”

“Certain media outlets are playing along, spreading slanderous claims and publishing insinuations leaked by the US government,” the minister said.

The US imposed an oil embargo on the Caribbean island in February, prompting blackouts and fuel shortages, and has repeatedly threatened military action. 

A senior US official told Axios that the White House views Cuba’s potential use of drones as “a growing threat.”

The outlet added, however, that US officials do not consider Cuba an imminent threat and do not believe Havana is actively planning an attack.

Russia, which has maintained close ties with Cuba since Soviet times, including a long history of military cooperation, did not confirm supplying drones to Havana. Russian President Vladimir Putin has condemned the US blockade of Cuba as unacceptable, while the Russian Foreign Ministry has said Moscow is prepared to provide the island with “political, diplomatic, and material support.”

Last week, CIA Director John Ratcliffe paid a rare visit to Havana, reportedly pressing for reforms. According to media reports, Washington has demanded that Cuba liberalize its political system and transition from socialism to a market-based economy.

Governor General of Canada Mary Simon has stripped Peter Dalglish, a co-founder of the Street Kids International charity and a convicted pedophile, of the country’s top honor. The famous aid worker was found guilty of raping two boys and sentenced to 16 years behind bars in Nepal back in 2019.

On Saturday, the Canada Gazette, the official media outlet of the Canadian government, reported that Simon terminated the appointment of Dalglish to the Order of Canada on April 15. He was originally awarded the merit in recognition of his humanitarian work in 2016.

Since the late 1980s, Dalglish has worked in multiple African and Asian countries, including Nepal, on programs aimed at improving the living conditions for vulnerable youths. During the course of his career, he has also been involved with several humanitarian agencies, including UN Habitat in Afghanistan and the UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response in Liberia.

In a statement to CBC News, the governor general’s office described the revocation of the honor as an “extraordinary measure,” noting that Dalglish “has acted in a manner inconsistent with the standard of conduct expected of members of this society.”

Pushkar Karki, chief of the Central Investigation Bureau, alleged that Dalglish had been luring children from poor families with promises of education, job opportunities and trips.

In July 2019, the Canadian national was sentenced to 16 years in prison and ordered to pay around $10,000 to his victims.

Dalglish has consistently denied the accusations, with his lawyer claiming that his client had been set up.

In recent years, Nepal has seen several other cases where foreign nationals have been accused of sexually abusing vulnerable children while operating under the guise of humanitarian workers.

Two US Navy electronic warfare aircraft collided mid-air on Sunday during the Gunfighter Skies Air Show at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. All four crew members ejected safely.

Video from the scene shows two EA-18G Growler jets flying in close formation at low altitude. At one point, the aircraft collide and appear to become entangled before both stall and spiral toward the ground. The pilots eject just seconds after the collision, with four brightly colored parachutes visible in the sky.

“All four members of the aircrew successfully ejected and are being evaluated by medical personnel,” Naval Air Forces spokeswoman Commander Amelia Umayam said.

The Boeing EA-18G Growler is a carrier-based electronic warfare aircraft derived from the F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jet. Introduced in the late 2000s, it was developed to replace the Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare platform.

The EU has been filling its underground gas storage facilities at record-low rates for three consecutive days this week, Russia’s state-owned Gazprom has said, citing figures by the Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE) association.

The bloc has been grappling with the fallout of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, which has caused global energy shortages and a spike in prices. The situation is primarily linked to the standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, which remains disrupted despite a shaky ceasefire coming into force early in April.

Reduced maritime traffic has heavily restricted energy supplies since the waterway handled around 20% of global LNG trade before the conflict, primarily going to European and Asian markets.

This week, the GIE recorded the lowest-ever rates for filling up European gas storage for three days, from Tuesday to Thursday, Gazprom said on Sunday. Apart from the Iran conflict, unusually cold weather in Europe also contributed to the historically low readings, the Russian petroleum and gas giant suggested.

Belgium, France, and Spain have accounted for most imports, according to the IEEFA. Despite the EU’s goal of phasing out Russian fossil fuels by 2027, the country remains its second-largest LNG supplier, the institute said. The hostilities in the Middle East have also hampered the bloc’s proclaimed effort to diversify imports, and the EU is now even more reliant on American and Russian LNG supplies. 

Russian officials have signaled readiness to cut energy ties with the EU altogether and to switch to emerging markets and more reliable customers. Moscow has suggested, however, that the EU will ultimately be forced to mend energy ties, arguing that the bloc’s “Russophobic politicians” are risking deindustrialization for the sake of an ideological stance.

An EU proposal to drastically cut its steel import quota in response to global overcapacity and the shrinking of local manufacturing will hurt Kiev, Ukrainian manufacturers and officials have told the Financial Times.

The quota is expected to be cut by 47% on July 1, and the bloc will levy an additional 50% tariff on any steel imports above that amount. According to the EU authorities, the new regulation is meant to protect local manufacturers and address the “negative trade-related effects” of global overcapacity on its steel market. A surge in imports has already cost European steel mills thousands of jobs, forcing manufacturers to operate at reduced capacity.

The quota cut is expected to heavily affect Ukraine, which has emerged as a major supplier of steel to the EU. While Kiev has had free trade agreements with the bloc, the new quota will apply to all trading partners to comply with WTO rules. 

The EU has been in negotiations with Kiev and some 20 other trading partners over a preferential rate of distributing the diminished quota, unnamed Ukrainian officials told the newspaper. Despite the apparent desire of the EU to mitigate the impact on Ukraine, it initially proposed a 70% reduction in imports compared to last year. While the EU Commission offered a quota of 713,000 tonnes to Kiev, it ultimately sold some 2.65 million tonnes to the bloc, which was Ukraine’s main market for steel. 

The estimated loss of steel export revenues hovers around the €1 billion ($1.26 billion) mark, according to the FT’s sources. The sharp drop is bound to further affect Ukraine’s strained budget, which has become increasingly reliant on foreign aid and loans amid the conflict with Russia. In recent months, Kiev has been pressed into further hiking taxes and making fiscal reforms by its main financial backers, the EU and IMF, who have tied the changes to promises of more foreign aid.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told an audience of local Catholics in the southwestern city of Wuerzburg that he no longer advises young people to travel to the United States for work and study, citing the rapidly changing “social climate” in the country.

Merz, who has served as chancellor since May 2025, said “I would not recommend to my children today that they go to the US to get an education and to work” – a comment that attracted robust applause from the audience.

The chancellor’s concern focused primarily on the job market in the US, saying “the social climate that has suddenly developed” in the US had become a source of concern and argued that “even the best educated in America have great difficulty in finding a job.”

“I am a great admirer of America,” Merz added, eliciting laughter from the audience, “but right now my admiration is not increasing.”

New data shows that the German chancellor is not wrong in his prognosis of the US labor market. For the first time since Gallup began measuring the life evaluation of the American workforce, more US workers are struggling in their lives (49%) than thriving (46%).

“This contrasts with 2022 and 2023, when the reverse was true, with the share of US employees considered ‘thriving’ staying in the low-to-mid 50s – a mark of relative resilience after pandemic disruptions. After staying steady between 57% and 60% from 2009 to 2019, the thriving rate among workers fell to 55% in 2020 before rebounding in 2021 then steadily decreasing after that,” Gallup reported.

Americans are 26 times more likely to be shot compared to their counterparts in high-income countries, according to the Brady Center. Every day, 327 people are shot in the United States, of that number 117 will die from their injuries. Firearm suicides in the US account for 35% of all the world’s suicides, Brady found, despite the US making up 4% of the world’s population. It’s a well-known fact that America has more guns than people – there were 67 million more firearms than people in 2023.

The situation with regards to sexual violence is no less disturbing. Someone in the US is sexually assaulted every 68 seconds, while nearly 1 in 2 adult women and 1 in 4 adult men in the US have experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime. However, it is estimated that only about 25% to 40% of all rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police.

The situation in Germany with regards to crime, while not as bad as the United States, is steadily worsening with each passing year and should give leaders like Merz tremendous pause. Germany has experienced a significant increase in reported crime since 2023, with police statistics recording a rise in total offenses to nearly six million. Violent crime reached a 15-year high in 2025, while sexual offenses and politically motivated crimes saw notable spikes.

Violent crimes, such as grievous bodily harm, robberies, and knife attacks, have grown significantly. Major cities like Berlin and Frankfurt have seen unprecedented spikes in organized criminal violence and gun-related incidents. Meanwhile, Germany has smashed all of its previous records for shoplifting in 2024. An annual survey of 98 retailers estimates a 3% increase on the year before – amounting to some €4.95 billion ($5.84 billion) in total losses.

In December, the White House warned that Europe faces “civilizational erasure” within 20 years and questioned whether certain nations like Germany and France can remain reliable allies, in a new strategy document that puts a particular focus on the continent. The 33-page National Security Strategy sees the US leader outline his vision for the world where the US remains “the greatest and most successful nation in human history.”

Merz rose to power in 2025 as a staunch Transatlanticist but has since leveled criticism of the United States, Germany’s most powerful ally. Trump, in response, said the German chancellor should focus on fixing his own “broken country” as the United States is preparing to remove 5,000 troops from Germany as the two countries go through the worst bilateral breakup since World War II. It’s going to require a lot of work for the two countries to look past their separate problems and see each other in a new light.

Footage has been published online purporting to show an assault by an Israeli settler against a Palestinian farmer in the occupied West Bank, in one of the latest alleged attacks targeting Palestinian civilians.

The video, posted by the media office of the Palestinian government on Saturday, shows a blindfolded man on his knees in a field, and later lying on the ground surrounded by armed men. An accompanying caption alleges the farmer was “abducted and restrained” by the settler.

The footage emerged amid a surge in violence across the West Bank, where settlers have carried out repeated raids on Palestinian communities, torching homes and vehicles, vandalizing property, and assaulting residents, according to witnesses.

In a separate post on Sunday, the Palestinian government shared images of what it described as the aftermath of an attack by “extremist Israeli settlers” in the town of Surif, where several vehicles were torched.

Human-rights groups, the UN, and many analysts say some settlers use violence, intimidation, and property destruction to push Palestinians off contested land or retaliate for Palestinian attacks.

Images capture the destruction left behind following an attack by extremist Israeli settlers in Surif, a town north of Al-Khalil in the occupied West Bank, where several Palestinian vehicles were set ablaze. pic.twitter.com/Q6KDwzwwBV

— Government Communication Center (@pal_gcc_en) May 17, 2026

The UN says around 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced in the West Bank since the beginning of 2025, driven by intensified Israeli military operations, home demolitions, and rising attacks by settlers.

Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have condemned settler attacks as the actions of a “minority” of “extremists.” Critics, however, argue that weak law enforcement, settlement expansion, and the influence of far-right pro-settler parties have contributed to a climate of growing impunity.

Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH) will become the first American medical institution to open a clinic for adolescents seeking to reverse gender-related medical treatments, the US Department of Justice said.

The move comes as part of a settlement of a years-long probe by the DOJ and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton into America’s largest children’s hospital over its alleged false billings to secure insurance coverage for pediatric gender-affirming treatments.

The Justice Department said in a statement on Friday that Texas Children’s agreed not to offer sex change services, inducing administration of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, to minors anymore.

The Houston-based center will also pay over $10 million in damages and “dedicate millions to the provision of medical care to children harmed by the provision of such procedures,” the statement read.

Paxton announced in a separate statement that the TCH will also dismiss five doctors, who according to him, “harmed patients by performing dangerous medical interventions for the purpose of ‘transitioning’ them.” 

“The Justice Department will use every weapon at its disposal to end the destructive and discredited practice of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ for children,” Blanche insisted.

The hospital has denied any wrongdoing, saying in a statement that it decided to settle in order “to protect our resources from endless and costly litigation” and return to focusing on patient care.

“We stand proud knowing we will always put our purpose over politics and that we have and will continue to follow the law,” it said.

Senior counsel at Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ advocacy group, Karen Loewy told Reuters that “it’s deeply appalling to see [the TCH] capitulate to the relentless pressure campaigns of both AG Paxton and the Trump Administration.” 

Some US officials are encouraging the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to seize one of Iran’s islands in the Persian Gulf, The Telegraph has reported, citing sources.

The island in question is Lavan, one of Iran’s key offshore oil export centers, which hosts refinery, storage and tanker-loading infrastructure connected to several major crude fields. It also sits atop a large natural gas reserve.

Some in the circle of US President Donald Trump have suggested the UAE should take the island, the outlet wrote on Saturday.

“Go take ‘em! It would be UAE boots on the ground instead of US,” it cited a former senior Trump security official as saying.

The reported proposal reflects broader pressure in Washington to reduce direct American military exposure as the war with Iran stretches into its third month.

US defense analysts and military publications have, meanwhile, warned that weeks of intensive strikes and operations involving THAAD interceptors, Patriot systems and Tomahawk cruise missiles have significantly depleted American stockpiles.

The Pentagon has since accelerated efforts to replenish inventories with lower-cost mass-produced weapons developed by newer defense firms rather than by relying exclusively on traditional military contractors.

The reported push for greater Emirati involvement also comes amid a broader reluctance among US allies to deepen their direct participation in the conflict. While Washington has pressed partners for greater military involvement against Iran, including naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz, several European NATO members, such as Germany, Spain, and the UK, have publicly distanced themselves from the war.

The UAE has emerged as one of the regional states that moved closest to Washington and Israel during the war. Tehran has accused Abu Dhabi of serving as a “hostile base” for US and Israeli operations, retaliating at targets in the Emirates.

Emirati forces have reportedly carried out covert strikes on Iranian targets, including attacks on Lavan Island in April.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is considering resigning amid a deepening political crisis in the ruling Labour Party, according to Daily Mail journalist Dan Hodges.

Starmer became prime minister after leading Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election. Less than two years later, however, his government is facing falling approval ratings, internal divisions, and growing pressure following the party’s poor performance in recent local elections.

In a column published on Saturday, Hodges cited an unnamed cabinet minister as saying that Starmer “understands the political reality” and is considering arranging his departure on his own terms.

“He realizes the current chaos is unsustainable. He simply wants to be able to do it in a dignified way and in a manner of his own choosing. He will set out a timetable,” the source said.

Pressure on Starmer intensified after four junior ministers resigned on Monday. According to the BBC, more than 80 Labour MPs have privately or publicly urged the prime minister to step down, although more than 100 backbenchers and junior ministers later signed a statement arguing that it was “no time for a leadership contest.”

Starmer has remained defiant in public and has indicated that he has no intention of resigning.

“The country expects us to get on with governing. That is what I am doing and what we must do as a cabinet,” he said earlier this week.

The UK has experienced repeated political upheaval since the 2016 Brexit referendum, with four Tory prime ministers serving over the following eight years before Starmer took office. Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss all resigned after internal party revolts.

France has opened an investigation into the murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi after NGOs accused Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of complicity in the killing.

The 59-year-old journalist and Washington Post columnist was killed in 2018 while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. His body is believed to have been dismembered and was never recovered.

Saudi authorities acknowledged that Khashoggi was killed inside the consulate but insisted that rogue officials carried out the operation without authorization from the leadership.

In July 2022, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) – Khashoggi’s former organization – and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) filed a legal complaint accusing Mohammed bin Salman of complicity in torture and enforced disappearance as part of an organized group. The complaint alleged that he had ordered “the murder by asphyxiation” of Khashoggi.

The Paris Court of Appeal has now ruled that “the possibility that these acts could be classified as crimes against humanity cannot be ruled out.”

“An investigating judge from the crimes against humanity unit will now examine the complaint,” the prosecutor’s office told AFP on Saturday.

Khashoggi once served as an adviser to the Saudi government and was close to the royal family before becoming a prominent critic of the kingdom’s leadership and relocating to the US. KSA prosecutors said the journalist died after being forcibly restrained and injected with an overdose of drugs during what they described as a failed attempt to persuade him to return to Saudi Arabia.

A US intelligence report released by the Biden administration in 2021 concluded that Mohammed bin Salman exercised “absolute control” over the kingdom and that Saudi security organizations had approved an operation to “capture or kill” Khashoggi. The Kingdom rejected the assessment as “false and unacceptable.”

US President Donald Trump, however, said last year that the crown prince “knew nothing” about the plan to kill the journalist.

The Pentagon has canceled plans to deploy 4,000 troops to Poland amid growing tensions between President Donald Trump and US allies over policy regarding Iran.

AP reported on Friday that some soldiers from the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division – along with Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles – had already arrived in Poland or were en route when the Pentagon informed them that the deployment had been canceled.

General Christopher LaNeve, the acting army chief of staff, told Congress that the head of US European Command “received instructions on the force reduction.” He added that “it made the most sense for that brigade not to deploy to the theater.”

More than 10,000 US military personnel are stationed in Poland on a rotational basis.

Although Trump has frequently accused NATO members of failing to spend enough on defense, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently described Poland as a “model ally” after it spent about 4.7% of GDP on defense last year – more than other NATO members.

Earlier in May, the Pentagon announced the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from the roughly 38,000 US service members stationed in Germany. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has been among the European leaders critical of US and Israeli policy toward Iran. Trump, in turn, urged the chancellor to focus on “fixing his broken country.”

Trump has also suggested he could withdraw troops from Spain and Italy after the two countries reportedly denied the use of bases and airfields for strikes related to Iran.

The US and Israel are actively preparing for a renewal of hostilities with Iran and could resume attacks as early as next week, The New York Times has reported, citing sources.

Indirect negotiations between Iran and the Trump White House have remained deadlocked since a fragile ceasefire was established in April following over a month of hostilities. Both sides have repeatedly dismissed the other’s demands as unrealistic, and both Tehran and Washington still insist they hold the upper hand.

Meanwhile, disruptions continue in the Strait of Hormuz, which has heavily affected global shipping and caused oil shortages worldwide. While Iran has announced its own mechanism to regulate maritime traffic in the waterway, Washington has rejected the scheme and is enforcing a naval blockade on Iranian ports in retaliation.

Two unnamed Middle East officials told the NYT on Friday that preparations for new strikes by Israel and the US have greatly accelerated over the past few days, and the conflict could resume as early as next week, according to the sources.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to renew the attack on Iran, increasingly voicing his dissatisfaction with Tehran’s proposals. Trump tore into Iran’s response to an American proposal last weekend, branding it a “piece of garbage” and slamming the current ceasefire as “unbelievably weak.”

Tehran says it is ready to “deliver a well-deserved response to any aggression.” It has expressed wariness about the stalled negotiations but shown willingness to engage in diplomacy nonetheless. 

“We have every reason not to trust the Americans,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday. “There is no military solution, and the US must understand this reality. They cannot achieve their goals through military action, but the situation would be different if they pursue diplomacy.”

At least twelve people have sustained injuries, with four reportedly in critical condition, after a car rammed into them in the Italian city of Modena.

The driver, described by the media as a “highly intoxicated” man of North African descent, was reportedly armed with a knife, and stabbed a person before being subdued by bystanders.

While the motive remains unclear for the time being, terrorism is not being ruled out, according to Italian newspaper La Pressa.

Two of the injured have reportedly been rushed to a hospital by helicopter, with one woman having both legs amputated after being crushed against a wall by the speeding vehicle.

The driver, identified by local media outlets as Salim el Koudriv, a 31-year-old Italian citizen of Moroccan origin, then attempted to flee the scene on foot, blending in with the panicked crowd. However, several bystanders gave chase.

La Gazzetta di Modena quoted one of the pursuers, Luca Signorelli, as describing how the suspect stabbed him when he approached him.

“I managed to avoid the first, but I took the other. I didn’t let go, locking his wrist and disarming him, and with the help of five or six other people, I managed to subdue him,” Signorelli, who sustained light injuries, told the newspaper.

The suspect was subsequently handed over to the police and brought in for questioning.

In a video message on social media, Modena mayor Massimo Mezzetti thanked the “citizens who chased [the suspect, for displaying]…courage and civic-mindedness.”

Following the incident, there was a heavy law enforcement presence at the scene, with the national police conducting the investigation.

Rudyard Kipling, a modern classic of the Western literary canon, was both a champion of British imperialism and too honest not to know its very sordid underpinnings of greed, lies, and sheer selfishness.

That’s why the same man who extolled the “white man’s burden” also wrote ‘The Man Who Would Be King,’ a story of two lowlife, ambitious adventurers who manage to swindle their way to becoming kings as well as rich in a remote country on the fringes of the empire, then at its late-nineteenth-century zenith of global primacy. Until, that is, one of them makes the mistake of messing with the wrong woman, who ends up biting him in public. Seeing him bleed, his subjects realize he is a mere mortal and mercilessly dispense with the two imposters.

Ukraine’s ruler – and de facto king (of the old-fashioned, non-constitutional kind) – Vladimir Zelensky is a social climber, too. In his formative years, his native Krivoy Rog was a provincial post-Soviet rustbelt town with a lively gangster scene, a “bandit city” in his own words. Zelensky is also an expert in make-believe by profession, a cynically profane showman of the ‘give-them-whatever-they-want-as-long-as-it-pays’ variety, the cruder and smuttier the better.

Indeed, Zelensky even has a sidekick, who, as in Kipling’s dark story, has shared in the scheme of power-grabbing and plunder: Andrey Yermak, his former chief of staff and very intimate friend, making headlines (again) for being so corrupt and sinister that he stands out, even in Kiev.

And now Zelensky, the man who, it seems, would be Ukraine’s president forever, has just been bitten in public by a woman. Judging by the fierce, clearly orchestrated reaction of his media propagandists in Ukraine and the fact that the Western mainstream media are largely pretending not to have noticed, he must be bleeding, too.

That has made it a very public bloodletting indeed. What Mendel has had to say is one thing, her ability to reach breathtaking numbers of Americans and other inhabitants of the West is at least as important and, from Kiev’s point of view, frustrating: Across various platforms, shows of the Tucker Carlson Network (TCN) are watched by, on average, over 55 million viewers, dwarfing, for instance, Fox News (Carlson’s former employer) with its prime time rating of 3.2 million.

Recently, the Israeli-US war against Iran has further undermined public confidence in the mainstream media and boosted TCN. “Explosive growth” in the two first months of the war has produced over 1.5 billion “views across social media and podcast platforms.” Indeed, TCN is on such a roll that Carlson is now rumored to be a contender for the presidency, and he has not ruled out a run.

This is the amplifier for Mendel’s harsh memo to the US and the West. It is hard to think of a bigger one. And what a message she had to deliver.

Consider a few highlights: Speaking, she underlined, as “an insider,” from her own close experience with Zelensky and the inner circle of his regime, Mendel has told us all that she believes Zelensky personally “stands behind many schemes of money laundering” and that he has always remained an “amazing actor” whose image “on camera” is “very different” from his real self.

For instance, while he is posturing as not merely some democrat but a shining epitome of democracy as well as everything else that is good and beautiful, such as rule of law, freedom of speech, civil society, and national unity, his real view, relentlessly repeated behind closed doors, is, as we learn from Mendel, that “Ukraine is not ready for democracy” and “dictatorship is an order,” too.

Zelensky’s profound hypocrisy permeates his private life and politics. Mendel reveals, for instance, that he was still going on trips to Crimea – to have fun with friends and drugs – while it was already under Russian control. In December 2019, he privately told Russian President Vladimir Putin that Ukraine would never join NATO. While Zelensky’s public poll ratings are steadily declining, the polls produced for internal use are so bad that even some of his fixers privately admit that he is “unelectable.”

With no respect for the truth, Zelensky’s attitude to reality itself seems broken, even deranged. From her own conversations with him, Mendel reports that Ukraine’s leader believes that “it doesn’t matter what is [actually] happening.” Things, he has argued behind closed doors, become real when they are said often enough by enough propagandists or, as she quotes him, by “thousands of talking heads.” Considering this bizarre outlook, it is revealing and revolting but also somehow, sadly consistent that Zelensky, who is Jewish, has literally demanded “Goebbels”-type “propaganda” from his communications team.

Beyond a ruthless and deliberate regime of lying and manipulation, there also is pressure and compulsion. Again, Mendel’s catalogue of Zelensky’s dictatorial strong-arm methods is depressing and plausible: from threats to perfectly illegal “sanctions” imposed via Zelensky’s personal fiat, to lawfare and process-as-punishment to long and open-ended jail terms to sending critics to the frontline as a punishment to very odd lethal accidents – Zelensky and his regime have, as Mendel puts it, “no limits.” Their rule has established a situation that is “inhuman.”

Mendel is believable. Zelensky regime propagandists, in Ukraine and the West, have, unsurprisingly, smeared her as, in effect, a Russian asset, as reproducing “Russian narratives” and, worst sin of them all, sharing Kiev’s very dirty secrets with the West. Because – this seems to be the underlying logic – the West must share hundreds of billions with Zelensky and his ultra-corrupt cronies, but no one has a right to share the truth about them with the West.

Even in the interview with Tucker Carlson, Mendel has made a point of carefully distinguishing between what she has seen herself and what she knows from – extremely strong – circumstantial evidence, for instance, that Zelensky has a long-standing cocaine habit.

And yet, by now Mendel – who displays no favor at all to Russia – considers Zelensky an evil and the key obstacle to peace for Ukraine. This peace, she warns, is the only alternative to what she calls being “on the verge of extinction.” She means it quite literally: There are far fewer Ukrainians left in the country than official statistics admit, perhaps 25 million, including 11 million impoverished pensioners. The only way to really support Ukraine, Mendel insists, is to “push for peace.”

Yet this is where, unfortunately, Ukraine’s would-be king is different from Kipling’s adventurers. They at least had no support from the empire on the fringe of which they ran their scheme of mass manipulation and self-enrichment. When their subjects lost their illusions, they fell.

Zelensky and his crew, however, still enjoy massive, cynical support from the West, even if it is now Germany and no longer the US that is in the lead. Perhaps Zelensky’s rule and its mistreatment of Ukraine and ordinary Ukrainians can only end when he loses his last Western backers. Until then, Mendel can make them bleed, but Ukrainians alone, it seems, will find it hard to shake them off.

Sloppy decision-making and an inability to agree on key issues have rendered the EU effectively irrelevant on the global stage, the bloc’s former foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has argued.

The former top diplomat made the remarks in an interview with Belgian broadcaster RTBF on Friday, somewhat echoing the stance of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The top official, who has been in power since 2019, has repeatedly urged the bloc to remove individual member states’ veto powers and move to qualified majority voting on foreign policy and defense issues.

The bloc’s decision-making process has become inadequate in its ability to react to the ever-shifting global situation, Borrell has said, arguing the EU “was not designed for the world in which we live today” in the first place. 

“The decision-making rules are not compatible with the acceleration of history. We continue to want to decide unanimously on events that are happening too fast and are very important, and we almost never reach an agreement,” he said, adding that the current system makes the bloc “not very relevant to international politics.”

“We need to build a union within the union. A union within the union means that with 27 members, even with unanimity, we won’t go any further. We’re held back. With 27, we won’t accomplish much. So we need to find another core group. Not the 27,” he said.

The former top diplomat, however, did not outline the exact criteria for the potential members of said group, stating it should be composed of the “few who truly want to move forward with political, economic, and military integration” and those “who want to go further, faster.”

Last week, the idea to abandon the EU’s unanimity principle was backed by Berlin, with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul arguing that a switch to a qualified majority voting would “make the EU capable of acting in areas where it currently has to remain at a standstill.” The initiative has already been backed by at least 12 EU member states, according to Wadephul.

US President Donald Trump has announced that Abu-Bilal al-Minuki, second in command of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) worldwide, has been killed in Nigeria on his orders.

The operation comes as Washington seeks to reassert its influence in Africa’s volatile Sahel region where a string of military coups and growing anti-Western sentiment have weakened the positions of the US and its European allies.

Al-Minuki was eliminated overnight as a result of “a meticulously planned and very complex” joint mission by American and Nigerian forces, Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform on Saturday.

The US president said that the senior IS commander, whom he described as “the most active terrorist in the world… thought he could hide in Africa, but little did he know we had sources who kept us informed on what he was doing.” 

“He will no longer terrorize the people of Africa, or help plan operations to target Americans. With his removal, ISIS’s global operation is greatly diminished,” he wrote.

Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu said in a post on X that al-Minuki was killed together with several of his lieutenants in a strike at an Islamic State compound in the Lake Chad Basin.

US Africa Command (AFRICOM) later released aerial footage of the bombardment.

Last night's operation targeted a significant presence of ISIS fighters in Northeastern Nigeria eliminating multiple high value individuals including Abu-Bilal al-Minuki. pic.twitter.com/lNj4AMSITH

— U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) (@USAfricaCommand) May 16, 2026

Washington labeled Al-Minuki, who is a Nigerian national, a “specially designated global terrorist” in 2023 under the administration of then President Joe Biden. The State Department said that he was part of an administrative body within IS that provides “operational guidance and funding around the world.” 

Shortly after that, the US carried out airstrikes targeting Islamic State-linked militants in Nigeria. It was followed by Washington sending 200 American troops to provide training and intelligence to the Nigerian forces fighting the jihadists. The US servicemen remained in a strictly non-combat role, according to the authorities.

In 2019, during Trump’s first term, he announced the killing of Islamic State founder and leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a US special forces raid in Syria.

Despite decades of American counterterrorism operations, jihadist violence continues to spread across parts of the Middle East and West Africa, with militant groups capitalizing on weak governance, poverty, and political instability.

Russia and China are moving, slowly but unmistakably, toward a structural alliance that is reshaping the global balance of power. But the two sides are progressing through this transformation at different speeds. Moscow has largely accepted the logic of deep strategic interdependence. Beijing, by contrast, still behaves as though it can preserve a carefully managed partnership in which China remains the senior partner while minimizing its own obligations.

That model is reaching its limits. For years, the dominant narrative in Western policy circles has been that Russia has become the junior partner in an unequal relationship. Brussels think tanks, Washington analysts and even many Chinese commentators have repeated the same formula: Russia supplies raw materials and China supplies everything else.

Berlin-based MERICS has described the relationship as “fundamentally unbalanced” and Intereconomics called it “symbiotic but deeply asymmetrical.” Other researchers have portrayed the Russia-China-US triangle as one in which Washington still holds the decisive advantage.

Yet this interpretation misses something important. Even while Western analysts obsessively measured asymmetry, many Chinese scholars privately acknowledged that the relationship was being driven less by hierarchy than by geopolitical pressure.

Professor Feng Shaolei of East China Normal University has argued that external circumstances, rather than relative status, have always been the true engine of the partnership. NATO expansion pushed Moscow and Beijing closer together while US tariffs accelerated the process further. Sanctions pressure on Russia gave China discounted resources and gave Russia guaranteed markets as each side increasingly possessed what the other lacked.

Agriculture has become another strategic pillar as Russia, now the world’s leading wheat exporter, signed a long-term agreement in 2023 to supply China with 70 million tonnes of grain and oilseeds over a twelve-year period.

And unlike Middle Eastern energy routes, Russian pipelines don’t pass through vulnerable maritime chokepoints. That reality became far more important once the geopolitical environment deteriorated.

Washington’s strategy was straightforward: isolate Russia financially while frightening China into limiting cooperation through the threat of secondary sanctions. By late 2023 and early 2024, major Chinese financial institutions including Bank of China and CITIC had sharply reduced direct transactions with Russian entities after new US restrictions were announced.

The pressure had some effect. Chinese state energy companies cut purchases temporarily after sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil in early 2025. Shandong Port Group banned sanctioned vessels from entering its terminals. Western analysts celebrated what they described as growing Chinese caution.

But the strategy contained a fundamental weakness. Secondary sanctions work only when alternatives exist and once instability threatened key global energy routes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, Russia’s role changed dramatically. Roughly a third of global seaborne oil trade passes through Hormuz, while more than half of China’s imported oil comes from the Middle East. In those circumstances, Russian pipelines stopped being merely commercial infrastructure and became a strategic necessity.

As several Chinese analysts have noted, Russia and China may each be vulnerable separately, but together they possess the capacity to counterbalance American power. For most of the last three years, however, the relationship has remained stuck in a bargaining phase. Publicly, both sides speak of a “partnership without limits.” In practice, the relationship has often been slowed by caution and endless technical complications.

During Vladimir Putin’s visit to Beijing in September 2025, the two countries signed more than twenty agreements covering energy, aerospace, artificial intelligence, agriculture and industrial technology. The headline figures looked impressive. Analysts estimated the announced value of Russian-Chinese investment projects at more than $200 billion.

Yet many of these projects remain only partially implemented as Chinese businesses continue to calculate the costs of sanctions exposure carefully. Beijing has often preferred opportunistic gains over genuine strategic interdependence. Western researchers openly acknowledge this dynamic, arguing that China has benefited from the departure of Western competitors from Russia while avoiding commitments that would fully bind the two economies together.

The problem, however, is caution, not hostility, this has limits when geography and geopolitics are pushing both countries together.

In 2025, both sides entered a more sober phase. Bilateral trade declined by nearly 7% to $228 billion, the first major drop since the pandemic. The reasons were mostly economic rather than political. Falling oil prices sharply reduced the value of Russian exports despite relatively stable volumes.

Chinese media were unusually frank about the difficulties. Consumer demand in Russia weakened under high interest rates and Chinese car exports collapsed after an overheated boom period. Moscow’s growing import-substitution policies also began limiting opportunities for Chinese manufacturers.

Russia and China share more than 4,200 kilometers of border. One side possesses enormous energy reserves, agricultural resources, metals, territory and pipeline infrastructure largely immune from naval disruption. The other possesses industrial scale, capital, technology and a market of 1.4 billion people.

Neither can fully achieve its strategic ambitions alone and that is why the relationship continues to deepen despite friction.

When Xi Jinping visited Moscow for Victory Day commemorations in 2025, the two countries signed a joint declaration that went beyond symbolism. The document emphasized expanded settlements in national currencies, deeper investment cooperation and the joint development of the Northern Sea Route and this matters enormously.

The Arctic corridor offers China a long-term alternative to vulnerable maritime routes such as Suez and Hormuz. In a world where each of those chokepoints faces growing instability, the Northern Sea Route is becoming strategic infrastructure rather than an experimental trade project.

Chinese analysts increasingly recognize this reality. Academic discussions inside China now openly acknowledge that rivalry with the United States makes close partnership with Russia less a matter of preference than necessity.

This is because the partnership is no longer built merely on diplomatic convenience or temporary economic gains. It is being driven by structural forces: geography, energy security, trade routes, sanctions pressure and the emergence of a more fragmented global order.

Russia and China are joining together because the strategic logic is becoming overwhelming, yet one major obstacle remains.

China still often behaves as though it can enjoy the benefits of strategic partnership without fully committing itself to the burdens that come with it. Moscow has already integrated Beijing deeply into critical sectors ranging from energy to logistics and food security. But many major Chinese investments and technology commitments continue to move cautiously or remain delayed.

At some point, Beijing will have to decide whether it truly views Russia as an equal strategic partner or merely as a useful resource base operating on China’s periphery.

That question now defines the future of the partnership and the answer will shape the architecture of Eurasia for decades to come.

Large crowds have descended upon central London for an anti-immigration rally dubbed ‘Unite the Kingdom’. Videos and photographs circulating on social media on Saturday showed demonstrators with Union Jack flags, crosses, and other Christian symbols marching through the streets of the British capital.

Ahead of the event, local media, citing the authorities, reported that an estimated 50,000 people were expected to take part. Another large-scale demonstration, a pro-Palestinian march marking Nakba Day, was taking place in London concurrently with the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally, as well as the FA Cup. Some 4,000 officers were deployed to maintain public order in the British capital, according to London’s Metropolitan Police.

A few hours after both demonstrations came to a close on Saturday afternoon, the authorities reported on X that a total of 43 arrests had been made, though both gatherings “proceeded largely without significant incident.”

Arrests have begun at the far-right Unite the Kingdom rally in central London today.

Ryan Bridge, co-founder of the “Raise the Colours” movement — whose members attach flags to lampposts and engage in anti-migrant vigilantism — has been arrested by the Met Police.

5Pillars is… pic.twitter.com/Ul5n2BaBad

— 5Pillars (@5Pillarsuk) May 16, 2026

‘Unite the Kingdom’ demonstration organizer Tommy Robinson, a British anti-immigration activist whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, called on his supporters to “GO HOME SAFELY,” proclaiming in an X post of his own that “WE WON.”

Ahead of Saturday’s anti-immigration rally in London, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that several foreign activists and commentators had been denied entry to Britain. According to Downing Street, eleven people were blocked because their presence was considered “not conducive to the public good.”

Reports suggest over 80,000 patriots have arrived in London for Unite The Kingdom with thousands more are still on their way. pic.twitter.com/aeHlEeZixM

— dks pros (@dkspros) May 16, 2026

Starmer stated on Thursday that the authorities would not permit anyone to “spread hate on our streets,” according to remarks published by the UK government. The restrictions drew criticism from supporters of the march, who accused the authorities of attempting to suppress political dissent and limit attendance.

Tarczynski, however, did join the protesters via video link, drawing cheers from the crowd. The Polish lawmaker from the conservative Law and Justice party said among other things: “He could ban me. He will not cancel you. And believe me, there will be a day I will be back.”

🚨BREAKING: MET police reports indicate that MILLIONS of patriots are on the streets of London for Unite the kingdom.

'Who's streets our streets'

Britain is wide awake 🇬🇧 pic.twitter.com/eieVS1ertY

— God Save Great Britain (@GSGB01) May 16, 2026

Addressing the attendees, Robinson, for his part, referred to the 2029 general elections as nothing short of the “battle for Britain.”

“If we don’t send a message in our next election, if you don’t register to vote, if you don’t get involved, if you don’t become activists, we are going to lose our country forever,” he said.

The right-wing activist urged his supporters to “get political,” and “join a political party.”

“I don’t care if it’s Reform, if it’s Advance, or it’s Restore, or it’s the Conservative Party. We have to locally get involved in politics,” Robinson proclaimed.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said he will no longer recommend the United States as a destination for his children to study or work, citing what he described as a worsening “social climate” in America.

Speaking at a Catholic youth conference in Wuerzburg on Friday, the conservative leader said the US had become deeply polarized and a less appealing destination for young people.

“I am a great admirer of America,” Merz said during a panel discussion. “At the moment my admiration is not growing.” Merz also argued that even highly educated Americans were increasingly struggling to find employment, suggesting the US was no longer the “land of opportunity” it once was.

"I wouldn’t recommend to my children today that they go to the US, get an education there, and work there,” he said.

Nearly half of young graduates are now working in jobs that do not require degrees, while hiring for entry-level professional roles has slowed sharply, according to The Washington Post. At the same time, white-collar layoffs in sectors such as tech, finance, and corporate services have accelerated amid AI adoption and corporate cost-cutting.

Merz’s remarks are notable because he has long been regarded as one of Germany’s most pro-American conservative politicians, having previously championed close transatlantic ties and worked extensively with US financial giant BlackRock. They also come amid a public spat with US President Donald Trump over the war in Iran.

In April, Merz said Washington had been “humiliated” by Iran’s leadership, arguing it lacked a coherent strategy for the conflict. Trump responded by telling the German chancellor to focus on Germany’s domestic problems and the Ukraine conflict instead of criticizing US policy.

Germany continues to host critical US command centers, air bases, and logistics hubs central to NATO operations, highlighting Berlin’s continued reliance on the US despite increasingly strained relations.

Israel carried out strikes in Gaza targeting Hamas’ top military commander, Izz al-Din al-Haddad, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a joint statement. It marked the first attack on a senior official of the militant group since a US-backed deal in October intended to halt fighting in the Palestinian enclave.

The strikes on Friday killed at least seven people and wounded more than 50 others, who were taken to Al-Shifa Hospital, Gaza emergency services said. Neither side confirmed whether the Hamas leader was killed or wounded in the attack.

In a joint statement on Friday, Netanyahu and Katz said al-Haddad was among the “architects” of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack and accused him of involvement in holding hostages taken during the assault. They also accused him of refusing to implement a plan promoted by US President Donald Trump for Hamas to disarm and for Gaza to be demilitarized.

Since the first phase of the ceasefire took effect last year, Israel has continued to carry out strikes in Gaza, much of which has been reduced to rubble. Under the truce, Israeli forces retained control of a largely depopulated zone covering more than half the enclave, while Hamas remained in control of the remaining coastal strip. Both sides have accused each other of violating the truce, and talks on advancing Trump’s post-war plan for Gaza remain deadlocked.

Since Israel launched its military campaign in the territory, more than 72,000 people have been killed and over 172,000 wounded over the past three years, according to the Palestinian health authorities.

Israel’s war against Hamas and its siege of Gaza have drawn growing international criticism, including threats of sanctions. Western support for Israel has also eroded amid rising civilian casualties and a worsening humanitarian crisis in the enclave.

Mercedes-Benz is considering engaging in defense production if it would make “business sense,” its CEO Ola Kallenius has told the Wall Street Journal.

The Munich-based company once manufactured military hardware on a large scale, before and during World War II. It began supplying trucks and airplane engines to the Nazis in 1937.

After Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, all of the vehicles produced by Mercedes-Benz were sent to the army or to businesses viewed as essential for the war effort. During that period, almost half of the carmaker’s 63,000 employees were forced laborers, POWs and concentration camp inmates, according to the Mercedes-Benz’s website.

In his interview with the WSJ on Friday, Kallenius stressed that “the world has become a more unpredictable place, and I think it is absolutely clear that Europe needs to increase its defense profile. Should we be able to play a positive role in that, we would be willing to do so.”

According to the CEO, defense-related operations would likely constitute “a minor share” of Mercedes-Benz’s business, which would remain focused on making civilian cars.

Germany and other EU states have accelerated military spending and defense procurement in recent years, with Brussels urging member states to expand arms production and reduce reliance on US military supplies.

The push toward rearmament comes as Germany’s industrial sector struggles with weak growth, high energy costs and falling competitiveness, prompting some manufacturers to look at defense contracts as a new source of revenue.

In February, Mercedes-Benz reported a 57% drop in profit in 2025 compared to the previous year as European carmakers continue to struggle amid rising production costs caused by growing energy prices, supply chain disruptions, regulatory pressure and competition from Chinese companies.

The Financial Times reported in March that another German carmaker, Volkswagen, was in talks with Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems to convert its failing Osnabrueck plant to the production of air-defense missiles. A spokesman for VW denied the report.

In 2022, then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz unveiled a €100 billion ($113 billion) military modernization plan for the German armed forces. Der Spiegel reported last month that the Defense Ministry in Berlin had signed some 47,000 procurement contracts since then.

The European Union has taken yet another step in its long-running confrontation with Russia. But what now stands out is not only the scale – it is the restless, almost reflexive expansion of sanctions as a default instrument of policy.

In April, EU authorities unveiled their 20th round of sanctions targeting Russia and Belarus, while pointedly extending their reach toward China.

Sanctions spiral

What was once framed as a targeted response now resembles a sanctions regime without clear geographic or strategic limits. By including 56 designations tied to Russia’s military-industrial complex – 17 of them in China, the United Arab Emirates, Belarus, and Central Asia – the EU has effectively dissolved the boundaries of its own confrontation. Another 60 entities now face tightened export controls tied to alleged contributions to Russia’s defense sector.

For the first time, even a Chinese state-owned entity has been targeted by anti-Belarusian sanctions. In Brussels, this is justified through the language of “dual-use” goods. But outside Europe, the perception is of a growing tendency toward economic coercion that stretches legal authority across borders, fueled by an escalating appetite for pressure.

China’s response was swift: officials condemned what they described as “long-arm jurisdiction,” rejecting the EU’s attempt to discipline Chinese firms operating far beyond European territory. More importantly, Beijing read the move as a signal of the EU’s shifting posture toward China itself.

Within a day, China placed seven European entities on its control list over arms sales to Taiwan, imposing restrictions that mirror the EU’s own extraterritorial reach. These measures prohibit the transfer of Chinese goods to the targeted firms, extending the ripple effects well beyond those directly sanctioned.

The list includes one German entity, two Belgian firms, and four Czech companies – including military industrial manufacturers Omnipol and Excalibur Army, all deeply embedded in supply chains connected to Ukraine.

The prominence of Czech firms reflects a deliberate strategic shift in Prague between 2022 and 2025 – a pivot away from Beijing and toward Taipei that has reshaped the country’s geopolitical role.

This transformation has been multifaceted. Political engagement with Taiwan has intensified, exceeding the limits of the One China principle. Economically, the Czech Republic has inserted itself into semiconductor supply chains linked to Taiwan, seeking to hedge against dependence on Chinese production.

But the most sensitive dimension lies in defense cooperation. Cybersecurity coordination, intelligence exchanges, and the transfer of military equipment have all deepened. Czech-made systems have moved to the island, while Taiwanese components have flowed to Ukraine, often rerouted through intermediaries to avoid scrutiny. This emerging alignment increasingly feeds into the conflict in Ukraine while simultaneously intersecting with tensions around Taiwan.

The Taiwan-EU-Ukraine Axis

Taiwan has expanded its drone manufacturing footprint in the Czech Republic, anchoring joint initiatives aimed at building shared military-industrial capacity. In 2025, more than 70,000 drones were exported to the Czech Republic and over 30,000 to Poland. Taiwanese high-tech components, European integration and manufacturing, and Ukrainian battlefield deployment form a continuous loop. Systems are developed in one region, assembled in another, and tested in active conflict.

What is presented as cooperation or resilience begins to resemble a distributed war economy, stretching across continents while maintaining the appearance of separation.

From Beijing’s perspective, this is a network – one that links Taiwan, the EU, and Ukraine into a shared strategic space aimed at countering both Russia and China.

China’s sanctions, in this light, are less a reaction than a calculated attempt to disrupt this chain at its most exposed nodes.

Within Brussels, this trajectory reflects a deeper shift. Certain policymakers appear increasingly convinced that Europe’s security must be asserted not only in its immediate neighborhood, but across a wider geopolitical spectrum.

Yet the more the EU expands its sanctions and security engagements, the more it risks entangling itself in multiple fronts simultaneously. What began as a response to a regional conflict is now bleeding into the Indo-Pacific, merging distinct crises into a single, volatile continuum.

There is also a growing perception, both within and beyond Europe, that sanctions have become less a tool of last resort and more an instinctive response. This habitual reliance narrows space for diplomacy and fosters a climate in which escalation becomes easier than restraint.

What is unfolding is not simply a sanctions dispute. It is the emergence of a more fragmented and confrontational international (dis)order.

The EU’s expanding measures signal a readiness to project power through economic means far beyond its borders. China’s response increasingly demonstrates that such moves will be met in kind. Each step reinforces the other, feeding a cycle of action and reaction that grows harder to control.

At the center of this dynamic lies the Taiwan-EU-Ukraine triangle – a convergence of technology, industry, and conflict that encapsulates the shifting nature of global competition. It is here, in these interlocking relationships, that the future outlines of geopolitical rivalry are being shaped.

The stakes ahead

For Europe, the path forward is fraught. An ever-expanding sanctions regime risks overextension and unintended consequences. For China, the priority remains clear: to defend its economic and strategic interests against what it views as encroaching pressure.

What is undeniable is that the old boundaries are dissolving. Decisions made in Brussels now echo in Beijing, Taipei, and Kiev alike. Supply chains double as strategic corridors and industrial cooperation blends into military alignment.

The deeper question is whether this trajectory can be sustained without tipping into a broader and more dangerous confrontation. Sanctions, once seen as a controlled instrument, are becoming part of a larger pattern of escalation that is steadily redrawing the map of global politics.

The EU may believe it is shaping events. But in binding together distant theaters and tightening the screws of economic pressure, it may also be setting forces in motion that it cannot contain.

Russian President Vladimir Putin will make an official visit to China on May 19 and 20, the Kremlin has said.

The Russian president has been invited to the country by his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, it said in a statement on Saturday.

During the trip, Putin and Xi are expected to discuss bilateral relations, ways to further deepen strategic interaction between Moscow and Beijing, as well as exchange views on key international and regional issues, the statement read.

The talks are set to conclude with a joint statement from the two leaders and the signing of various agreements between the Russian and Chinese governments.

Putin will also meet with Chinese Premier Li Qiang to discuss trade and economic relations, according to the Kremlin.

Xi was among the foreign leaders who traveled to Moscow for the May 9, 2025 Victory Day parade marking the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.

Relations between China and Russia have deepened in recent years, with Beijing refusing to join Western sanctions over the Ukraine conflict and the two countries expanding trade, energy and diplomatic ties. Moscow and Beijing have also moved forward with major energy projects, including the proposed Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline, which would significantly increase Russian gas supplies to China.

Putin is expected to visit China twice in 2026, having also accepted an invitation to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Shenzhen in November, presidential aide Yury Ushakov said.

The international community must take a more active approach to the plight of displaced Palestinians and the Israeli occupation of their land, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Amir-Saeid Iravani said on Friday.

Iravani made the appeal on the 78th anniversary of the Nakba, a term used in the Arab and Muslim world to describe the flight and expulsion of more than 700,000 Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Today, around six million Palestinians are registered with the UN refugee agency UNRWA, many of them living in refugee camps.

There is an “urgent necessity for international mobilization to confront the root causes of this situation,” Iravani said, calling for resistance to Israeli occupation and “expansionist policies.” Support for Palestine “must not remain limited merely to expressions of sympathy,” he added, arguing that the world must abandon “approaches that have failed to achieve peace or justice.”

The situation has been further exacerbated by Israel’s war in Gaza, with the UN saying that the majority of the enclave’s pre-conflict population of 2.1 million has been displaced.

Officials in Israel have increasingly rejected calls for a two-state solution, arguing that the establishment of a fully independent Palestinian state would threaten their country’s existence.

“There will not be a Palestinian state. It’s very simple: it will not be established,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in November 2025, according to the Times of Israel.

The US-mediated truce between Israel and Lebanon has been extended by 45 days, US State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said on Friday.

Pigott said the sides had agreed to extend the ceasefire reached on April 16 following “highly productive talks.” He added that the Pentagon would host discussions with military delegations on May 29, while the State Department would hold another meeting focused on political matters on June 2-3.

“We hope these discussions will advance lasting peace between the two countries, full recognition of each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the establishment of genuine security along their shared border,” Pigott said.

The strikes have taken the lives of nearly 3,000 people in Lebanon since March, when Israel resumed operations against the armed group Hezbollah, which had fired rockets at Israel in support of Iran.

Tehran has since listed an end to hostilities in Lebanon as one of its key conditions for a peace agreement with the US and Israel.

Hezbollah, which was not part of the peace talks, has continued mortar, rocket, and drone attacks on Israeli troops stationed in parts of southern Lebanon that West Jerusalem says are needed for a “security zone.” The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have lost six soldiers since the start of the ceasefire, including a staff sergeant killed on Thursday.

Under the ceasefire agreement, Israel pledged not to carry out offensive operations against targets in Lebanon, while reserving the right to “take all necessary measures in self-defense, at any time, against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks.”

US President Donald Trump reaffirmed during his recent talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping that he would not change Washington’s policy toward Taiwan, US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz has said.

Beijing has long opposed US arms sales to the self-governing island and any diplomatic recognition of the government in Taipei. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said during Trump’s trip to China on Thursday that “Taiwan independence” and peace in the region were “as irreconcilable as fire and water.”

“At the end of the day, [Trump] made no commitments either way, in line with our longstanding policy of strategic ambiguity,” Waltz told Fox News on Friday. “There is a whole line of thinking that if you basically indicate or tell China that we won’t be there, that it could embolden them as well,” he added.

The US maintains informal ties with Taiwan, having withdrawn recognition in 1979. Although the People’s Republic of China has stressed that it seeks reunification with the island through peaceful means, it has indicated that it could resort to force if the wayward province formally declares independence.

In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Trump said that “nothing has changed” and that he was “not looking to have somebody go independent.”

“And, you know, we’re supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war. I’m not looking for that. I want them to cool down. I want China to cool down,” he added.

China has said it considers all contacts with the “separatist” government in Taiwan to be hostile acts. In 2022, Beijing condemned then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the island and launched snap military drills in response.

A federal jury in Chicago has ordered Boeing to pay $49.5 million to the family of a woman who died in the Ethiopian Airlines crash involving the ill-fated 737 MAX airliner. The aircraft went down shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa on March 10, 2019, killing all 157 passengers and crew on board.

Several months earlier, another Boeing 737 MAX operated by Lion Air crashed in Indonesia, killing all 189 people aboard. The two disasters prompted a 20-month worldwide grounding of the aircraft. Boeing later admitted that a design flaw in the flight control system was responsible for the crashes.

On Wednesday, jurors awarded the family of Samya Stumo $21 million for pain and emotional suffering, $16.5 million for loss of companionship, and $12 million for grief, according to the family’s attorneys.

Last November, a jury ordered Boeing to pay $28.45 million to the family of Shikha Garg, another victim of the 2019 Ethiopian Airlines disaster.

The company faced dozens of additional civil lawsuits, most of which were settled through confidential pretrial agreements worth billions of dollars in compensation.

In 2021, Boeing reached a deferred prosecution agreement with federal authorities and agreed to pay $2.5 billion to avoid prosecution after admitting it had deceived the Federal Aviation Administration regarding flaws in the 737 MAX flight-control system.

In 2024, the Department of Justice found the company in breach of the settlement terms. However, under US President Donald Trump, the department dropped its demand that Boeing plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge.

Last November, a federal judge in Texas approved the DOJ’s decision to dismiss the criminal case against the aerospace manufacturer, which is also a major defense contractor for the US military. An appeals court upheld the ruling in March this year.

US President Donald Trump’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, was heavy on pomp, praise, and promises. But what did both leaders walk away with after the superpower summit in Beijing?

Trump left Beijing on Friday, two days after becoming the first US president to visit the Chinese capital in almost a decade. The trip took place amid two paused conflicts – Trump’s trade war with Beijing and his real war against Iran – which directly affect China, and although both leaders hailed positive developments in their relationship, differing statements from the two sides suggest that these issues and others remain unresolved.

Xi gives Trump a royal welcome 

From the military honors and red carpet that greeted Trump on Wednesday, to the garden tour of Xi’s Zhongnanhai compound on Friday morning, the Chinese president was a gracious host throughout. At a lavish banquet on Thursday, Xi declared that “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and making America great again can go hand in hand.”

Ahead of bilateral talks on Friday, Trump claimed that he and Xi had “settled a lot of different problems that other people wouldn’t have been able to settle, and the relationship is a very strong one.” 

Did Trump and Xi reach breakthrough on Taiwan? 

Amid the optics and pageantry, few observers expected any progress on Taiwan – the longest-running unresolved issue between Washington and Beijing. Xi maintains that Taiwan’s reunification with the Chinese mainland is “inevitable,” while the US has followed a policy of strategic ambiguity since the 1970s. It accepts but does not endorse Beijing’s claim to the island.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday, Trump said that he and Xi “talked a lot” about Taiwan, and about a planned US arms sale to Taipei this year. “I made no commitment either way,” Trump added. The US president then said that Xi had asked him whether he’d use the US military to defend Taiwan. In keeping with the US’ policy of ambiguity, Trump said that he replied “I don’t talk about that.” 

“I’m not looking to have somebody go independent,” Trump said in a Fox News interview aired on Friday. “And, you know, we’re supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war? I’m not looking for that. I want them to cool down. I want China to cool down.” 

What did they say about Iran? 

Trump emerged from talks with Xi claiming victory on the issue of Iran, with his own comments and White House statements suggesting that Beijing would help push Iran into a peace deal that favors the US.

“We did discuss Iran,” Trump said on Friday. “We feel very similar about [how] we want it to end. We don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon. We want the straits open.” A White House statement went further, claiming “President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to the militarization of the Strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use, and he expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce China’s dependence on the Strait in the future.” 

China imports around 12% of its oil from Iran. While the Islamic Republic has allowed some Chinese vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz, a five-point China-Pakistan proposal to resolve the conflict has urged all parties to ensure the “normal passage” of ships through the waterway as soon as possible.

In one potential breakthrough, Trump said on Friday that he is considering lifting sanctions on Chinese companies that purchase Iranian oil.

Did Trump and Xi settle the trade war? 

The US trade war with China remains in a state of truce, with Trump’s heightened tariffs on Chinese goods paused until November. Trump left Beijing claiming that he had secured “fantastic trade deals” with Xi, including the purchase by China of 200 Boeing passenger jets. US trade representative Jamieson Greer also said that he expected China to buy “double-digit billions” worth of US agricultural exports “over the next three years.” 

However, Boeing has not confirmed the jet deal, and even if it does, the purchase of 200 aircraft falls dramatically short of the 500 predicted by market insiders before the trip. The Chinese government has not confirmed any trade deals, agricultural or otherwise.

After meeting American business executives who accompanied Trump to Beijing – including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Nvidia chief Jensen Huang – Xi “noted that China-US economic and trade ties are mutually beneficial and win-win in nature,” read an ambiguous statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Trump has repeatedly accused China of facilitating the flow of fentanyl and its precursor chemicals into the US, slapping a 10% tariff on China over its alleged inaction on the issue last year. Beijing maintains that the accusations are politically motivated.

The White House claimed on Friday that Trump and Xi agreed on “the need to build on progress in ending the flow of fentanyl precursors into the United States,” although the Chinese side has not referred to fentanyl in any of its post-summit statements.

China’s near-monopoly on rare earth minerals – vital in the manufacture of electric vehicle motors, guided missiles, and a range of high-tech components – is one of Beijing’s strongest cards in the trade dispute with the US. China imposed export controls on these minerals last year, but relented and allowed their sale to the US when the trade war was put on hold in October.

The fact that neither Trump nor the Chinese government mentioned rare earths after the summit suggests that the issue is still very much unsettled.

The bottom line 

Although the most pressing issues between the US and China remain unresolved, both sides portrayed it as positive. Trump said that his trip was “very successful,” while Xi described it as an “historic and landmark” visit. Perhaps the most significant outcome of the trip was Trump’s invitation to Xi to visit the White House in September, which Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi confirmed on Friday that Xi had accepted.

Xi last visited the White House in 2015. The fact that he will travel to Washington before Trump’s tariffs are reapplied indicates that both Washington and Beijing believe that a trade deal can be struck, and some agreement on other issues can be reached.

US President Donald Trump has said recovering Iran’s highly enriched uranium is “more for public relations” than anything else, downplaying what remains one of the key sticking points in negotiations aimed at ending the Middle East war.

Following the US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran last year, Trump claimed the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities and severely limited Tehran’s ability to continue enrichment. However, an estimated 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity – a short technical step from weapons-grade level – is believed to be buried beneath the rubble of bombed nuclear sites.

In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Trump suggested removing the material was not urgent because the US maintained round-the-clock surveillance over the facilities, but added he would still “feel better” if the uranium was removed.

Trump, who has repeatedly warned he could resume strikes on Iran, also signaled his patience with negotiations is running out. “I am not going to be much more patient. They should make a deal,” he said. While active fighting triggered by US-Israeli strikes on Iran in late February paused under a fragile ceasefire reached in early April, negotiations on a broader peace deal remain deadlocked over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Iran insists its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, arguing that abandoning enrichment would undermine its sovereignty and technological independence. Tehran has repeatedly rejected demands to dismantle the program or surrender its uranium stockpile – including proposals to store it in Russia – though it has reportedly offered to downblend it to lower civilian-grade levels. However, Iranian parliamentary spokesman Ebrahim Rezaei warned earlier this week that Tehran could enrich uranium to 90% purity – considered weapons-grade – if attacked again.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has accused the Yale School of Medicine of illegally discriminating against white and Asian applicants, following a year-long inquiry into its admissions practices.

The investigation comes as the administration of President Donald Trump has intensified scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies at federally funded institutions over the past year. The authorities have argued that universities which receive taxpayer money must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws.

According to the DOJ, US medical schools in particular “use substantial federal financial assistance.”

In a press release on Thursday, the DOJ stated that the leadership of the Yale School of Medicine has “intentionally selected applicants based on their race,” and “studied how to use racial proxies to circumvent” a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the use of affirmative action in admission decisions.

The inquiry indicated that “Black and Hispanic students have a much higher chance of admission to Yale than White or Asian students with the same test scores,” the DOJ added.

The press release noted that “illegal race politics” are of particular concern in the medical field, “where quality and excellence are vitally important to public safety.”

Last Wednesday, the DOJ sent a similar letter to the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing it of unfairly favoring “preferred race classes of Black and Hispanic.”

An analysis of fundraising disclosures published by Yale’s student newspaper in January found conservatives to be overwhelmingly underrepresented among professors at the Ivy League university, with 97.6% of contributions going to Democrats.

Over the past year, the Trump administration has suspended funding to several Ivy League schools, including Harvard University, Columbia University, Princeton University, and Cornell University, over alleged anti-Semitism and refusal to dismantle DEI programs.

For Palestinians May 15th is a date etched into their souls. Nakba, literally means ‘catastrophe’ in Arabic. For Palestinians on this day in 1948, the day after the State of Israel was declared, the destruction of their homeland began.

While Israelis celebrated the birth of their nation, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced. Some were forced out; others left after being advised to, as Arab States fought against the fledging Israeli state. Almost all Palestinians will tell you that those that left thought they’d be back home within a few weeks. Seventy-eight years later and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are still waiting.

This year the pain is being felt even more acutely in the West Bank, as many Palestinians – or West Bankers - feel they are living through a new Nakba. Salah Khawaja, who works for the  Colonization and Wall Resistance Commission witnesses on daily basis how communities are being forced out of their lands.

“Today, history is repeating itself through these same terrorist groups, committing even larger and more dangerous massacres under the cover of international silence,” Khawaja says.

Israel’s current government has approved 103 settlements in the West Bank since it took office in 2022. These settlements are what Israel deems ‘legal’ and it differentiates them from the more ad-hoc developments that it doesn’t yet recognize. Though under International law, all these settlements are illegal.

Between 1967 and 1979 the UN says Israel established 79 settlements in the West Bank. Khawaja outlines how the expansion now is ramping up in pace. “[N]ow there are plans to legalize another 18 settlement outposts, meaning the total exceeds 120 new settlement outposts across the Palestinian West Bank. This is considered an extremely dangerous development, amounting to more than nearly 80% of everything that had been built from 1967 until 2022,” he says.

Since 2025, settlements Israel deems ‘illegal’ have been spreading. As the land runs out in Area C, the expansion is hitting Area B and many fear Area A will be targeted. Sharon is an Israeli activist based in Duma in the West Bank. She works with locals to document the attacks and harassment they are facing from these settlers.

“They’re saying we want to finish C and we want to go into B after B we are going into A. There is no end to this process. Once they have this village surrounded, they are attacking it inside. It’s the same, village after village,” she says.

Her concern is how long it is before Palestinians have had enough and can take no more. She says Israelis are blind to the problems that are stacking up as a result of the continued encroachment in the West Bank.

“So the plan is to abuse these people until they decide to leave without any foresight that ‘we have already done this in ‘48’. We’ve already banished people and they didn’t go and have their own lives. They formed the PLO, they formed all these organizations to fight Israel…this is going to happen again,” Sharon says.

She’s not the only one suggesting the West Bank is ready to explode. Comments attributed in the Israeli press to the IDF Central Command chief Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth, suggest he believes settler violence could spark a new Palestinian uprising. Bluth is reported to have cautioned, “It’s quite a miracle the Palestinian public is still indifferent… but it won’t remain indifferent forever.”

While a former Mossad chief, Tamir Pardo, has suggested that settler violence is causing an “existential threat” to the State of Israel. He said he was distraught over what is happening. “My mother was a Holocaust survivor, and what I saw reminded me of the events that happened against Jews in the last century. I feel ashamed,” Pardo says.

Bedouin villages often to appear to be hastily constructed from corrugated fencing and salvaged materials. However, despite their ability to be dismantled and moved easily, these are real homes. In January 2026, a whole community of around 135 families, was forced to pack up everything and leave Ras ‘Ein al ‘Auja for good.

In the months leading up to this decision, RT spoke to locals about the increasing harassment they were facing from settlers. They described being cut off from the local spring, which for years had provided a place for their herds to take water. They showed the team videos of settlers threatening them day and night.

While the team was filming in Ras ‘Ein al ‘Auja, they witnessed settlers trespassing over Bedouin lands and allowing their flocks to graze outside homes. The RT team was also prevented by one settler from accessing part of the village, this settler also assaulted a member of the team.

In Al-Mughayyir, another Bedouin community is under threat – for the second time. Abu Najeh says that his family fled here from their original home in Ein Samiya after being forced out two years ago. “They want to displace us again,” Najeh says, adding, “When we first came here, they told us this was Area B, Palestinian land, but then they turned around and told us, 'No, you are not allowed to stay here either'.”

The situation has taken a toll on him and his family. He sighs as he says, “I swear I do not know where we are supposed to go. There is nowhere left.”

While Israeli government figures, including the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claim settler violence is the result of a ‘few bad eggs,’ there is plenty of evidence to show it is much more widespread than that. It is also deadly.  Over the last 15 months or so, more than 270 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank. Some are directly attributable to settlers. No one has been held accountable for those deaths.

IDF forces routinely open fire on Palestinians in the West Bank, including in situations where soldiers say locals are ‘throwing stones’ at them. This too has deadly consequences, with innocent bystanders caught in the fray.

In May, Naif Samaro was packing up his shawarma shop in Nablus and getting ready to head to the hospital. His wife was waiting to give birth to their first child. Naif was overjoyed at the prospect of becoming a father; he never saw that day.

As he left his shop, he became aware there was an IDF operation nearby. Soldiers say locals were throwing stones at them and opened fire. A bullet hit Naif. He was rushed to the same hospital where a day later his wife would give birth to a baby boy, Yaman. Naif was pronounced dead on arrival.

His mother-in-law describes the heart-wrenching moment she found out that Naif had been killed. “I kept trying to say no, God willing, maybe the news is not true,” she says. Fathiya Al-Shami then had to break that news to her daughter. “When she saw us coming to her she was surprised why are all these people here when it was supposed to be just me, and we told her come with us to the hospital. At that point you cannot hide the truth,” she explains.

While deaths like these, sometimes, make the headlines, there is another form of killing that is also taking place that is less covered in the international press – the total destruction of olive groves. A vital lifeline for many Palestinian families, olive trees provide food and a source of revenue.

Intensified access restrictions and new settler outposts also made it difficult for many Palestinians to even access the groves and collect olives. This had a huge impact and put many families economically under even more strain.

Again, while this is a form of harassment used by settlers, Israeli government figures are also celebrating the destruction of olive trees. Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, is a huge proponent of the settler movement. In fact, he is part of the settler movement.

He recently announced some 3,000 olive trees were uprooted by Israel’s Civil Administration agency in a bid to secure more land for settlements. Smotrich declared, “We are building the Land of Israel and destroying the idea of a Palestinian state.” That is a statement he makes frequently.

Israel is using every mechanism possible to make land grabs in the West Bank easier. The Knesset is currently reviewing a new law that if passed, would enable it to have full control over heritage and archeological sites across the West Bank, even in area A – which is supposed to be fully under Palestinian control.

Salah Khawaja from the Colonization and Wall Resistance Commission suggests this is about white-washing Palestinian history. “Even Palestinian historical areas, including around 2,500 archaeological sites, are described by Smotrich as “Biblical archaeological sites,” he says, adding this means there is a “falsification of Palestinian history, civilization, and reality” that is taking place.

Israel’s Civil Administration’s Archeology Unit suggests already there are over 2,600 archeological sites in the West Bank. But given that the whole of the West Bank is historically important to the three main Abrahamic faiths, almost any part could be declared a heritage site, if the law passes. The bill may have the support it needs in the Israeli Parliament, but it has already faced a backlash from archeologists who have accused the government of approving a 'de facto annexation.'

As Palestinians take a moment to remember the ‘48 Nakba, to think about the fear, the violence their grandparents or great grandparents faced, this year they perhaps have an even deeper connection, a more personal understanding of what unfolded. Instead of just remembering, they too are living through their own Nakba. Will they be forced out? When you ask this question to a Palestinian, the response is a defiant ‘No!’ – but how much more can they take?

Tommy Robinson’s ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally is so controversial that the British government has deployed the latest surveillance technology against attendees and banned speakers from entering the country. What are they so scared of?

Tens of thousands of protesters are expected at the Unite the Kingdom rally in London on Saturday, where they will march through the streets of the British capital to government buildings at Whitehall. The rally is expected to be the largest right-wing gathering in the UK this year, as public anger against Prime Minister Keir Starmer builds on both sides of the political spectrum.

What is Unite the Kingdom?

The first Unite the Kingdom rally took place in July 2024. Riding a wave of right-wing anger – amplified by the stabbing of three children by a teenager of Rwandan descent two days later – organizer Tommy Robinson held further events that October, and in September 2025.

Last year’s rally took place after a wave of protests and riots at hotels housing asylum seekers, and included speeches from French Reconquete (Reconquest) leader Eric Zemmour, Polish Law and Justice MEP Dominik Tarczynski, and Elon Musk, who addressed demonstrators via video link.

Described by the media as “anti-Islam,” “far-right,” and “xenophobic,” the rally drew attendees frustrated with rising immigration, the growing influence of Islam in British politics, and Starmer’s response to earlier protests and riots – which involved jailing hundreds of people for online speech and advancing a draconian online censorship bill.

This year’s protest promises much of the same, although Unite the Kingdom’s website is opaque about the nature of the event. The rally will “bring UK citizens together in London for a peaceful, people-led assembly focused on unity, awareness, and collective responsibility,” the site states. “The event is designed to provide a safe and respectful space for individuals to come together, connect with one another, and stand united on the issues affecting our nation.”

How many people will take part in Unite the Kingdom?

London’s Metropolitan Police expect around 50,000 people to attend the rally, but organizers expect many times that number. Unite the Kingdom’s organizers claim that a million people took part in last year’s rally, but police put the figure at 150,000.

Is Unite the Kingdom violent?

Twenty-three people were arrested at last year’s protest, the majority for assault, disorder, and obstructing police officers. Minor scuffles broke out between protesters, police, and left-wing counterprotesters, and one left-wing demonstrator was also detained.

‘Unite The Kingdom’ demo turns ugly in London as protesters and police clash. In a statement, the Met police said 26 officers were injured. They admitted the number in attendance “significantly exceeded the estimates of organisers”. FULL VIDEO on YT: https://t.co/6LFyhUNvtd pic.twitter.com/epZFuwY1T4

— Urban Pictures (@Urban_Pictures) September 14, 2025

These numbers paled in comparison to the 423 arrests made two weeks earlier at the Notting Hill Carnival, an annual celebration of black and Caribbean culture in London. The violence at Notting Hill received almost no media coverage, while headlines used to describe Unite the Kingdom included “Tommy Robinson protesters attack police” and “Far right’s show of force leaves Met desperately kettling counter-protesters.”

Who is Tommy Robinson?

Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) has been a fixture on the British right for decades. After a youth spent racking up a petty criminal record in the anti-Islam ‘English Defence League’, Robinson reinvented himself as a filmmaker, free speech activist, and crusader against Islamic immigration after breaking with the EDL in 2013.

In the years since, Robinson has been jailed for filming alleged members of a Pakistani rape gang during their trial, and for falsely claiming that a Syrian refugee in a Yorkshire secondary school had a history of assaulting female students. Robinson was arrested as he attempted to leave England the day after the 2024 Unite the Kingdom rally and imprisoned for airing a documentary containing the allegations about the Syrian refugee at the protest.

The rally takes place one week after Starmer’s Labour Party suffered an historic defeat in local elections across England. Labour lost almost 1,500 seats, 60% of the seats it was defending, and Starmer – the most unpopular prime minister in modern British history – heads into the weekend embroiled in a leadership contest after refusing to resign.

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK was the biggest winner in the local elections, picking up 1,492 seats – almost as many as Labour lost. For Starmer, the sight of tens of thousands of right-wingers marching in London can only add insult to injury.

How is the government preparing for the rally?

Robinson and his supporters will face an unprecedented police presence on Saturday. Some 4,000 Metropolitan Police officers will be deployed on the streets of the capital in riot gear, with armed response units on standby. Mounted units, dog units, and undercover detectives will be active, while drones will be used to monitor the crowds from above.

Facial recognition cameras will be installed in areas where attendees are expected to gather before the rally, “comparing the faces of those walking past, with the faces of those on a specific watchlist,” police spokesman James Harman said at a press conference on Wednesday.

“If hate speech is used at the rally, we, the police will intervene,” Harman added, warning that “both the speakers and the organizers will face consequences if that happens.”

We will block far right agitators from traveling to Britain this weekend for a march designed to confront and provoke our diverse capital city.

We will not allow people to come to the UK, threaten our communities and spread hate on our streets. pic.twitter.com/VXwyhsDOnD

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) May 11, 2026

Starmer has banned 11 speakers from entering the UK, including Belgian nationalist politician Filip Dewinter, Dutch activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek, and American pro-MAGA commentator Valentina Gomez. “We will not allow people to come to the UK to threaten our communities and spread hate on our streets,” he said in a speech on Monday, describing those targeted as “far-right agitators.”

“Starmer has just admitted he banned me and other commentators from traveling to the UK because we would ‘set back communities’,” Vlaardingerbroek said in response to the ban. “Yet mass third-world migration doesn’t bother him as it only sets back the one community he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about: the White native population.”

Starmer has just admitted he banned me and other commentators from traveling to the UK because we would “set back communities.” Yet mass third-world migration doesn’t bother him as it only sets back the one community he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about: the White native population. pic.twitter.com/oIBdDdORD5

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) May 11, 2026

Is there a counterprotest?

Previous Unite the Kingdom rallies have been met by smaller crowds of left-wing counterprotesters. This year, the march takes place on the same day as a pro-Palestine rally marking ‘Nakba Day’, which commemorates the expulsion of Palestinians from their territory in what is now the state of Israel.

The Nakba Day march was not organized to oppose Unite the Kingdom, although some groups attending the pro-Palestine rally say they’re doing so both to support the Palestinian cause and oppose Robinson’s “hate march.”

This Saturday 16 May…

Show fascist Tommy Robinson & the far right that we won’t let them divide us. pic.twitter.com/YdMh012ubs

— Stand Up To Racism (@AntiRacismDay) May 14, 2026

The Metropolitan Police will not scan Nakba Day protesters with facial recognition cameras, although Harman has warned that speakers and participants at the rally will “face consequences” if they use “hateful” slogans such as “intifada” or “death to the IDF.”

Unite the Kingdom supporters have accused Starmer and the Met of “two-tier” policing – using harsher measures against them than the counter-protesters

However, the speech restrictions deployed against both gatherings illustrates why Starmer is so despised by both the right and left. After his 2024 crackdown on anti-immigration speech, Starmer listed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, arrested thousands of protesters for voicing support for said organization, and called for the “policing of language” and banning of anti-Israel protests.

If any common ground exists between Tommy Robinson’s marchers and the pro-Palestine crowd, it’s in their mutual resentment of Starmer’s government, which will be on full display in London this weekend.

The US boasts impressive military capabilities that solidify the country’s position among the world’s military powers. This also applies to missile technology – the US maintains its status as a major global missile power, and long competed with the Soviet Union in the missile and space race.

The US did not immediately recognize the potential for developing powerful rockets for launching spacecraft and delivering nuclear warheads over intercontinental distances. However, it soon caught up with the USSR and leveraged its advantages effectively. By investing significant resources and attracting top engineering talent, the US achieved breakthroughs in several areas: Solid rocket fuels, simple silo-based launch systems, compact thermonuclear warheads, and advanced guidance systems enhanced by cutting-edge electronics. These advancements ultimately led to the development of Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) and cruise missiles.

The Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union played a crucial role in the evolution of US missile technology, particularly in the development of the nuclear triad.

The US strategic nuclear forces were initially composed of a substantial fleet of long-range bombers designed to carry atomic bombs. Though the US was engaged in developing rocket technology, at the time, it did not receive the same level of priority as it did in the Soviet Union.

In the aftermath of World War II, the US, like the USSR, studied the rocket-building legacy of the Third Reich. This endeavor was bolstered by the defection of prominent German rocket scientists like Wernher von Braun to the US. The foundation for US rocketry was laid in the late 1940s with the replication of German V-2 missiles. Subsequently, American engineers began implementing new technologies that were pioneered in Germany, such as fuel tanks, new engine types, and fuels. By 1958, this led to the development of medium-range missile projects like Redstone, Thor, and Jupiter. That same period saw the initiation of work on Atlas – America’s first liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which proved to be more compact than the R-7 – the world’s first ICBM developed in the USSR by Sergey Korolev.

The rapid advancement of chemical technologies in the US fueled rapid progress. At the time, solid propellant for missiles (composite propellant) was developed. This breakthrough facilitated the development of relatively compact submarine-launched missiles and initiated the deployment of the first American solid-fueled intercontinental missile, Minuteman I, in 1962. The benefits of solid fuel were clear: Ease of maintenance, non-toxic and non-self-igniting components, high reliability, and sufficient characteristics for delivering payloads. In the early 1960s, the US deployed both liquid-fueled ICBMs equipped with heavy megaton warheads and solid-fueled Minuteman missiles with medium-yield warheads; however, over time, only the Minuteman remained in service with the US Army.

Efforts were also underway to develop supersonic intercontinental cruise missiles like the AGM-28 Hound Dog and air-launched ballistic missiles for the US Air Force. By the 1970s, however, the focus shifted toward subsonic air-launched long-range cruise missiles. Interestingly, some speculate that the CIA ‘borrowed’ this idea from Soviet developers, whose project from the late 1960s failed to gain traction in the Kremlin and was subsequently shelved.

The nuclear triad: Strategic systems

The modern US nuclear triad comprises a classic set of missile systems: Ground-launched ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and air-launched cruise missiles and bombs. The US strategic nuclear forces are characterized by a minimized set of systems: One type of ICBM, one type of SLBM, and one type of nuclear-armed cruise missile. While the inventory of aerial nuclear bombs is more varied, efforts are underway to minimize the variety of bombs by developing warheads with adjustable yields.

Currently, around 400 solid-fueled LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBMs are deployed in silo launch facilities across the US. These missiles were originally introduced in the early 1970s and have undergone several upgrades since then. They boast a range of up to 13,000 km and can be armed with up to three W78/W87 MIRV warheads, each yielding 300-350 kilotons of TNT equivalent. Advanced guidance systems ensure accuracy within the 90-200 meter range. Minuteman III missiles are expected to remain operational until the early 2030s, at which point they will gradually be replaced by the new Sentinel LGM-35A ICBMs.

In 2026, the US is set to begin testing the new Sentinel missiles, with deployment to follow. The developers aimed to create a missile that could be launched from the same silos as Minuteman III, but it appears that new launch facilities may need to be built from scratch. The design of the Sentinel missile remains fairly conservative, featuring the same three stages and similar dimensions, albeit with new types of fuel, upgraded electronics, and warheads. However, there is currently no mention of hypersonic glide vehicles or other major innovations; the focus is on practicality and cost-effectiveness. Historically, funding for these types of programs has never been an issue.

The situation with America’s underwater missile shield is similar. The US Navy does not plan to retire the highly successful UGM-133A Trident II D5 missile. Currently in service aboard Ohio-class submarines (14 submarines with 20 missiles each), the Trident II will also be deployed on new Columbia-class submarines (carrying 16 missiles each) which are currently under construction. British submarines are equipped with Trident II missiles as well. This effective three-stage ballistic missile has a range of 7,800-12,000 km and can carry up to eight type W76-1/2 (90 kilotons) or W88 (455 kilotons) thermonuclear MIRV warheads. Its Circular Error Probable (CEP) ranges from 90 to 120 meters. While Trident II missiles have been tested using low-trajectory flight paths to circumvent contemporary missile defense systems and achieve medium-range strikes, there have been no reports about the development of hypersonic warheads, though it’s possible that these types of projects are shrouded in secrecy.

In the US Air Force, the nuclear-capable aircraft include around 60 subsonic B-52H bombers, 20 B-2A Spirit bombers utilizing stealth technology, and the more compact B-21 Raider second-generation bomber (there are plans to produce at least 100). The backbone of America’s nuclear arsenal consists of AGM-86B ALCM cruise missiles which were deployed in the mid-1980s. This subsonic missile, powered by a turbojet engine, has a range of 2,500 km and carries a thermonuclear warhead (W80) with a yield ranging from 5-150 kilotons. Another key weapon is the latest version of the B61 thermonuclear bomb. Looking ahead, the cruise missiles are set to be replaced by new Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) missiles, also with a range of at least 2,500 km. It’s likely that one of the hypersonic air-launched missiles will be equipped with a nuclear warhead and will enter service in the coming years.

Significant funding is allocated for the development of strategic nuclear forces within the nuclear triad. This includes the Sentinel LGM-35A program, construction of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and the development of new Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N) for the US Navy, including new Trump-class battleships. There are also several programs focused on developing air-launched missiles.

Non-nuclear missile systems 

Since the 1990s, the US has focused on developing long-range non-nuclear missile systems. Several types of cruise missiles have been adopted by the US Air Force and Navy and were used in policing operations worldwide.

At the forefront of these systems is the Tomahawk BGM-109 cruise missile developed by Raytheon. It is the most widely produced naval cruise missile in the US, with over 4,500 units manufactured. Depending on the variant, these missiles are equipped with various types of warheads and have ranges from 1,600 to 2,500 km. The guidance system is fully autonomous, utilizing extreme navigation technologies, as well as satellite navigation systems. The subsonic missile flies at low altitudes, reaching speeds of around 880 kph. These missiles are widely deployed on US ships and submarines, and are also in service with several other navies. Arleigh Burke-class destroyers launch them from vertical launch systems, while Ohio-class SSGN submarines use specialized launch systems; all other types of US attack submarines can also fire Tomahawks from torpedo tubes or launch systems. Tomahawk missiles are versatile and effective not just against land targets but also as anti-ship missiles.

During the 1990s and 2000s, air-launched cruise missiles like the JASSM AGM-158B and its extended-range variant, the JASSM-ER, developed by Lockheed Martin, were introduced. These missiles incorporate elements of stealth technology. The standard version has a range of around 500 km, while the Extended Range (ER) variant boasts a range of around 1,000 km. With their low observability, these missiles are capable of effectively evading modern air defense systems and targeting protected assets.

The new missiles are set to be deployed on both supersonic B-1B long-range bombers and subsonic B-52H aircraft, as well as various types of frontline jets. Currently, efforts are underway to replace these missiles with the subsonic LRASM AGM-158C, which is being developed. This missile features advanced electronics and is designed to be even less observable. 

Hypersonic weapons are also being developed for the US Air Force. Various projects have emerged, but the focus is now on the HACM (Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile) project. This initiative aims to create a missile powered by an air-breathing scramjet engine, boasting a range of up to 1,900 km and speeds exceeding Mach 5. Flight tests are planned for 2026. They will determine whether the program receives the green light or gets shelved – similar to the earlier AGM-183A ARRW hypersonic air-to-surface missile project. While it may not match Russia’s Kinzhal missile, it is an original American technological solution.

Finally, the US is developing several new land-based missiles. This includes a replacement for ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles – a new missile which is already being integrated into HIMARS and MLRS systems. This is the PrSM (Precision Strike Missile) developed by Lockheed Martin, with a baseline range of 500 km (expected to be expanded to 1,000 km in the future). This missile utilizes an inertial navigation system (INS) supplemented by satellite navigation data and its own seeker for terminal guidance. Its key advantage is that it can be deployed from existing launchers. Until PrSMs become widely available, however, the ground forces will continue to rely on several thousand ATACMS missiles, which have a maximum range of 300 km and come with various types of warheads, including cluster munitions and high-explosive options.

Another system in service with the US Army is the Typhon missile system. The military currently has around two Typhon batteries. This new mobile ground-based missile system can launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and the hypersonic Standard Missile-6. The Tomahawks in this system are identical to their naval counterparts, while the SM-6 is unique – it can engage both ground and air targets at ranges of up to 500 km, traveling at speeds greater than Mach 5. The Typhon gained attention during discussions regarding potential Tomahawk deliveries to Ukraine in 2025. At the time, it was suggested that if a political decision regarding these deliveries is made, sending a Typhon battery to Ukraine would be the most straightforward option. Thankfully, this cutting-edge missile system was not supplied to Ukraine.

Lastly, the LRHW Dark Eagle missile system is being prepared for deployment in the US. This land-based system includes a new ballistic missile designed to deliver an unconventional payload: The Common-Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB), capable of reaching speeds of Mach 17 to 20 and achieving ranges of nearly 2,800 km. Full-scale deployment of this missile system is expected to begin this year, with extensive plans for its use across Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.

The system is highly mobile and can be rapidly deployed anywhere. Its main advantage is its impressive speed and capability for anti-missile maneuvers. This makes it nearly unstoppable – but at what cost? The Dark Eagle program has become one of the most expensive missile initiatives in US history – with each missile costing around $40 million. That’s significantly more costly than the above-mentioned systems.

This sheds light on why the Pentagon’s budget for 2026 has reached a record high, and is projected to rise even more. The roll-out of several new missile programs is set to begin in 2026, and substantial funds have been allocated for this purpose. However, the results of all these initiatives for the strategic, naval, air, and ground forces cannot be fully assessed until the end of the decade.

US President Donald Trump’s China visit was an attempt to “save face” and seek relief after the Iran war destabilized the global economy, geopolitical analyst Danny Haiphong has told RT. According to Haiphong, the US is now in a “far weaker position” than China and is seeking closer ties with Beijing to stabilize its economy and global standing.

US-China relations have been strained for years over trade, technology, and security, with Trump’s tariff hikes last year escalating tensions into a full-scale trade war before both sides agreed to a temporary pause. Expectations for a breakthrough were high ahead of Trump’s May 13-15 China visit – his first in nearly a decade – but no major deals or clear breakthroughs were officially announced before the trip ended Friday.

In an interview on Thursday, Haiphong argued that the US delegation came to China “hoping to essentially get saved from the crisis of their own making” in Iran and its global fallout. US-Israeli strikes on Iran triggered retaliation against countries hosting US bases and led to the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz – a route for roughly 20% of global oil and LNG supplies – sending energy prices soaring.

“What it amounted to was the Trump administration and all of these executives coming with their hands out hoping that China will give them deals that will ease some of this tension,” he said, referring to Trump’s delegation of CEOs ranging from SpaceX and Tesla’s Elon Musk to Boeing’s Kelly Ortberg.

“The world has changed. The US is in a far weaker position. China is in a far stronger position. It really is the US that has to hold on to the ties that it has with China in order to try to save face and strengthen its hand,” he said.

Following the summit, both leaders praised the talks as progress toward stabilizing the bilateral relationship. Xi said the sides had agreed on “constructive strategic stability” for the coming years, while Trump claimed “a lot of different problems” had been settled.

“With the launch of transfers to UnionPay Global, we have expanded the service from local scenarios to a full-fledged international network. It is now possible to send money to UnionPay cards issued not only in China, but also in other countries – regardless of where the recipient is located. A transfer to Dubai, Guangzhou, or Tashkent now works as simply and quickly as a domestic transfer within Russia. The potential audience is expanding to billions of recipients,” said Artyom Avladeev, head of transfers at T-Bank, commenting on the launch.

The bank noted that clients can send money to themselves or to other people on UnionPay Global cards using only the card number and the recipient’s full name. Funds are credited instantly, just like domestic transfers within Russia.

Previously, the service had been limited to transfers only to cards issued in China. Now, the geography covers countries in Asia, Europe, as well as the CIS and the Middle East. At the same time, it does not matter where the card was issued or where the recipient is physically located. For example, a card issued in Uzbekistan can be topped up successfully even if its owner lives in France.

No separate foreign-currency account is needed to make a transfer – a ruble account with T-Bank is sufficient. Up to 100,000 rubles per month can be sent without commission. The limit for a single transfer is $5,000 or the equivalent in the transfer currency.

“This new functionality will be useful for Russians supporting loved ones abroad, freelancers working with foreign clients, travelers, and anyone doing business with partners in Asia and Europe,” T-Bank said.

Saudi Arabia has floated the idea of a landmark non-aggression pact between the Gulf states and Iran after the end of the US-Israeli war on Tehran, the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing diplomatic sources.

Western diplomats told the newspaper that Riyadh is studying a model loosely inspired by the Helsinki Process, the Cold War-era talks that produced the 1975 Helsinki Accords on security and European cooperation, and succeeded in defusing tensions between the Soviet Union and Western nations led by the US.

The idea is reportedly being weighed as Gulf states fear that Iran – outraged by the devastating US-Israeli strikes but still a potent military power – will remain dangerous, especially if the US agrees to reduce its large regional footprint after the end of the war.

An unnamed Arab diplomat told the newspaper that most Arab and Muslim states, as well as Iran – which has long insisted that the US should leave the region – would probably welcome a Helsinki-style pact, but warned that Israel remains the elephant in the room.

“In the current climate, you are not going to be able to get Iran and Israel... without Israel it could be counter-productive because after Iran, they are seen as the biggest source of conflict,” the diplomat told the FT. “But Iran is not going anywhere and this is why the Saudis are pushing it.”

European nations – which were reluctant to support the war against Iran and seek stability in the Strait of Hormuz – have reportedly backed the Saudi idea and urged other Gulf governments to support it, seeing it as a way to reduce the risk of another war while giving Tehran assurances that it will not be attacked.

Prior to the war, Gulf states lobbied the US against launching a full-scale attack against Iran to avoid retaliation, according to media reports. When their efforts failed, they condemned the Iranian strikes, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE reportedly independently striking targets in Iran. Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE host US military bases, which Iran views as legitimate targets.

While many Arab countries would welcome a deal, they are not united, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE sparring over regional influence, the FT said. The UAE has also been the most hawkish Gulf state toward Iran during the war, while signaling the intention to forge closer ties with Israel. Two of the sources told the FT that it is doubtful the UAE will sign a non-aggression pact.

Iran’s relations with the Gulf states are equally uneven. Tehran enjoys the warmest ties with Oman, which has acted as a key mediator in US-Iran talks. It also maintains pragmatic economic ties with Qatar as the two countries share the South Pars-North Field gas deposit. As for Kuwait, the two countries have treated each other with caution.

Saudi Arabia remains Iran’s main rival in the Gulf, though the two restored relations in 2023. Iran and the UAE maintain trade ties, though relations are strained due to the war and territorial disputes. Bahrain has the most tense relationship with Tehran due to sectarian politics, accusations of Iranian interference in internal affairs, and Bahrain’s close ties with the US, though the sides agreed to a limited detente before the war.

Palestinians mark 78 years since the Nakba on Friday – one of the largest refugee crises in modern history – as expanding Israeli settlements and military operations are again forcing communities from their homes, RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij reports.

The Nakba, or ‘catastrophe’, was triggered by the mass displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948. A 1947 UN partition plan, adopted with backing from the Soviet Union, called for the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states, but only Israel was established.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rooted in competing territorial claims, has fueled decades of unrest and wars in the Middle East.

The UN says around 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced in the West Bank since early 2025 amid intensified Israeli military operations, demolitions, and settler violence.

Members of Bedouin communities interviewed by RT described repeated attempts to force them from their land.

“When we first came here, they told us this was Area B, Palestinian land. But then they turned around and told us, no, you are not allowed to stay here either,” one resident said. “Every single day, they come after us trying to force us out.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Friday that prospects for the creation of a Palestinian state were being systematically undermined.

“A process is underway to eliminate even the slightest possibility of creating a Palestinian state, in violation of United Nations decisions,” Lavrov told a news conference.

Watch RT’s full report below: 

US President Donald Trump’s increasingly “confrontational and unpredictable” policies have left Europe “truly alone together” and unable to rely on Washington as its main security guarantor, former Italian prime minister and ex-ECB chief Mario Draghi has warned.

Draghi made the remarks in Aachen, Germany, on Thursday while receiving the Charlemagne Prize for his “historic services” to European integration and competitiveness.

Using his speech to outline how Europe can survive the “new realities,” Draghi warned the bloc could no longer depend on the US.

“The world that once helped Europe generate prosperity no longer exists. It has become harder, more fragmented and more mercantilist… The central external fact of our time: our relationship with the US has changed,” Draghi said.

At the same time, Draghi described the shift in US policy as a “necessary wake-up call.”

“In a world of evolving partnerships, every strategic dependency must now be re-examined. For the first time in living memory, we are truly alone together,” he said, warning that “the partner on whom we still depend has become more confrontational and unpredictable.”

Relations between the US and EU have been strained since Trump returned to office in 2024, with recurring disputes over trade, defense, digital regulation, and the Ukraine conflict. Trump repeatedly threatened the bloc with tariffs and accused European NATO members of failing to meet obligations, pressing them to raise military spending. His 2026 National Security Strategy further criticized the EU as strategically unreliable and warned of “civilizational erasure.”

Trump’s rhetoric over Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory he sought to annex, also fueled tensions last year, although he later softened his stance.

Washington’s policy on Taiwan remains unchanged and any attempt by China to break the status quo would be a “terrible mistake,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said.

Rubio made the remarks in an interview with NBC News on Friday, while traveling with President Donald Trump on the first state visit by a US leader to China in nearly a decade. The agenda for the visit revolves around the Iran war, trade disputes, Taiwan, and AI rivalry.

During the trip, Chinese leader Xi Jinping named Taiwan as “the most important issue in China-US relations,” warning that if the two nations fail to handle it correctly, they “may clash or even come into conflict.”

On the prospect of Beijing seizing the self-governing island, Rubio said “it would be a terrible mistake to force that through force or anything of that nature.” He went on to warn that there “would be repercussions for that globally, not just from the United States.”

At the same time, he acknowledged that China would prefer “to have Taiwan willingly, voluntarily join them in a perfect world” through “some vote or a referendum.”

Rubio also recalled that the US adheres to a principle of strategic ambiguity on Taiwan – a long-standing policy of declining to specify whether it would militarily defend the island – stressing that the approach has held “across multiple presidential administrations and remains consistent now.”

On US arms sales to Taiwan, Rubio said the issue “did not feature primarily” in the US-China talks, adding that any decision regarding future shipments depends in a large part on Congress.

China deems Taiwan as part of its sovereign territory – a position shared by the vast majority of countries, including Russia. The US also acknowledges Beijing’s One China policy but maintains a strong relationship with the self-governing island. In 2022, Xi said Beijing would prefer a peaceful reunification with the island, but has not ruled out the use of force.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe has paid a rare visit to Havana to deliver a message from US President Donald Trump to the Cuban leadership amid a US-imposed fuel blockade of the island.

According to Reuters, it was the first time a CIA chief has visited Cuba since the Communist Revolution in the 1950s.

Cuba’s Interior Ministry disclosed the previously unannounced trip on Thursday. The CIA later acknowledged the visit by posting photos on X showing Ratcliffe meeting officials in Havana.

Ratcliffe delivered “Trump’s message that the United States is prepared to seriously engage on economic and security issues, but only if Cuba makes fundamental changes,” an unnamed CIA official told Reuters.

Havana, Cuba pic.twitter.com/7S7TtJPyf5

— CIA (@CIA) May 14, 2026

The official added that the sides discussed “intelligence cooperation, economic stability, and security issues, all against the backdrop that Cuba can no longer be a safe haven for adversaries in the Western Hemisphere.”

The US has demanded that Cuba cut ties with Russia, China, Iran, and pro-Palestinian armed groups. Last month, a US delegation visiting Havana reportedly urged Cuba to transition from socialism to a market-based economy and open the country to foreign investment.

Cuba has said that, despite the economic hardship, the military is prepared to resist a potential invasion. President Miguel Diaz-Canel said on Thursday that Cuba is willing to consider a US State Department proposal for $100 million in humanitarian aid.

He described the offer as “inconsistent and paradoxical,” adding that the blockade amounts to “collective punishment imposed systematically and ruthlessly” on the Cuban people.

US President Donald Trump has said Chinese President Xi Jinping promised him that China will not send military aid to Iran. The leaders held talks in Beijing on Thursday, marking the first visit by a US president to China since 2017.

US officials sought to persuade China to help pressure Iran into agreeing to US peace terms and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran closed to “enemy ships” in response to US and Israeli airstrikes.

“He said he’s not going to give military equipment. That’s a big statement,” Trump told Fox News. He added that China wants the Strait of Hormuz to remain open because it imports oil from the region.

“He said they buy a lot of their oil there, and they’d like to keep doing that,” Trump said.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told NBC News that “the Chinese side said they are not in favor of militarizing the Strait of Hormuz.” He added that Beijing does not support Iran imposing tolls on ships passing through the waterway.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC that China “will be working behind the scenes” to help restore access to the strait.

In his opening remarks before a meeting with Trump, Xi stressed the need for the two superpowers to cooperate in areas in which they share common interests, without directly mentioning the Middle East crisis. China’s Foreign Ministry has condemned the “illegal” US sanctions on Chinese businesses accused of helping Iran; the government has ordered the companies to not comply.

The US has maintained its own blockade of Iran’s ports, with US Central Command saying it has redirected 72 ships and disabled four others since April 13.

Keir Starmer may still be British prime minister when this article is published, but it is certain that he will not lead the Labour Party at the next general election, due to be held in June 2029.

Starmer became prime minister after steering Labour to a decisive election victory in July 2024. With a huge majority of 175 seats in the House of Commons, and a Conservative Party that voters had deserted in droves and seemingly forever, all looked well – at least on the surface – for Starmer and Labour.

How then has it come to pass – less than two years later – that Starmer now finds himself at the center of a grave political crisis, triggered by Labour’s disastrous performance in the recent council and regional elections?

Recent polls put Starmer’s approval rating at negative 57%; 90 of his MPs have called for him to resign in the past few days; four ministers resigned from his cabinet this week; and he remains in office only because the three candidates that are jockeying to grab the poisoned chalice of the prime ministership cannot agree on which of them is best qualified to become Labour’s new leader.

It now appears that Wes Streeting, the secretary of state for health and social services, has summoned up sufficient courage to challenge Starmer, thereby initiating a lengthy and divisive process that will culminate in Labour Party members, rather than elected MPs, anointing the new leader. Streeting has spent the past two years declaring that the NHS is “broken,” presiding over strikes by doctors and receiving large donations from private healthcare companies.

Any analysis of Labour’s current crisis must, of course, begin with the beleaguered prime minister himself.

Starmer has never been anything other than a third-rate politician completely lacking vision. Unlike Tony Blair, who he somewhat woodenly resembles and tries to ape, Starmer lacks both charisma and political judgement. And unlike Jeremy Corbyn, Starmer is utterly void of principle.

Starmer started out as a Corbyn acolyte, who then destroyed his master’s political career – by levelling false allegations of anti-Semitism at him – in order to advance his own. He then pretended – unconvincingly – that he had never supported Corbyn’s political program in the first place. It must be conceded that this pose was at least superficially plausible, but only because it was difficult to believe that Starmer had ever believed strongly in anything at all.

Then there was the scandal of him and his family having trousered thousands of pounds worth of undeclared gifts (including designer label suits, dresses and sunglasses) from wealthy global elite donors to the Labour Party.

Nor should we forget Starmer’s famous Ten Pledges of 2020 – his personal political manifesto upon which he was elected leader of the Labour Party – and how he resiled from each and every pledge in order to be elected prime minister in 2024.

After disposing of Corbyn, Starmer ruthlessly imposed his own anodyne agenda on the Labour Party and filled his cabinet with compliant nonentities like David Lammy, who continue to support him this week.

Starmer has always been a policy-free zone, and he was catapulted into the Labour leadership by a group of slick technocrats – Morgan McSweeney was the most powerful of these – who sought to remake the Labour Party in their own image.

Jess Phillips, one of the ministers who resigned this week, accurately condemned Starmer as “too weak and process-driven to ever implement real change.”

The less said about Starmer’s appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington the better, although it is an example of how Starmer’s decisions often manage to combine duplicity, corruption, and appalling political judgment in equal measure. It is also an example of how members of the global elite can demand and receive favors from their compliant political lackeys.

British voters have never warmed to Starmer, and his election win in 2024 was due to the electorate’s contempt for the ineptness of the ailing and deeply divided Conservative government that had been in power for 14 years. Starmer also owed his victory to Britain’s first past the post voting system – that ensured that the millions of votes garnered by the fledgling Reform Party failed to translate into seats in the Commons.

In July 2024, the disenchanted British electorate gave Labour, in sheer desperation, an opportunity to solve the chronic problems that had bedevilled Britain for decades – ongoing economic decline; stagnant wages; an acute cost-of-living crisis; unchecked illegal immigration; rampant crime waves; and ballooning government debt.

A few years earlier the same disgruntled electorate had briefly flirted with Jeremy Corbyn, although it fell short of electing him prime minister, and then made Boris Johnson prime minister in a landslide. Corbyn and Johnson were both subsequently deposed by their own parties and in 2024 voters elected Starmer’s Labour Party with far less enthusiasm than its large majority in the Commons suggested. Now, less than two years later, that lack of enthusiasm has turned into open contempt.

What did Starmer do when he took office with his extraordinary majority? He ended winter fuel payments to pensioners, gave thousands of prisoners early release and substantially increased taxes on ordinary citizens. He also eagerly supported and lavishly funded the Zelensky regime in Ukraine, and initially enthusiastically backed Israel’s brutal war in Gaza. Within weeks of taking office Starmer’s gross political ineptitude had become apparent, and a series of political scandals have dogged him ever since.

Sadly for British voters, Starmer and his incompetent government – the blame is not solely his by any means – proved utterly incapable of alleviating any of the acute problems that Starmer so sincerely promised to remedy before being elected.

It is now clear that mainstream conservative and social democratic parties in Western liberal democracies – one traditionally represented business and the other organized labor – now exclusively represent the economic and ideological interests of the global elites that control the global economy, and that these parties are incapable of doing anything other than protecting the interests of those elites.

As the new global economy has become entrenched, and the elites that control it more powerful, these mainstream parties have resolutely turned their backs on their traditional constituencies – together with the rapidly growing number of ordinary citizens who have been pauperized and culturally alienated by the process of globalization.

Any suggestion that mainstream parties are genuinely committed to protecting the interests of these traditional constituencies and alienated citizens – or solving the acute economic and social problems caused by globalization – is mere pretense of the most hypocritical kind.

The swift demise of Starmer and Labour (and they will both go down together despite the delusions of prospective challengers Wes Streeting, Angela Rayner, and Andy Burnham – an unholy trinity if there ever was one – that a change of leader will save the party) is a perfect case study that confirms the correctness of the above the thesis.

Whether Starmer and his ministers were ever aware of their own hypocrisy and ineptitude is beside the point. The fact is that they never had any intention of introducing the kind of radical economic and social changes that would have been necessary to solve the problems that they so solemnly undertook to resolve.

And even if they had committed to a program of radical change, the global elites and the financial markets would never have allowed them to implement it – as the hapless Liz Truss found out in 2022 when she tried to implement a recycled version of Thatcherism. Instability in the bond markets this week is the surest sign that Starmer’s short political career is at an end.

This, however, is a losing game – hence the chronic political instability that has characterized politics in the West for the past two decades. Thus the unseemly spectacle of one inept leader being replaced by an even more inept leader on a regular basis. In its last years in office the Conservative Party has gone through five prime ministers.

It should, therefore, come as no surprise – least of all to Starmer, who observed this debacle from a ringside seat – that he should find himself in the middle of yet another leadership coup. Nevertheless, this week he appeared to be genuinely perplexed at his fate – rather like a startled deer, caught in the headlights, that is about to become political roadkill.

Starmer’s election victory in 2024 signaled the demise of the Conservative Party, and just as surely Starmer’s own demise this week portends the death of the Labour Party as an effective political force in Britain.

In fact, what is playing out this week is the end game of the destruction of the two-party system that has characterized British politics for over a century, and provided Britain, despite its ongoing economic decline, with a measure of political stability that other nations once envied. Those halcyon days, however, are now well and truly over.

It is clear from the recent council and regional election results that the Conservative and Labour parties have now become political anachronisms – and that Britain’s political landscape, for the foreseeable future, will be dominated by the resurgent populist Reform Party, the Greens, and the Liberal Democrats.

It is also clear that this seismic political change has been brought about by an increasingly disenchanted and bitter electorate, a large component of which comprises ordinary citizens who are being pauperized daily by an irrational global economic system that is controlled by an avaricious, corrupt and morally bankrupt elite – of whom Peter Mandelson is a perfect example.

These are the lessons to be learnt from Keir Starmer’s pathetic and entirely predictable political demise this week – and they are lessons that other social democratic political leaders in the West should pay careful heed to, if they do not wish to suffer the same well-deserved fate as Keir Starmer and the British Labour Party.

The mayor of the Canadian city of Vancouver, Ken Sim, has clarified that artificial intelligence systems are not used to make municipal decisions after remarks about digital assistants handling parts of his workload sparked debate online, local media reported. 

The backlash began after Sim told a technology conference earlier this week that he has “11 AI agents” running “a lot” of his work “in the background.” Critics, including mayoral challenger Kareem Allam, questioned how sensitive information is handled and warned of potential data leaks linked to third-party AI services. 

On Wednesday, Sim clarified that AI tools are not being used to make policy or governance decisions at Vancouver City Hall, adding that the technology is mainly used for administrative support, research, and productivity tasks. He explained the systems help him scan news, follow financial and global events, and manage diet planning.  

Sim’s comments about using AI agents came as Canada’s federal government announced plans to support the construction of two new AI data centers in Vancouver. Ottawa has spent more than CAD$800 million (over US$580 million) on AI-related technologies and services over the past three years, Canada’s National Observer reported this week. 

At the same time, concerns have intensified over AI-related risks, including misinformation, cyberattacks, privacy violations, criminal misuse, job displacement, mental health effects, and the growing role of automated systems in critical decision-making.

BRICS member states must join forces to counter the US´ growing “sense of superiority and impunity,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Thursday.

Speaking at the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi, Araghchi said that while Iran has twice come under US-Israeli aggression over the past year, many other member countries of the economic group have also faced “hateful pressure and coercion” from Washington.

“We cannot ignore the common and dangerous threat we all face,” he said.

The group “should become one of the main pillars in shaping” a fairer global order, in which the Global South plays a more prominent role, Araghchi argued.

While BRICS has to date largely positioned itself as an economic partnership, certain suggestions have been floated in recent months that point to potential security cooperation within the bloc.

Soon after the start of the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called on fellow BRICS member South Africa to boost defense cooperation and reduce their reliance on foreign arms. During a meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in March, Lula warned that both countries could become vulnerable to “invasion.”

Pope Leo XIV has condemned rising European military spending, warning that rearmament betrays diplomacy and fuels tensions in a world already being “maimed by wars.”

Global military spending approached a record $3 trillion in 2025 despite lower US outlays, according to a SIPRI report released last month, with Europe recording the sharpest regional increase. SIPRI linked the surge to the Ukraine conflict, tensions with Russia, and growing US pressure for greater NATO burden sharing.

Pope Leo argued that such policies should not be described as defense, but as dangerous rearmament. Addressing students at Rome’s Sapienza University on Thursday, he said that young people were asking older generations what kind of world they would leave behind.

“A world unfortunately maimed by wars… In the last year, the growth in military spending worldwide, and particularly in Europe, has been enormous,” the pontiff said. “Let’s not call ‘defense’ a rearmament that increases tensions and insecurity, depletes investments in education and healthcare, undermines trust in diplomacy, and enriches elites who care nothing for the common good.”

The pontiff has become increasingly outspoken on global conflicts in recent weeks. His speech came shortly after an unprecedented public spat with US President Donald Trump over the Iran conflict. US-born Leo criticized the war and called Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization “unacceptable,” prompting Trump to repeatedly mock the pontiff, including calling him “terrible for foreign policy.”

Trump has repeatedly pressured European allies to boost military spending and signed an executive order in February prioritizing US weapons sales to countries with higher defense budgets. In 2025, at Trump’s urging, NATO backed a new defense spending target of 5% of GDP for member states.

At the same time, EU officials have also continued pushing for higher military spending, citing what they claim to be a growing ‘Russian threat’ and fears that Moscow could attack Europe after the Ukraine conflict ends. Alongside pledges to raise NATO spending, EU countries last year launched initiatives such as ReArm Europe to revamp their militaries.

Rutte floated the idea at a closed-door meeting of NATO ambassadors last month, and will likely be raised at the bloc’s annual summit in Ankara in July, Politico reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed NATO diplomats.

How much money does Rutte want to give Ukraine?

The combined GDP of NATO’s 32 member states adds up to $57.2 trillion, according to the bloc’s figures from 2025. Assuming that the US backs Rutte’s proposal, Ukraine stands to receive a windfall of $143 billion, or more than three times the amount of military aid it received from its Western donors last year.

To put Rutte’s demand in perspective, $143 billion is:

• Roughly equal to Russia’s entire yearly defense budget (around $145 billion)

• $16 billion more than Germany’s 2026 defense budget ($127 billion)

• Larger than the combined economies of Latvia and Lithuania ($130 billion)

• Four times what the US spent on developing the atomic bomb ($35.5 billion, adjusted for inflation)

• Almost six times what the US has spent on the war with Iran to date ($25 billion)

• Enough to buy more Patriot missile batteries than currently exist (around 200)

This princely sum is separate to the 5% of GDP that NATO requires its members to spend on their own militaries, and separate to the unrepayable, debt-financed loan of €90 billion ($105 billion) that the EU has already started to funnel to Kiev.

Whose idea was this?

Unsurprisingly, the idea was first suggested by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. “Ukraine is part of Europe’s security, and we want 0.25% of the GDP of a particular partner country to be allocated to our defense industry and domestic production,” he told reporters last June.

Is every NATO member on board?

Rutte’s aim is to balance military aid to Ukraine among member states, as to date, Nordic countries like Denmark and Baltic countries have been making outsized contributions compared to some of the bloc’s larger economies. Denmark, for example, has given 3.25% of its entire GDP to Kiev since 2022, while Germany has given 0.55%. On the lower end of the scale, Hungary has given the smallest share of any NATO country at 0.04%.

Good session of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group in Berlin today. Vital military equipment from NATO Allies continues to flow into Ukraine, including through PURL and many countries stepped up with new contributions

This is key, because Ukraine’s security is our security pic.twitter.com/syJaCWRMGx

— Mark Rutte (@SecGenNATO) April 15, 2026

France and the UK are reportedly unhappy with the proposal, even though both nations already exceed the 0.25% target. London and Paris both refused to comment when contacted by Politico. Furthermore, some unnamed EU countries reportedly want their contributions to the aforementioned €90 billion EU loan counted towards Rutte’s target.

Where will the money go?

In late April, surveillance tapes revealed that Timur Mindich, a business magnate and associate of Zelensky known as ‘Zelensky’s wallet’, was secretly running one of the country’s largest defense contractors while he was the target of a corruption investigation, and colluding with former Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to secure government contracts.

All but one of Ukraine’s wartime defense chiefs have been tied to corruption and bid-rigging scandals, Mindich is wanted on separate embezzlement charges, and Zelensky’s former chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, was arrested in May and accused of a connected money laundering scheme.

It will likely be up to individual donor countries to stipulate how their 0.25% is spent. However, RT has already covered some of the endemic rot within the Ukrainian defense sector, and the picture so far suggests that whatever the Western taxpayer sends to Kiev, there is no telling how much will be skimmed off the top along the way.

A US judge has temporarily blocked sanctions against Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, who was blacklisted by President Donald Trump’s administration over her criticism of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Albanese has repeatedly labeled Israel’s war in Gaza a “genocide,” calling for a full arms embargo and trade sanctions. She also called for the arrest of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu under a 2024 International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant, charging him and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant with war crimes. The ICC, established in 2002 under the Rome Statute to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, has 125 member states, though major powers including the US, Russia, China, India, and Israel are not full members.

Last year, she published a high-profile report accusing more than 60 companies, including US arms makers, of enabling and profiting from Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The US, Israel’s main backer and largest aid provider, sanctioned Albanese in mid-2025 under Trump’s executive order targeting people “directly engaged” in ICC investigations tied to alleged atrocities in Gaza. The measures barred her from entering the US and effectively cut her off from the international banking system.

“Albanese has done nothing more than speak!” Leon wrote. “It is undisputed that her recommendations have no binding effect on the ICC’s actions – they are nothing more than her opinion.”

The court rejected arguments that Albanese – an Italian citizen living in Tunisia – was not entitled to First Amendment protections in the US. Leon cited her “extensive connections” to the US, including owning a home in Washington DC and having a daughter born in the US, as grounds for constitutional protections.

Neither the White House nor the State Department has commented on the ruling. Judge Leon’s injunction temporarily freezes the sanctions, but does not permanently block them. It remains unclear when a final ruling will be issued.

Albanese welcomed the ruling in a post on X, but called it only a temporary “respite,” warning that ICC judges and Palestinian NGOs critical of Israeli actions in Gaza still face sanctions. The US has sanctioned 11 ICC officials and at least 10 NGOs and civil society groups over the Gaza war.

The interim decision by the US judge gives me respite but the battle is not over. ICC judges and Palestinian NGOs remain sanctioned with no recourse to justice. The stakes are incredibly high.
Please sign and share the petition: DEFEND THE DEFENDERS!https://t.co/DiWhUOx0Ks https://t.co/2GM7ihctz9

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) May 14, 2026

Israel responded with a massive military campaign to the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack that killed around 1,200 people. While active fighting was technically paused under a ceasefire reached last year, the truce has repeatedly broken down amid disputes over disarmament.

South Africa launched a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2023, with more than 18 countries formally backing it. Israel denies the allegations, saying that it is acting in self-defense against Hamas and accusing critics of antisemitism.

The CIA has 24 hours to return dozens of files on the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy or face a congressional subpoena, Republican lawmaker Anna Paulina Luna has warned.

Luna lashed out at the CIA in a series of posts on X on Wednesday, hours after James Erdman III, a CIA whistleblower who served on joint duty at Tulsi Gabbard’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence from March 2025 to April 2026, told a Senate committee that the agency had “[taken] back 40 boxes of JFK files and MKUltra files being processed for declassification by DNI Gabbard.” 

Erdman also described the seizure as part of “documented efforts to circumvent oversight.”

“The CIA has 24 hours to return the documents to Tulsi Gabbard’s office or else I will make a motion to issue a subpoena,” Luna wrote. “These documents have been requested by Congress.”

Given the nature of docs in question, we are sending a preservation notice. Docs need to be returned to ODNI given that ODNI was given direction and authority by the President to declass RFK, MLK, & JFK. Regarding MKULTRA, these were documents specifically requested by my Task… pic.twitter.com/uBnt5RqjDD

— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) May 13, 2026

The congresswoman suggested that someone in the agency is “actively undermining” President Donald Trump’s executive order on declassification, while warning of “punitive action incoming.”

Luna later clarified that the CIA “took documents that ODNI has jurisdiction over” and that the removal “did not happen today and was not a ‘raid.’” A NewsNation intelligence source confirmed this, adding that the documents were taken during the 2025 government shutdown.

The 1963 assassination of JFK has spawned numerous conspiracy theories, with some suggesting CIA involvement. A 2023 Gallup poll suggested that 65% of Americans believe Kennedy was killed in a conspiracy, and the assassination saga has also become an epitome of the public distrust towards the federal government.

While no declassified document has established that the CIA had ordered the killing, investigations have established that the agency did try to conceal critical data on the assassination, including that it had tracked Lee Harvey Oswald, who was officially identified as the gunman.

The MKUltra records referred to a Cold War-era CIA program that subjected unwitting Americans to LSD and psychological torture, including sensory deprivation and isolation. Then-CIA Director Richard Helms ordered the destruction of all MKUltra files In 1973, but some of the surviving documents were found and made public several years later.

The Pentagon has announced plans to acquire more than 10,000 low-cost cruise missiles alongside up to 12,000 inexpensive hypersonic weapons as part of a major push to rebuild US stockpiles after several high-intensity conflicts.

The effort will rely heavily on emerging defense firms rather than traditional contractors, whose sophisticated weapons systems are often criticized for being expensive and slow to produce.

The Department of War said on Wednesday that framework agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, Leidos, and Zone 5 “will launch the Low-Cost Containerized Missles [sic] (LCCM) program.” Reuters first reported details of the initiative hours earlier.

The Pentagon did not clarify exactly what it meant by “containerized” systems. However, promotional materials released by Anduril showed a missile being launched from what resembled a standard commercial shipping container. Such systems could potentially be concealed aboard civilian cargo vessels for discrete transfer and surprise strikes.

Anduril has signed a production agreement with @DeptofWar to rapidly deliver Surface-Launched Barracuda-500M at scale.

Affordable missiles designed for long-range precision strikes.

We will deliver a minimum of 1,000 rounds per year for three years, with the first rounds… https://t.co/j9nlNOE1XR pic.twitter.com/G2Lj6GiemS

— Anduril Industries (@anduriltech) May 13, 2026

Pentagon sidelines arms giants for speed and innovation

According to the Pentagon, all four contractors are expected to begin delivering test missiles in June. Although relatively new players in the arms industry, each has already worked on missile systems.

Leidos announced that its contribution would be based on the AGM-190A Small Cruise Missile design, though modified into a larger variant for the LCCM program.

CoAspire and Zone 5 previously participated in the US Air Force’s Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) initiative, launched in 2024 to support Ukraine’s military campaign against Russia.

In a separate arrangement, the Pentagon said it had signed a deal with startup Castelion to procure at least 500 Blackbeard hypersonic missiles over the next two years. Officials added that they are seeking additional funding to expand the program to 12,000 units over five years.

The Blackbeard system is designed for deployment from HIMARS rocket launchers or a future unmanned launcher platform currently under development. Although marketed as a low-cost hypersonic weapon, its exact price has not been disclosed.

Filling arsenal for a possible Taiwan conflict

Years spent arming Ukraine combined with major operations against Iran in 2025 and 2026, have exposed weaknesses in America’s defense manufacturing capacity.

The latest campaign against Tehran in particular reportedly consumed large quantities of key munitions, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and ballistic Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM).

Military planners have closely studied the effectiveness of low-cost attack drones in both conflicts. Cheap long-range kamikaze systems have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to inflict serious damage at a fraction of the cost of traditional missiles.

The US Air Force’s Low-cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS), introduced last year, was reportedly developed using technology reverse-engineered from Iran’s Shahed-136 drone.

This "innovation" that is supposed to give American warmongers the technological edge is just a knockoff of Iranian Shahed design—only weaker. pic.twitter.com/xNiF6aSOtm

— Iran Embassy in Sierra Leone (@IRANinSalone) May 13, 2026

Pentagon officials believe that combining new inexpensive systems with existing high-cost weapons could better prepare the US for a prolonged conflict against a peer rival such as China, particularly in a possible confrontation over Taiwan.

Trump is currently visiting China on a trip that had been postponed for several weeks because of the unresolved conflict with Iran.

The US-Israeli war against Iran has handed China a strategic opening to chip away at US influence on every major front, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing a classified intelligence analysis.

Two US officials familiar with the matter told the newspaper that the document was produced by the Joint Staff’s intelligence directorate for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine. It is said to focus on four main dimensions: Diplomatic, informational, military, and economic.

This comes ahead of US President Donald Trump’s high-stakes talks with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, in Beijing.

Since the US and Israel started the war in late February, China has reportedly sold weapons to Persian Gulf countries, which came under retaliatory Iranian missile and drone strikes, the report says. Though Beijing has denied arming Iran, in recent years, it has been engaged in multi-billion-dollar weapons deals with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The war has also bled US military resources, most notably its stockpiles of cruise and air defense missiles, which would be critical in a potential stand-off over Taiwan, the document says.

In addition, an earlier WaPo report suggested that Iranian strikes on US military installations across the region were far more damaging than Washington acknowledged, with at least 228 structures and pieces of equipment damaged or destroyed.

China has meanwhile gained a better understanding of how the US military operates and has planned accordingly, the paper says.

Last but not least, while China, the world’s largest oil importer, has been hit by the Hormuz crisis, it has maintained energy self-sufficiency due to its coal output and green technology boom. This has allowed Beijing to play energy benefactor, reaching out to Thailand, Australia, the Philippines, and others with supplies of jet fuel and green energy technology, according to the WaPo.

“China is the second-most-insulated country in the world to the energy crisis, after only the United States,” Ryan Hass, a China expert at the Brookings Institution, told the newspaper.

“This is not altruism,” he added. “It is Beijing seizing on an opportunity to drive wedges between America and its traditional partners.”

Beijing has called for an end to the hostilities in the Middle East and has condemned the US military action. After Washington sanctioned several Chinese refineries for doing business with Iran, Beijing ordered the companies not to comply with the measures.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait conducted covert strikes on targets in Iraq linked to Iranian-backed paramilitary groups during the Middle East war, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

According to the outlet, the strikes marked an independent response to attacks on Gulf states’ territory amid fading trust in the US security umbrella.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia – both hosting major US military bases – came under missile and drone attacks as Iran retaliated against the US-Israeli campaign launched in late February. However, hundreds of the drones targeting the nations reportedly originated from Iraq, including from Kataib Hezbollah – a Tehran-linked paramilitary group operating in the south of the country.

Saudi fighter jets struck Iranian-linked militia targets in Iraq in the run-up to the US-Iran ceasefire reached in early April, Reuters reported. Iraqi sources also claimed missiles were launched at least twice from Kuwaiti territory on Kataib Hezbollah positions.

Kuwait summoned Iraq’s representative three times over cross-border attacks during the war, while Saudi Arabia summoned Iraq’s ambassador last month.

Neither country acknowledged strikes on Iraqi targets or responded to requests for comment.

Earlier reports claimed Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also carried out covert strikes on Iran itself in what sources described as “tit-for-tat” retaliation for attacks on their infrastructure. Neither Riyadh nor Tehran officially acknowledged those operations. According to a Financial Times report on Wednesday, Qatar also considered retaliatory strikes after Iran hit its Ras Laffan facility, but ultimately opted for diplomacy.

“The most fundamental question is one of consultation. Are the Gulf states actually achieving the kind of partnership and security support that they feel is necessary if the United States is going to engage militarily in the region,” Khaled Almezaini, an associate professor of politics at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi, recently told The Guardian.

Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina has announced her resignation amid a government crisis caused by an incident involving Ukrainian kamikaze drones hitting an oil depot near the Russian border.

Silina announced the decision at a press briefing on Thursday. Just hours earlier, Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis, a member of Silina’s liberal-conservative Unity party, stated that the prime minister has no intention of leaving office. Meanwhile, the opposition was planning a procedural maneuver to circumvent the five-day pause required under Latvian law before a request for a no-confidence vote is granted.

The crisis in the Baltic state was triggered by an incident last week in which two Ukrainian long-range kamikaze drones hit an empty oil depot near the town of Rezekne, around 40 km from the Russian border. No casualties were reported on the ground.

MP Andris Suvajevs, who leads the Progressives parliamentary faction, stated earlier in the day that the ruling coalition was certain to collapse if a no-confidence motion is put to a vote. The prime minister was expected to take part in a session of parliament, but instead invited the media to her office to announce her resignation. She blamed “political jealousy and narrow party interests” for the crisis.

Moscow has accused NATO nations of tacitly allowing Ukraine to use their airspace to conduct strikes on targets in northwestern Russia, particularly oil export terminals in Leningrad Region. Officials in several countries where incidents involving Ukrainian drones were reported since mid-March have expressed concerns with Kiev’s military planning.

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said he told Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky that Helsinki regards Ukrainian aircraft entering its airspace as unacceptable. Estonian Defense Minster Hanno Pevkur said the Ukrainians should “keep their drones away from our territory [and] control their activities better.”

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has warned US President Donald Trump that a standoff over Taiwan could push the two countries into “a very dangerous situation,” describing it as the single most important issue in bilateral relations.

Xi made the remarks on Thursday during a meeting with Trump at the Great Hall of the People – the first US presidential visit to China in nearly nine years. The trip is expected to revolve around the Iran war, trade disputes, AI rivalry, and tensions around Taiwan, a self-ruled island which China deems part of its sovereign territory.

“The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-US relations,” Xi said. “If it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. Otherwise, the two countries may clash or even come into conflict, pushing the entire China-US relationship into a very dangerous situation.”

Taiwan, which has been watching the summit with concern, fearful of potential concessions from Trump, pushed back, with cabinet spokesperson Michelle Lee claiming that “China’s military threat is the sole source of insecurity in the Taiwan Strait and the broader Indo-Pacific region.”

Washington acknowledges the One China policy, but has maintained strong ties with the Taiwanese government, having approved tens of billions of dollars in arms sales over the decades. The Trump administration has been no exception, and approved an $11 billion weapons package in December.

In February, however, the New York Times reported that Washington had put on ice an even bigger arms package – valued at approximately $13 billion – ahead of the Trump-Xi summit. The US president previously acknowledged that he would discuss weapons sales with his Chinese counterpart.

Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping shook hands ahead of bilateral talks in Beijing on Thursday, marking the first visit by a US president to China since 2017.

In his opening remarks, Xi said he had always believed that the two countries “have more common interests than differences.”

“A stable bilateral relationship is good for the world. China and the United States both stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. We should be partners, not rivals. We should help each other succeed and prosper together,” Xi said through an interpreter.

The Chinese leader also congratulated Trump on the upcoming 250th anniversary of US independence, which will be celebrated in July.

Trump praised the “fantastic relationship” he said he had enjoyed with Xi during his first term in office. “We’ve gotten along when there were difficulties, we worked them out. We are going to have a fantastic future together,” he said.

Trump also told Xi that he has “such respect for the job” he has done as president. “You’re a great leader. Sometimes people don’t like me saying it, but I say it anyway because it’s true,” he added.

“The relationship between China and the US is going to be better than ever before,” Trump said.

On Thursday morning, Trump arrived at the Great Hall of the People, the seat of the Chinese government. He and Xi greeted each other and posed for photographs before beginning bilateral talks.

The leaders inspected troops lined up in Tiananmen Square.

Trump’s trip comes amid a fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel and the continuing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway that normally handles around 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas trade.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said aboard Air Force One en route to Beijing that the US would seek to persuade China to play “a more active role” in negotiations with Iran. Washington previously sanctioned Chinese refineries and satellite companies accused of aiding Tehran. China denounced the sanctions as illegal under international law and ordered domestic companies not to comply.

According to CBS News, Trump is accompanied by top business executives with a combined net worth estimated at $1 trillion. The delegation reportedly includes Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, and Meta President Dina Powell McCormick.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has urged member states to devote 0.25% of their GDP to aid for Ukraine, Politico Europe reported on Tuesday, citing diplomatic sources.

Rutte reportedly raised the issue during a closed door meeting of NATO ambassadors late last month. If adopted, the proposal, first floated by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky last year, would effectively triple aid to Kiev to around $143 billion annually, according to NATO estimates of the allies’ combined GDP cited by Politico.

The proposal is said to be partly motivated by frustration among some countries that they are contributing more support to Ukraine than others. Several allies, including major NATO members France and Britain, reportedly oppose the initiative.

The discussions on increasing support for cash-strapped Ukraine come as the country has been rocked by another major corruption scandal allegedly involving figures close to Zelensky.

Last year, investigators uncovered a $100 million kickback scheme allegedly orchestrated by Timur Mindich, Zelensky’s longtime former business partner, who has been described in the media as his ‘wallet’. Mindich fled the country to avoid arrest, while several senior officials, including two ministers, resigned.

The US plans to persuade China to pressure Iran into making concessions in the Middle East conflict, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said ahead of a meeting between the two countries’ leaders in Beijing.

US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are set to hold talks on Thursday, with discussions expected to include the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the issue of Taiwan.

“It’s in their interest to resolve this,” Rubio told Fox News host Sean Hannity aboard Air Force One en route to China. “We hope to convince them to play a more active role in getting Iran to walk away from what they’re doing now and trying to do now in the Persian Gulf.” 

“Economies are melting down because of this crisis in the Strait. They’re going to be buying less Chinese product and Chinese exports are going to drop precipitously,” Rubio said.

China has condemned the war against Iran as illegal under international law. It has also dismissed US sanctions targeting Chinese refineries and satellite companies accused of aiding Iran. In response, China ordered domestic businesses to not comply with the sanctions.

US President Donald Trump’s arrival in China this week is being treated as far more than another diplomatic photo opportunity. Relations between Washington and Beijing remain tense, competition between the two powers stretches across almost every domain, and yet both sides appear increasingly aware that uncontrolled confrontation would carry enormous costs. Against that backdrop, the prospect of a broader geopolitical bargain is once again entering the discussion.

According to Xiang Lanxin, visiting professor at East China Normal University and research fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington, Trump isn’t approaching China in the same ideological spirit that defined the Biden administration. The atmosphere in Washington, he argues, has shifted noticeably.

He spoke to Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.  

Xiang Lanxin: The economy is undoubtedly a bargaining chip. China wants fewer restrictions, greater market access, and perhaps a reduction in barriers in the high-tech sector, that is a key priority. The mood is competitive, but judging by the mood in Washington, the Trump team is much more conciliatory than the Biden administration, even in the high-tech sector. The ‘small backyard, high fence’ approach isn’t one the current White House is keen on. They realize it won’t work, as the administration is heavily influenced by the tech industry, particularly in the fields of semiconductors and cutting-edge technologies.

There are many such people on Vice President J.D. Vance’s team. History shows that it is impossible to stop technology from spreading across borders. Otherwise, the UK would still be dominating industry today. That’s simply not possible. People in the high-tech sector understand this very well. In that sense, I believe there are some positive signs.

Fyodor Lukyanov: But in the case of the United States, are there no illusions regarding relations with China, or are some changes still possible?

Xiang Lanxin: Of course, they are possible. We might even be talking about a ‘big deal’, which is exactly what Trump wants. Of course, there is no guarantee that they will actually be able to reach one. By a ‘big deal’, the Trump administration means an agreement that goes beyond the economy and touches on geopolitics, that is, the politics of the great powers. There are two key issues Trump would like to discuss with China. The first is how to stabilize the situation in the Taiwan Strait. Stabilize, precisely, because under the Biden administration the balance was seriously disrupted. Let me remind you that Biden made four statements deviating from the principle of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan (formal recognition of the PRC’s territorial integrity while maintaining separate relations with Taipei. – Ed.). That’s why Trump is proceeding cautiously. He wants to conclude a genuine agreement. I do not know whether this will take the form of a joint statement or some other format, but it is clear that he intends to take action. For China, even limited progress on the Taiwan issue would be a significant achievement. It would mean that the US would adopt a tougher stance against Taiwanese independence. 

The only foreign policy expert Trump really listened to was Henry Kissinger. He held him in very high regard. Kissinger advised him as far back as his first term in office: if this triangle is stable from a strategic point of view, everything else is secondary, including the European Union. Kissinger didn’t attach much importance to the EU at all. Remember his famous quote, which Trump likes: ‘Which partner is the most difficult? Not a rival, but an ally.’ I think Trump will raise the subject of this triangle at some point in his dialogue with China.

Fyodor Lukyanov: China is unlikely to stand in the way of such a triangle forming.

Xiang Lanxin: Yes, this isn’t about China, but about the European Union. Its existence precludes such a scenario. Will Trump push the EU to rethink what it has done? I would say the EU has made huge miscalculations, at least since the Biden administration, in its assessments of Russia, China, as well as the international economic system and the world order.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You once mentioned ‘military Keynesianism’ as a trend that, in essence, everyone is currently embracing. The term is more of a journalistic one, but the concept is clear, stimulating economic growth through government military spending. But what might that mean today? We’re not in the 1930s…

Xiang Lanxin: No, of course not the 1930s. And that situation is unlikely to be repeated unless the three major powers enter into direct military confrontation, which, in my view, will not happen under Trump. Incidentally, he is generally right when he says that under his leadership, the war in Ukraine might not have started at all. Local conflicts are not the main issue. Rather, the point is that military spending is being used as a tool to stimulate the economy and technological development.

Many European countries, as well as Japan, are already taking advantage of this opportunity. The war in Ukraine serves as a convenient pretext, particularly for Germany, for restructuring the economy, and the military sector is provided with a perfect justification. This is likely to be what happens. But this will not necessarily lead to an arms race and military conflict, unless Moscow, Beijing and Washington, for whatever reason, lose patience and enter into direct confrontation. But then that would truly be the end of the world.

This interview was produced specifically for the program International Review (Rossiya 24), and was translated and edited by RT team

The Pentagon has raised its estimate of the cost of the Iran war to $29 billion, though the figure remains well below projections from several think tanks.

In late April, acting Pentagon Comptroller Jules Hurst told lawmakers in Congress that the war had cost Washington around $25 billion.

Testifying in a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday, Hurst revised the assessment, attributing most of the costs to US munition stockpiles used against Iran.

However, according to journalist and Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler, Washington spent an estimated $71.8 billion in just the first 60 days of the war.

Expended munitions made up more than $41 billion of the total, with military operations costs and damage to US regional assets and bases accounting for most of the rest, he wrote in an article for Popular Information last week, citing military procurement data and officials’ statements.

Washington has also overstated the damage to Iran’s missile capabilities, which US President Donald Trump has claimed were largely destroyed, the New York Times wrote on Tuesday.

It has also restored 30 of 33 coastal missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, it added.

The key shipping corridor has become the focal point of a tense standoff between the US and Iran, as Washington maintains its blockade of Iranian ports, with neither side giving ground in negotiations.