Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned that regional oil and gas exports could be blocked completely in response to US attempts to control the Strait of Hormuz.

In a statement on Tuesday, the IRGC accused Washington of acting like “pirates” by restricting energy flows in the region and warned that other export routes serving the US and its allies could be blocked in response.

“Regional oil and gas exports are either for everyone or for no one,” the statement said.

The warning came as the IRGC claimed a new strike on US military infrastructure in Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and serves as one of Washington’s main naval hubs in the Persian Gulf.

According to the IRGC, the fifth wave of Operation Nasr-2 targeted an NSA management center, a command-and-control center, large warehouses containing military parts and equipment, and fuel storage tanks belonging to the US Fifth Fleet.

The statement said the facilities had been “smashed and destroyed” in the early morning strike. The US military has not commented on the claim.

Read more

The latest warning follows Tehran’s decision to declare the Strait of Hormuz closed until the US ends its “illegal” military intervention in the region.

Washington has said its renewed strikes on Iran are aimed at protecting commercial shipping and freedom of navigation through the strait. US President Donald Trump has claimed that America is now “in control” of the waterway and will act as its “guardian.”

The US president has also threatened to escalate strikes against Iran, including attacks on power plants and bridges, unless Tehran returns to negotiations. In a Fox News interview on Tuesday, Trump refused to rule out a ground campaign, saying “other people” could carry it out, and again referred to Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub.

Kharg Island handles most of Iran’s crude exports and has been repeatedly cited by Trump as a possible target. Earlier this year, he said the US could seize the island “to take the oil.”

The EU and UK should abandon their ambitions to act as independent “middle powers” and accept their role as “vassals” under the US, Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev has said.  

Dmitriev made the remarks on X on Wednesday while commenting on a series of posts by US Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby.  

“The EU/UK’s faulty ‘middle power’ strategy started to freak out the US,” Dmitriev wrote. “EU/UK vassals should know their place.”  

The term “middle powers” generally refers to countries that wield significant economic, diplomatic, or regional influence but lack the military and political reach of global superpowers. The concept has recently gained traction among some Western leaders, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who said earlier this year that “the middle powers must act together” adding, “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”  

Read more

Responding to the idea on Tuesday, Colby dismissed a collective middle-power strategy as a distraction.  

“There is a great deal of hubbub about a collective ‘middle powers’ strategy these days,” Colby wrote. “At DoW, we are not concerned that this is a serious possibility. Rather, we are more concerned that a few allies and partners will think it is and waste valuable time, money, and political capital on a distraction.”  

Colby said the strategy was based on a “faulty understanding of international relations,” arguing that middle powers lacked a coherent foundation for alignment. He also rejected suggestions that countries were distancing themselves from Washington and claimed the US was seeing an “upsurge” in demand for American military engagement.  

Read more

The exchange comes as Washington plans to reduce troops and critical weapons systems in Europe and redirect some resources to Asia and other regions.  

After returning to the White House last year, US President Donald Trump pushed NATO members to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, repeatedly accusing European allies of failing to share the bloc’s military burden. Divisions within NATO also deepened over Trump’s push to acquire Greenland and after several European members declined to support his military operation against Iran.   

READ MORE: Former NATO commander urges bloc to give Trump ‘timeout’

The US and European NATO members have also differed over the Ukraine conflict. While Trump has sought to broker a peace settlement between Moscow and Kiev, several EU governments have insisted that any agreement must be reached on Ukraine’s terms and have continued to back military support for Kiev.  

Earlier this month, Dmitriev argued that EU and UK leaders were prolonging the Ukraine conflict to distract voters from mounting economic and political problems at home.

Israel has approved more than $400 million to establish dozens of new settlements in the occupied West Bank, despite international condemnation of what critics describe as the de facto annexation of Palestinian territory.

The West Bank, which was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, is home to around 3 million Palestinians and more than 500,000 Israeli settlers. Along with East Jerusalem and Gaza, it is envisioned as the core of a future Palestinian state under the internationally backed two-state solution.

The Israeli government said on Tuesday that the security cabinet allocated 1.3 billion shekels ($431 million) to establish 34 new settlements in the West Bank. The decision was announced by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a West Bank settler who oversees civilian affairs in the territory and has pledged to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.

Calling the decision “historic” and “a day of celebration for Israel and settlements,” Smotrich said another 1.075 billion shekels would soon be allocated to build roads serving the new communities.

Read more

“We are strengthening the security of the State of Israel, killing the idea of establishing a terrorist state in the heart of the country, and strengthening our hold on the homeland in Judea and Samaria,” Smotrich said, using the biblical term for the West Bank.

Hamas condemned the plan as a “dangerous and criminal” step toward annexing the occupied territory, as cited by PressTV. The group accused Israel of seeking full control of the West Bank and urged Palestinians to intensify resistance, while calling on the UN and the international community to move beyond verbal condemnation and take practical steps to halt settlement expansion.

Israel has faced growing criticism over its West Bank settlement moves. While successive governments have stopped short of formally annexing the region, critics, including the UN, Arab states, and many Western allies, say the policy fragments Palestinian territory and further undermines the viability of a two-state solution.

Read more

Israel argues that the West Bank is disputed territory with deep historical and biblical ties to the Jewish people.
Settlement approvals reached a record 54 in 2025 and 103 overall with the latest announcement. Earlier this year, the security cabinet transferred more authority from the military to civilian ministries, introduced a process to register West Bank land as ‘state property’, and allowed Israeli citizens to purchase land directly in the territory.

The settlement drive has been accompanied by rising violence in the West Bank since the Gaza war began in 2023. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), at least 117 Palestinian communities have been completely or partially displaced by settler attacks, which have more than doubled from around 850 in 2022 to over 1,820 in 2025.

Israeli human rights group B’Tselem says Israeli military operations and settler attacks have killed more than 230 Palestinian children since 2023.

READ MORE: West Bank families demand justice over children slain by Israeli military (VIDEO)

Israeli public opinion has been divided over the settlement policy. A March 2025 Jewish People Policy Institute survey found that 58% of Jewish Israelis see them as enhancing national security, while 35% view them as a liability. Among Arab Israelis, 63% consider them a burden rather than a security asset.

US President Donald Trump has pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to withdraw Israeli troops from Syria and begin redeploying forces from southern Lebanon, Axios has reported, citing US and Israeli officials.

The reported appeal is the latest sign of a widening rift between the two leaders, with Trump pressing Israel to scale back its military deployments while Netanyahu’s government continues to insist on maintaining them indefinitely.

According to Axios, Trump warned Netanyahu during a phone call on Thursday that Israel’s military presence in southern Syria risked further escalation.

“They don’t want you there. You should redeploy,” Trump reportedly told the Israeli leader. The president delivered a similar message regarding southern Lebanon, the outlet said.

Read more

The reported push follows a meeting between Trump and Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Türkiye last week. According to Axios, the Trump administration has spent months trying to broker a new security arrangement between Israel and Syria.

It also comes amid Washington’s attempts to implement a US-backed framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon reached last month. Under the deal, Israel committed to withdraw its forces from two ‘pilot zones’ in southern Lebanon and allow the Lebanese army to deploy there. Israel has yet to begin the withdrawal.

Israel says its troop deployments in southern Syria and Lebanon are necessary to prevent cross-border attacks similar to the October 7, 2023 Hamas assault. Several senior members of Netanyahu’s government have called for an open-ended military presence, with some also advocating Jewish settlements in the occupied areas.

In a statement released after the call, Netanyahu’s office said the prime minister had stressed “the need for security zones along Israel’s borders.”

The Jerusalem Post, citing defense officials, reported on Tuesday that the Israeli military was surprised by the Axios account and stressed there had been “no change on the ground” in either Lebanon or Syria.

READ MORE: Thirty years of Netanyahu: The man who shaped modern Israel

In recent months, Trump has repeatedly criticized Israeli strikes in Lebanon, reportedly arguing Netanyahu had “no f**king judgment” and calling him “f**king crazy.”

The White House declined to comment on the details of the call and did not dispute Axios’ account. Instead, a US official reaffirmed Washington’s support for Israel, telling the outlet that “there has been no greater friend to Israel and a fighter for peace than President Trump.”

Atlanta is tightening security ahead of Wednesday’s World Cup semi-final between England and Argentina, various media outlets have reported.

Consultations took place between FIFA, the FBI, and local law enforcement amid concerns that the long-standing rivalry between the two nations could increase the risk of clashes between supporters. Atlanta Police have announced an expanded presence across the city, including around Mercedes-Benz Stadium, team hotels and popular fan gathering areas.

Officials have also introduced separate stadium entrances and designated fan zones for supporters of each team. While tickets have not been fully segregated, England’s and Argentina’s official allocations of roughly 8,000 seats each will be located at opposite ends of the stadium. The authorities expect tens of thousands of supporters from both countries to descend on Atlanta for the match.

Read more

The rivalry extends well beyond soccer. Tensions between the UK and Argentina were heightened by the 1982 Falklands War, when the two countries fought a ten-week conflict over the South Atlantic islands, known in Argentina as the Islas Malvinas. Although meetings between the two national teams had long carried considerable weight, the conflict gave subsequent encounters an added political and emotional dimension.

No match better encapsulates that history than the teams’ quarter-final at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico. Argentina captain Diego Maradona scored twice in a 2-1 victory, first sending the ball into the net in the infamous ‘Hand of God’ goal before producing one of the greatest individual strikes in football history, dribbling past five England players and goalkeeper Peter Shilton to score.

Maradona later said the opener had been scored “a little with the head of Maradona and a little with the hand of God,” while his second goal is widely regarded as one of the finest ever scored at the tournament.

Wednesday’s semi-final also carries added significance because it could be Lionel Messi’s final meeting with England on football’s biggest stage. The Argentine captain, who led his country to the 2022 title, is seeking another appearance in the final as he wraps up what many regard as one of the sport’s greatest careers.

Both camps have sought to ease tensions before kickoff. Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni and England goalkeeper Jordan Pickford have urged supporters to focus on the game, stressing that the rivalry should remain on the field.

US Senator Jim Banks of Indiana introduced legislation on Monday aimed at limiting birthright citizenship by declaring illegal migrants “invaders,” reviving President Donald Trump’s effort weeks after a US Supreme Court ruling struck it down.

Soon after returning to office last year, Trump signed an executive order to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily, as part of a broader immigration crackdown. In late June, the Supreme Court declared the president’s order unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision was an unprecedented assault on American sovereignty, and we must do whatever it takes to save our country,” Banks told Fox News Digital in an interview published on Monday.

The legislation aims to “ensure the millions of illegal aliens that invaded our country can’t continue to exploit our immigration system,” he added.

The bill would seek to codify Trump’s declaration that the US is under an “invasion” by illegal migrants and amend federal law to deny citizenship to their children under what Banks described as “a longstanding common law exception for children of foreign invaders.”

Read more

Banks’ proposal joins similar efforts by other Republicans. Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced legislation last month that would also restrict birthright citizenship. Earlier this month, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina proposed a separate bill targeting so-called birth tourism, in which foreign nationals travel to the US while pregnant so that their children can obtain American citizenship at birth.

Since the start of his second term, Trump has pursued a sweeping immigration agenda, tightening border controls, expanding deportations, and seeking stricter voter registration requirements, while accusing Democrats of using immigration to “expand their voter base [and] cheat in elections.” Legal challenges to several of the administration’s immigration measures are still ongoing.

European NATO members are increasingly calling for a new nuclear strategy amid a military buildup frenzy under the pretext of the alleged “Russian threat.” The bloc’s members claim that spreading nuclear arms across the continent would somehow make it safer, while Moscow warns this approach could lead to catastrophic escalation.

A dozen NATO members, including those bordering Russia, have expressed a desire to either host nuclear arms on their territory or participate in nuclear-sharing initiatives to varying degrees over the past months.

France has put forward a so-called “forward deterrence initiative” that would allow it to deploy its nuclear weapons to other European nations. Washington is also reportedly considering placing its nuclear arms in more NATO countries, going beyond the bloc’s controversial “nuclear sharing” program.

READ MORE: US mulls placing nukes in more NATO countries – FT

Multiple European officials, including from nations already hosting American nuclear weapons or willing to host them, claim that a direct confrontation between Moscow and the bloc is possible within several years, leaving an open question about where this new “deterrence” strategy could lead.

‘We have to be feared’

Back in March, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested a new nuclear-sharing framework focused on the European NATO members, calling it a “forward nuclear deterrence strategy.”

Read more

The scheme would allow “circumstantial deployments” of French nuclear weapons to other European states, including as part of joint exercises or short-term missions.

The president also announced that Paris would no longer disclose the size of its arsenal to make sure its adversaries would be afraid of its potential while infamously claiming that “to be free, we have to be feared.” He also stated that France plans to increase its nuclear arsenal, which currently amounts to just under 300 warheads, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Macron’s vision of security included the idea that “if we had to use our arsenal, no state, however powerful, could shield itself from it, and no state, however vast, would recover from it.”

Parade of volunteers

The French president has seen no shortage of volunteers willing to join that vision, with a total of nine NATO nations signing up for the initiative, according to Reuters.

Read more

Norway was the latest to join the group in May, as Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere cited “Russia’s massive rearmament” and the ongoing Ukraine conflict as the reason. The list also included Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the UK.

Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK are already hosting US nuclear weapons on their territory, alongside Italy and Turkiye, as part of the NATO nuclear sharing program. The scheme, which the bloc claims is fully compliant with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), allows non-nuclear NATO states to operate so-called dual-capable aircraft.

Read more

In a conflict, those aircraft could carry out nuclear strikes using American weapons upon authorization from Washington or London, even though the NPT explicitly forbids nuclear powers to transfer “control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly” to any non-nuclear state.

Warsaw has also long been seeking to join the club. Former President Andrzej Duda reportedly asked Washington to deploy some of its nuclear arsenal on Polish soil as early as 2022. Last year, he made a similar request to the administration of President Donald Trump. Polish President Karol Nawrocki suggested in February that Warsaw should simply develop its own nuclear weapons program.

Read more

Other NATO nations, including Estonia, Sweden and Denmark, also expressed a desire to host nuclear weapons over the past months – all in the name of “deterring” Moscow. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson stated earlier this year that Stockholm was already discussing “nuclear deterrence” with London and Paris.

Finland and Lithuania went as far as changing their legislation to make such deployments possible.

Berlin has, meanwhile, been vying for a leading role in what it described as an EU-level nuclear weapons system. Last year, Jens Spahn, a senior lawmaker from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union party, stated that Germany should gain access to French and British nuclear weapons and kickstart the process of their modernization.

Moscow is ‘too responsible’ to trigger WWIII

Russia has repeatedly warned that the Western nations’ military buildup would only “lead to an escalation of tensions on the European continent.” Moscow maintains that it does not pose a threat to any NATO nation, nor does it have any plans to attack the bloc or any of its members unless attacked first, according to the Kremlin.

Russian officials have stated that the European NATO members’ new deterrence strategy could backfire, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov saying that false slogans about strengthening security are leading to exactly the opposite result.

Read more

Nations that host French nuclear weapons on their territory would come “under closer scrutiny of our military responsible for strategic deterrence,” Ryabkov stated, adding that “the general security level of those nations would… not increase.” Moscow “cannot ignore an obvious buildup of the nuclear component of NATO’s joint potential,” the deputy foreign minister added.

Russia is “too big and too responsible” to trigger a third world war through nuclear escalation, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview with the Swiss magazine Die Weltwoche last month. He still said that “there are lots of crazy things in the heads of European politicians.”

President Vladimir Putin also said in June that, although the Western nations no longer hide their preparations for war with Russia, they are still reluctant to attack it directly because “they understand that there will be retaliation.”

US President Donald Trump has refused to rule out a ground campaign in Iran, claiming that unspecified allied forces could seize key strategic sites like Kharg Island without the involvement of American troops, while threatening to expand the bombing campaign to include power plants and bridges.

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Trump said he would consider a ground operation “if I thought it was appropriate.”

“Sometimes you need a ground campaign, but we have other people who will do the ground campaign for us... But we have already hit Kharg Island twice, even three times. I said, ‘Hit everything but the oil!’” Trump said.

READ MORE: What would a US invasion of Iran’s Kharg Island look like? (VIDEO)

Located about 25km (15 miles) off Iran’s Gulf coast, Kharg Island handles roughly 90% of the country’s crude exports and serves as the primary outlet for its oil revenues.

Read more

Ahead of the now-broken April ceasefire, Trump had already threatened to seize Kharg Island “to take the oil.” Asked directly whether he still intended to seize the island, Trump replied: “As far as taking it is concerned, if we degrade them far enough and deep enough, I would do that.”

The president also vowed to intensify the air campaign, saying US strikes would continue until he personally decided “it’s enough.”

“They’ll continue until I say it’s enough. Next week comes the power plants. Next week comes the bridges. We’re going to knock out all their power plants. We’re going to knock out all their bridges, unless they get to the table and negotiate,” Trump said.

Trump further warned that Iran “won’t have anybody left” unless it reached a deal with Washington, claiming US officials had relayed that message to Tehran during contacts held “about an hour ago.”

Read more

“We’re being very careful with the civilian population,” said Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran into oblivion, once warning that “a whole civilization will die” if Tehran failed to comply with US and Israeli demands.

More than 1,500 civilians have been killed in Iran since the US-Israeli bombing campaign began on February 28, according to local authorities. One of the deadliest incidents was the strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, which killed 168 children. Open-source investigations by multiple media outlets have concluded that the school was likely hit during a US strike on a nearby IRGC naval base. Trump repeatedly denied American responsibility but said last month that “mistakes are made” and “nobody did that on purpose.”

In many countries around the world, the number of children not attending school is rising. UNESCO has already recorded this alarming trend, and it demands an explanation.

UNESCO regularly collects and publishes information on progress toward one of the key Sustainable Development Goals: the universal inclusion of school-age children in primary and secondary education. In recent years, negative developments in this sphere were often linked by experts to the Covid-19 pandemic and its aftermath. But the latest Global Education Monitoring Report 2026 allows the picture to be clarified significantly: it appears that we are dealing not with temporary difficulties, but with a change in the global trend – and the turning point seems to have occurred even before the pandemic.

While in the 1990s and 2000s most countries in the world recorded high growth rates in children’s participation in education, after 2015 those gains slowed almost everywhere. Moreover, in a number of countries, the number of children not attending school has increased. Since this primarily concerned countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, it might have seemed like just another example of ordinary African difficulties: tribal wars, corruption, and so on. Then the pandemic began, and everyone was sent home. But now ten years have passed, and it turns out that the share of children not going to school is not shrinking at all – on the contrary, it is growing, and already on a global scale.

The UNESCO report, of course, says nothing about this new global trend and, following the statistical reports of governments, paints a picture of the steady development of primary and secondary education systems worldwide. At the same time, the report notes that in “the four most populous regions of the world (Europe and North America, East and Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Sub-Saharan Africa), growth in children’s participation in school education has stopped over the past ten years. And in a number of countries, the share of children not attending school has even increased somewhat after 2015.”

To understand what this means, we should first assess the scale and geography of the phenomenon. The best to do this way is to compare out-of-school rates for 2024 versus 2015, as reported by UNESCO, and looking at the countries where such growth was recorded.

Read more

As we can see, in 148 countries – that is, almost all countries of the world with only a few exceptions – full upper secondary education is de facto not universal. Moreover, 131 countries do not ensure lower secondary education for all children. And in 128 countries, a noticeable share of children do not even attend primary school.

At the same time, in 66 countries, the share of children not attending school has risen over the past decade. So the “number of countries” mentioned in the UNESCO report turns out to be very large indeed. Let us now look at who they are.

The authors of the report emphasize the difficult situation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet of the ‘black list’ of 66 countries, only 20 are in Africa. Incidentally, the situation south of the Maghreb is not so straightforward: for 20 countries with negative dynamics, there are 11 where the share of children not attending school has noticeably declined; in the remaining countries there is no clear trend.

So, the historically reversed, regressive increase in the share of children not attending school is far from being an African phenomenon alone. On closer inspection, it becomes clear that the trend is not limited to the ‘underdeveloped periphery.’ The example of Singapore is revealing – a beacon of globalization, a city-state with one of the highest standards of living and near-universal access to education. The idealized image of Singapore now needs revising, because over the past decade a sharply growing share of children there has appeared outside the school system: 5% of children do not attend primary school, 10% remain outside lower secondary education, and 14% are without upper secondary education.

Singapore is not the exception but the beginning of a list of developed countries where the share of children not attending school has risen. The list speaks for itself: the US, Canada, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Finland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Estonia. Meanwhile, EU member states such as Romania and Bulgaria are, by this negative indicator, already comparable to African countries, including those south of the Maghreb.

The global share of children not attending school is also significantly increased by the new leaders of the global economy – India and China, home to around three billion people, the lion’s share of the world’s population. The growth of their vast economies is not accompanied by growing school participation in primary and secondary education. The same can be said of the third economy of North America – Mexico.

In short, if anyone has not yet guessed, we are dealing with a global counter-trend: the inclusion of children in primary and secondary education has stopped growing and has begun to decline.

Read more

To grasp the meaning of what is happening, let us return to UNESCO’s formulation: in “the four most populous regions of the world (Europe and North America, East and Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa south of the Sahara) growth in children’s participation in school education has stopped over the past ten years.” The most populous regions of the world are also the most urbanized. Think about that.

It was always assumed that urbanization, despite its many downsides, had an overall beneficial effect on humanity because it promoted information exchange, individualization, enlightenment, and the development of science and technology. Much skepticism has accumulated regarding the social consequences of scientific and technological progress, but the imperative of mass education – and especially children’s education – survived even the excesses of postmodernism and until recently retained its force. The link between education and urbanization seemed beyond doubt.

And now, at the beginning of the 21st century, when the absolute majority of humanity has concentrated itself in large cities, something unimaginable is happening: children’s participation in school education stops growing and begins to reverse. And this is happening not on the margins, but in the hyper-urbanized core of a unified ‘world civilization.’ How should we understand this?

Let us recall and combine several simple truths.

The philosopher Karl Popper correctly saw the cultural dominant of human development in the growing individualization of people, though he poorly calculated its consequences. Progressive individualism has led to the atomization of society. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman called modern individualized humanity “liquid,” because as the wills of emancipated individuals collide, all institutions and concepts lose certainty and binding force. The result of concentrating atomized humanity in megacities has been the transformation of the city – historically the cradle of individualization – into a space of maximum ‘liquidity,’ that is, the epicenter of advancing chaos.

Today’s ‘world civilization’ is a globalized world-system of capital accumulation. As Aristotle pointed out long ago, chrematistics – or, in modern language, capitalism – destroys society because it denies the principle of reciprocity on which human coexistence rests. In other words, capitalism absolutizes and cultivates individualism as the psychological, mental, and behavioral prerequisite for its own reproduction and triumph – for the capitalization of all humanity. That is why capitalism consistently profanes and nullifies the traditional social bonds and supports of life – religion, peoplehood, nation, historical memory, family – thereby deepening the natural individualization of human beings and returning progressive humanity to a ‘natural state’ in which churches, courts, state hierarchies, and universities become merely specialized arenas of a war of all against all.

‘Free’ individuals, driven and set against one another by the logic of capital accumulation, having lost mutual trust and the habit of cooperation, can no longer realize alternative scenarios. Meanwhile, increasingly powerful and increasingly narrow elite circles, concentrating ever more resources, become fully unbound from the constraints of human society. Social responsibility, having lost its former binding force and become intolerably burdensome under conditions of shrinking profit, is simply cut away.

Read more

In the previous century, when the end of history had not yet been declared, the scenario of humanity’s desocialization had to be sold in the wrapping of social optimism. Into expert consciousness, and then mass consciousness, were implanted the ideological constructs of the ‘post-industrial’ and ‘information’ society, which seduced the westernized global middle class with the prospect of joining the ‘creative minority’ governing a new ‘cybernetic’ world. In reality, the industry of processing large volumes of information was capitalized and monopolized just like every other resource of life and power – with the corresponding consequences for the middle class and mass society. Informatization did not change the logic of capitalism’s development; it only intensified the war of all against all.

The existentially important quality of the human being lies not in consuming and transmitting ever-larger amounts of information, but in the ability to verify it. Information, like rare-earth ore, consists of vast heaps of slag and only hard-won grains of knowledge. Therefore, the intensification of information exchange maximizes inequality and social power. The lives of great masses of individuals become transparent to outside observation, control, and influence – while the centers of power remain informationally and physically closed. Under conditions of growing informational noise, knowledge becomes harder to verify, and therefore even less accessible and more elitist. Participating in the production and consumption of informational noise, the masses easily and imperceptibly lose the ability to verify information and to learn. The main risk group in the information society is children.

Why did growth in school participation stop in 2015, and why did the number of children not attending school begin to rise? Because eight years earlier, in 2007, a new era began: the release of the iPhone launched the mass spread of smartphones, providing constant connection to the internet and apps – that is, instant access to entertainment and remote communication. This caused a fundamental shift of attention and an explosive rise in time devoted to digital leisure. And then, seven years later, the first human generation raised with gadgets reached school age. After that, every year there were more children with gadgets – and at the same time, more children not attending school.

Incidentally, the children who do attend school are also children with gadgets, who at best part with them only during class hours. Field research shows that in countries where students spent a lot of time using gadgets for entertainment during the school day, test results fell sharply between 2012 and 2022. So non-attendance is only the most vivid negative effect of informatization from childhood, not the only one.

Unfortunately, it can be predicted with confidence that both school participation and levels of knowledge will continue to decline – and the longer this continues, the steeper the decline. For we are now passing yet another turning point and entering a new stage in humanity’s informatization: the expansion of artificial intelligence has begun.

Read more

To better grasp the anthropological consequences of this new information revolution, let us listen to those who articulate – or even draw up – the roadmap of global change.

The famous visionary Klaus Schwab proclaims the “age of intelligence.” Speaking in May at the University of Johannesburg, Schwab said:

“What is the Intelligent Age doing? It is replacing our cognitive capabilities by algorithm.”

“You no longer need to go to university. For any question that requires knowledge, you can ask Claude, ChatGPT, or wherever else. Knowledge surrounds us and is available for free.”

As we can see, Schwab with the straightforwardness of a salesman presents us with the alienation of intellect from the human being and offers us to hand over “our cognitive abilities” in exchange for easy access to knowledge. Why think when you can instantly get the answer?

One should not overestimate the cognitive resilience and evolutionary stability of Homo sapiens, while sentimentally invoking the ‘thinking reed.’ Let us look at things soberly: Schwab has made us an offer we may not be able to refuse.

What is especially striking is his use of the word “free.” Compare Schwab’s promise to African youth with a statement made in March by Sam Altman, the head of OpenAI, at the BlackRock infrastructure summit in Washington. With his target audience in mind, Altman was not offering propaganda, but a business model:

“We see a future where intelligence is a utility like electricity or water and people buy it from us on a meter.”

To make the prospect even more attractive to investors, Altman suggested a likely scenario of shortage in computing power, under which “the price gets really high.”

So knowledge will become more expensive. Informational garbage will grow in both volume and aggression. Most people’s ability to verify information will decline. Artificial intelligence will quickly become the dominant, and for many the only, source of knowledge and decisions. Easy access to ready-made answers will minimize the motivation to get an education. And if there is no longer any need to go to university, then there is all the less need to go to school – this is obvious. The withering away of mass schooling will happen faster than we can now imagine. The decline in children’s participation in education will preserve and deepen the apartheid between a rich, educated elite and a digitized mass.

Already at the end of the 20th century, the agenda of capitalist globalization included the erosion of historical nations. The withering away of mass schooling will finalize this process – nations will finally become shadows of the past. The roadmap for world civilization’s transition from humanism to transhumanism is perfectly clear. The question is whether nations with sufficient resources and sovereignty will be able to find an alternative path of development and preserve their social well-being.

The UK wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money during the Covid-19 pandemic, a damning report from the official public inquiry has concluded. Years of inadequate planning and systemic failures left Britain unprepared for the global race to secure vital medical supplies, the investigation found.

Published on Tuesday, the fifth report by the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, chaired by former judge Baroness Heather Hallett, found that nearly £10 billion ($13.4 billion) of the approximately £14.9 billion spent on personal protective equipment (PPE) was wasted. Combined spending by the UK and the devolved administrations on PPE, ventilators, and testing equipment topped £42 billion between January 2020 and June 2022.

Britain was “simply not ready to compete” in the global race for vital medical supplies because those responsible were “caught off-guard, with inadequate and untested plans” for emergency procurement and distribution, Hallett said, adding that “the waste of taxpayers’ money was vast.”

The country entered the pandemic with its PPE stockpile “in a perilous state,” including large quantities of expired equipment, while emergency procurement and distribution plans had never been properly tested, according to the report. It also found that the country was too reliant on China for key medical supplies, leaving it vulnerable when governments around the world began competing for limited stocks.

Doctors, nurses, and care workers were left without adequate protective equipment, with some forced to use makeshift gear such as bin bags, shower caps, and supplies bought online, according to evidence cited by the inquiry.

Read more

One Department of International Trade official described the search for ventilators as a “Wild West,” with speculators and intermediaries driving up prices as governments competed for scarce supplies, according to evidence heard by the inquiry.

The report also criticized the High Priority, or “VIP” lane, which fast-tracked offers from suppliers referred by ministers, MPs, peers and senior officials. Hallett called it a “misguided attempt at prioritization” that embedded unfairness and undermined public trust.

Earlier reports by the inquiry found that the authorities across the UK acted “too little, too late” during the pandemic and that delays in introducing restrictions contributed to thousands of additional deaths. They also described the cabinet of then Prime Minister Boris Johnson as having a “toxic and chaotic culture,” saying key decisions were often dominated or derailed by his inner circle.

France will grant Ukraine licenses to produce missiles and bombs on its soil, French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Monday.

Speaking at a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ summit in Paris, Macron said the agreements would allow Ukraine to manufacture Aster 30 interceptor missiles, AASM glide bombs and SCALP-EG cruise missiles under license.

“We have agreed on licensing agreements for new capabilities,” he told reporters, adding that the move “will allow us to produce these capabilities much more quickly with our Ukrainian partners and on Ukrainian soil.”

The AASM and SCALP-EG have already been supplied to Kiev and have been widely used by Ukrainian forces, including in strikes on Russian civilian targets, according to Moscow.

Macron also said additional Franco-Italian SAMP/T air defense batteries and Aster interceptors would be delivered to Ukraine in the coming weeks. He added that 16 Rafale fighter jets are expected to arrive in 2028-2029.

Read more

The ‘Coalition of the Willing’ is a France- and UK-led group of countries pushing for security guarantees for Kiev, including for deployment of troops in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire – something which Russia has repeatedly warned it will not tolerate.

Nine participating countries also launched an Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition aimed at building a European integrated air defense network using shared industrial capacity, amid shortages of US-made Patriot interceptors due to the Ukraine and Iran conflicts.

The Kremlin has repeatedly condemned the coalition as “a group of countries that doesn’t want peace [and] wants the war to continue.”

Read more

“This is a coalition of the deluded and a coalition of warmongers,” presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last month that NATO members were turning Ukraine into a “testing ground” for Western military technologies.

Several EU states reportedly began moving parts of their military production to Ukraine after the Russian Defense Ministry published what it said were the locations of European companies manufacturing drone components for Kiev. Moscow warned in March that European leaders were “dragging their countries into a war with Russia.”

The renewed hostilities between the US and Iran have once again disrupted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz after a brief period of relative normalization.

The escalation comes after Washington carried out several consecutive waves of strikes on Iranian targets, claiming that the attacks are meant to protect commercial shipping in the strait. Tehran has responded with strikes on US military facilities across the region and has declared the waterway closed.

It follows the collapse of a fragile understanding reached last month, under which the US agreed to lift its naval blockade while Iran was expected to help ensure safe passage for commercial vessels pending further negotiations. The two sides now accuse each other of violating the deal.

The waterway is the main sea route for oil and gas exports from the Gulf and carries around one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, which has made it a major pressure point in the unprovoked US-Israeli war on Iran.

Read more

What is happening now?

The Strait of Hormuz has once again been declared closed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) after the US resumed strikes on Iranian targets last week, accusing Tehran of attacking commercial ships transiting the waterway.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said that the strikes are aimed at reducing Iran’s ability to threaten civilian vessels and commercial shipping. It said that American forces have hit Iranian air defenses, coastal radar sites, missile and drone facilities, small boats, and other military targets around the strait.

Iran has responded with strikes on US military facilities across the region, including bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Oman. Tehran says that the attacks are a lawful response to US strikes on Iranian territory.

What has Iran said?

Following the US claims of Iranian attacks on commercial vessels, Tehran said that it has the right to regulate traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and require ships to follow designated routes. It has warned that vessels attempting to pass without authorization or ignoring commands violate security procedures and may be treated as hostile.

Tehran has declared that the strait will remain closed until Washington ends its “illegal” military intervention in the region, and that no ship will be allowed to transit the waterway while US attacks continue.

Iranian servicemen will stand firm “until their last breath” and would not yield “even an inch” of the country’s rights in the key waterway, Iranian military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mohammad Akraminia has insisted.

Iranian officials have also framed the strikes on US bases in the Gulf as self-defense and have warned neighboring states not to allow their territory to be used for American attacks, saying countries that host US forces cannot expect to stay outside the conflict.

Read more

What is the US position?

CENTCOM has said that American forces are prepared to keep the waterway open and prevent Iran from threatening commercial traffic, stating that the renewed strikes are aimed at protecting “freedom of navigation” through the strait.

US President Donald Trump has declared that Washington is now “in control” of the strait and will be “taking over” security in the Strait of Hormuz and act as its “guardian.”

He has also proposed charging a 20% fee on cargo moving through the waterway, because Washington should be reimbursed for its protection. The White House has not explained how such a fee would be calculated, collected, or enforced.

What has happened to shipping?

Several commercial vessels have reportedly been hit or threatened in or near the Strait of Hormuz since hostilities resumed.

The UAE said that two tankers were struck by Iranian cruise missiles in Omani territorial waters on the southern lane of the strait. One Indian crew member was killed and eight others were wounded, according to reports citing UAE and Indian officials.

Shipping data cited by Reuters showed tanker traffic through the strait falling to its lowest level in two months as companies reassessed the risks of using the route.

Insurers are also expected to raise premiums for ships entering the area, increasing costs even for vessels that are not directly attacked.

Read more

What about the oil prices?

Oil prices eased after the US and Iran signed the June memorandum of understanding, which reduced fears of a full-scale disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. The latest escalation has reversed that trend.

Brent crude jumped nearly 10% on Monday, its biggest one-day gain since 2020, while US West Texas Intermediate rose more than 9%, according to market data. By Tuesday, Brent was trading around $86 a barrel and WTI above $80, their highest levels in about four weeks.

The latest spike remains below the levels seen during the earlier phase of the war, when prices briefly rose above $120 a barrel after traffic through Hormuz was heavily restricted. Analysts have warned that a sustained disruption in the strait could send oil back above $100 a barrel.

Iranian Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad said that the country’s exports are continuing “as usual” despite Washington’s decision to cancel a 60-day sanctions waiver. He said that Tehran has mechanisms to bypass US restrictions.

What has been the international response?

China has called for safe and free passage through the Strait of Hormuz to be restored, saying that the waterway is intended for international navigation. Beijing added that it is ready to maintain communication with relevant countries and the wider international community on the issue.

India has summoned Iran’s deputy ambassador after an Indian crew member was killed and several other Indians were wounded in the strike on the two UAE tankers. New Delhi said that it lodged a protest over attacks on ships passing near Oman’s shores.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticized Trump’s proposed 20% protection fee, saying that “in the old days, this was called piracy.” He accused the US president of trying to take advantage of a tragedy to make money.

Russia has warned that the renewed escalation is undermining chances for a settlement. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the fighting was damaging civilian infrastructure in Iran and civilian sites in Gulf states, and “closes the door that the memorandum appeared to have opened.” He added that Moscow views the latest developments as a violation of the US-Iran agreement reached last month.

Behind all the projected confidence, determination and unity that came out of the NATO summit in Ankara last week, a different picture emerges. A picture spiderwebbed with widening cracks.

Unity on paper, divergence in practice

The NATO alliance was never designed as a bloc whose governments would agree on every international issue. Today’s disagreements, however, go well beyond tactical disputes and increasingly concern the fundamental strategic questions shaping global security.

The US-Israeli war on Iran has exposed these divisions particularly clearly. Despite Washington’s expectations, several of its major European allies – including France, Britain, Italy, and Spain – have shown little willingness to become directly involved. Their reluctance reflects not only concerns about escalation but also general political disagreements with Washington’s Middle East policy.

Should the confrontation with Iran expand, these differences are likely to become even more pronounced. Türkiye’s regional priorities differ significantly from those of Washington, while many European governments remain deeply skeptical of another major military engagement in the Middle East. Rather than strengthening transatlantic cohesion, the crisis risks widening existing political fault lines.

The same pattern appears elsewhere. NATO continues to describe China as a long-term strategic challenge, yet member states differ considerably on how confrontational their policies should become. Meanwhile, critically important regions such as the Indo-Pacific, Africa, and the Arctic received remarkably little attention in Ankara despite their growing geopolitical significance.

Read more

The 5% debate exposes political limits

Military spending remains the most contentious point. Washington continues pressing European NATO members toward spending 5% of GDP on defense. While several countries support this long-term objective, others remain openly resistant.

Spain has emerged as the clearest example. Madrid argues that military effectiveness cannot be measured solely by GDP percentages. Spanish leaders emphasize that defense spending has risen dramatically – from just 0.9% of GDP in 2018 to approximately 2% today – while equipment procurement has expanded substantially, overseas missions have increased, and investment in the domestic defense industry has accelerated.

From Spain’s perspective, capability is more important than arbitrary spending targets – but the issue goes deeper than that. Spain’s opposition also reflects political tensions with Washington, including disagreement over the conflict involving Iran and growing discomfort with US support for Israeli military operations.

NATO’s future burden-sharing discussions are increasingly shaped by national political calculations rather than by a shared strategic vision.

In his keynote speech, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte Meanwhile claimed the bloc is “on the cusp” of a “transatlantic defense industrial revolution.” But these big words were not matched by equally ambitious decisions. Europe still faces structural obstacles that cannot be solved by summit declarations alone. National armed forces remain understrength after decades of reductions, defense manufacturing capacity remains insufficient, and financial institutions have often discouraged investment in military production.

Ukraine no longer unites NATO

If any issue once symbolized NATO unity, it was Ukraine. That consensus is steadily weakening.

Read more

Perhaps the clearest indication was what the Ankara declaration omitted. It offered no endorsement of Ukraine’s future NATO membership – a reflection of persistent opposition from several influential members, including the US and Germany.

Support for continued military assistance is also becoming increasingly fragmented. Before the summit, Slovakia again declared that it would oppose additional military aid to Kiev. Hungary maintains a similar position, while the Czech Republic’s limited participation in the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) mechanism of quick delivery of US-made military hardware to Kiev appears largely tactical, allowing Prague to avoid direct transfers without abandoning previously approved commitments.

Immediately after the summit, Bulgaria’s new government announced that no further military support would be provided to Ukraine. The practical implications will depend on whether this decision affects only official state donations or extends to commercial arms exports and industrial cooperation. At roughly the same time, the Netherlands acknowledged that its capacity to provide additional direct military assistance had effectively been exhausted.

The Ankara declaration also welcomed the EU’s multi-year €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan. Yet even within the EU, unanimity proved elusive. Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic declined to participate.

None of these individual decisions fundamentally changes Ukraine’s immediate military position. Together, however, they reveal a broader trend: political consensus regarding long-term support for Kiev is becoming increasingly fragile.

Read more

NATO 3.0 and Europe’s search for strategic responsibility

Perhaps the most consequential discussion in Ankara concerned NATO’s long-term evolution.

Alliance leaders increasingly describe the emerging model as ‘NATO 3.0’ – a more Europeanized bloc in which European members assume primary responsibility for conventional military power while the US retains its nuclear leadership.

In principle, this evolution makes strategic sense. Washington’s long-term focus is gradually shifting toward the Indo-Pacific, making it increasingly difficult to sustain the same military presence in Europe indefinitely.

Uncertainty around President Donald Trump’s attendance is a good indication of the doubts about America’s future commitment. Trump ultimately traveled to Ankara, remarking that his presence reflected his close relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Meanwhile, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth had considered announcing significant reductions in US troop deployments before ultimately refraining from doing so.

More importantly, the Pentagon has already launched a comprehensive review of America’s military footprint across Europe, examining troop levels, bases, and military access arrangements. Even if immediate reductions do not occur, the direction of travel appears clear.

For Europe, greater strategic responsibility offers both challenges and opportunities. Investment in counter-drone capabilities, digital infrastructure, joint procurement, resilient supply chains, and stronger domestic defense industries addresses genuine weaknesses that accumulated over decades of underinvestment. These efforts correspond naturally with a gradual American military rebalancing.

A new European military backbone is gradually taking shape around France, Germany, and Poland. France contributes nuclear capabilities and has become increasingly willing to discuss extending aspects of its deterrence to European partners. Germany has become the world’s fourth-largest military spender and is rebuilding capabilities at unprecedented speed. Poland already spends well above 4% of GDP on defense and intends to approach 5% in the coming years while competing with Germany to field Europe’s largest conventional army.

This transformation represents one of the most significant shifts in European security architecture since the Cold War.

Read more

The political future matters more than summit declarations

Yet even this transformation contains an important contradiction. Its central political premise remains the characterization of Russia as a long-term strategic threat. Whether this assumption continues to define European security policy over the next decade is far from certain.

Across Europe, domestic politics are evolving rapidly. In Germany, Alternative for Germany has become the country’s strongest political force and could realistically enter government before the end of the decade. Party co-leader Alice Weidel has openly argued for restoring German-Russian relations and ending Germany’s boycott of Russian energy imports. In France, National Rally is the country’s most popular political movement, and forces aligned with Marine Le Pen could capture the presidency next year.

Elsewhere, numerous patriotic parties avoid openly advocating rapprochement with Moscow largely for tactical reasons rather than because such positions have disappeared.

These domestic political shifts may ultimately prove more consequential than any communiqué adopted in Ankara. Summit declarations reflect today’s governments. But elections may shape tomorrow’s strategic doctrines.

The Ankara Summit therefore should not be remembered primarily for its carefully worded statements about unity or ambitious defense spending targets. Its lasting significance lies elsewhere. It demonstrated that NATO remains operationally functional but politically more heterogeneous than at any point in recent decades.

In the end, Ankara revealed an uncomfortable truth. NATO’s greatest challenge comes from the growing fractures among its own members – fractures rooted in legitimate national interests, shifting political winds, and doubts about whether the current anti-Russian obsession serves Europe’s long-term security.

Bulgaria has no place in the coalition of Western nations pushing for continued military aid to Ukraine, Prime Minister Rumen Radev has told Bulgarian broadcaster bTV.

The France and UK-led “coalition of the willing” has long pushed to deploy troops into Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, despite Moscow’s repeated warnings that any NATO troops on Ukrainian territory would become legitimate military targets.

“We’re not part of a coalition pushing for continued financial and military aid to Ukraine,” Radev told bTV during a press conference in France on Tuesday.

“We don’t provide aid of that kind, because I believe the way to resolve this conflict is through a strong diplomatic effort to end the escalation rather than by prolonging it by military means,” he added.

Last week, Radev, a Euroskeptic elected after the previous pro-EU government collapsed last year following massive anti-corruption protests, announced that Bulgaria has exhausted its capacity to support Kiev militarily.

READ MORE: EU member criticizes bloc’s latest Russia sanctions proposal

“We provided 13 packages; we don’t have anything else to supply to Ukraine,” he said on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara.

Read more

According to Slovak President Peter Pellegrini, several NATO nations at the summit, including Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic refused to participate in the US-led military bloc’s latest €70 billion ($80 billion) military aid package for Kiev.

Moscow has long condemned arms supplies to Ukraine, warning that they only prolong the war and cause more deaths, without altering the course of the conflict – which Russia views as a Western proxy war.

EU nations are losing what remains of their “rationality and drifting into a high-risk zone” in an effort to turn Ukraine in to a “testing ground” for their emerging military technologies, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in late June.

Some guys die falling down the stairs while putting their pants on. Lindsey Graham went out much more boringly. Sorry to disappoint.

His demise is a tale as old as time. A guy with a medically-documented bad ticker has a jammer at home around the same age as his own father did. Pretty straightforward. And boring. Far too pedestrian, apparently, for some folks. Already, there seems to be an overlap between the people who imagine penises on women like Michelle Obama and Brigitte Macron, and those who fancy Graham’s death being the direct result of a foreign adversary getting their own rocks off. These people need to log off from their online insane asylum and touch grass.

Graham had just returned from Ukraine where he toured a weapons factory. So naturally some of these folks think that Putin had him knocked off. Except that he died at home on the other side of the world. So how does that square with a hit job? Easy, apparently. Because the poison used was time-released. Ah, yes – of course. Or maybe Putin bombed him in Ukraine but his pals conspired to weekend-at-Bernie’s him all the way back home to DC to help Putin out with a bit of crisis management.

It’s much less dramatic to admit that Graham was just a guy who died doing what he loved most – and spent the most time doing. That is, thinking up ways for the US to perversely inflict pain on other nations for refusing to bend over on command. Personally, I like swimming. A lot. If I dropped dead in a pool someday, no one would be surprised. If someone spends tons of time in front of the TV, their odds of dying there increase. So the fact that a warmonger dropped dead right after wrapping up his latest warmongering tour is par for the course.

But it’s so difficult for some folks to accept this straightforwardness. Because they imagine that there are so many people in the countries that Graham warmongered against who would have wanted him dead. Neocons who loved Graham think that’s the case. So do those who loathed him for the same reasons and say that they’re glad he was “taken out.”

Read more

They’re bigging him up far too much. He really isn’t worthy of any of these theories. Did it ever occur to them that he was seen by his targets as a circus clown more than anything else? “But Israel killed him to keep the war in Iran going!” they say. As if Trump needs anyone else for that, now that he’s locked into a sword-measuring contest with the Iranians.

Oh, but Graham had Trump’s ear! He was pushing Trump to blow more American cash on weapons “for Ukraine”! Yeah, yeah – and surely now that he’s gone, it’ll all come to a crashing halt, right? Trump’s two sons who are overtly raking in Pentagon cash for Ukrainian drone investments will just demand that their father bail on the whole thing now that Lindsey Graham is gone.

If offing people responsible for driving the current iteration of the American war machine was an actual solution for achieving peace, starting with Lindsey Graham is like offing Cookie Monster in an attempt to bring down the Sesame Street franchise: “Some people say me want too many cookies. Wrong. Me want the cookies necessary to ensure cookie dominance for generations…. Critics ask, ‘How many cookies does Cookie Monster need?’ Me ask, ‘How many cookies are our enemies hiding?’”

The clown simply goes off to the big cosmic tent – and nothing much changes. Graham was merely a cast member of America Inc., which has no shortage of understudies.

Let me make it emphatically clear that speaking ill of the dead isn’t my thing. What’s even the point? It’s not like karma needs help with the heavy lifting after it’s already dropped the anvil on someone. No need for anyone to subsequently pile on with a folding chair. But any fitting celebration of life involves reminiscing about that life. And when that life constantly involves promoting war, there’s not much wiggle room.

Read more

His defenders have now taken to pointing out that he was actually a stellar guy because he died with a net worth suggesting that he wasn’t on the take from the defense contractors for whom he permanently served as a lobbyist. “The senator died with a net worth of about $1.4 million, with congressional disclosures from May showing a lower-end estimate of just over $600,000 and an upper estimate of a little more than $2.2 million,” wrote the grotesquely neocon media outlet Fox News.

Even taking that claim at face value, does this mean that the moral high-bar now is being so genuinely obsessed with war and weapons that you champion them strictly from your soul without financial incentive? How does this not make it even worse? Seems like at least cash-for-war would be a less disgusting motive than simply getting your jollies from peddling tools of death and destruction.

“I can’t die now. I still need to do the Russia sanctions, get Iran sorted out and do Israeli-Saudi normalization,” Graham apparently told someone close to him shortly before packing it in permanently, according to Fox News. Turns out that karma’s ultimate regime change got to him first.

So US Senator Lindsey Graham can now be referred to permanently in the past tense. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for all his pet causes which continue to plague the planet. Because the war machine is immortal. It can easily afford to lose any single mascot and just keep on billing.

Mark Lynch, who challenged Lindsey Graham in South Carolina’s recent Republican US Senate primary, hopes to take the seat that the late GOP politician left empty, he has told RT.

Lynch portrayed himself as a conservative outsider capable of breaking the state’s decades-long pattern of choosing career politicians.

Graham, a longtime Russia hawk, died on Saturday at the age of 71 following what his office initially called a brief and sudden illness. The senator’s death came a day after his return from Kiev, where he met Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky.

Graham repeatedly called for increased economic pressure on Moscow, threatening Russia with what he described as “bone-crushing” sanctions. In recent months, he actively promoted a bill that would impose 500% tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil. The senator also described US military aid to Ukraine as “the best money we’ve ever spent” because “the Russians are dying.”

Read more

US President Donald Trump reacted to the death of his ally, saying he “will be greatly missed,” and that the senator’s death was most likely caused by underlying health problems.

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster appointed Graham’s sister Darline Graham Nordone as interim senator on Monday following a recommendation from Trump. Lynch described the choice as unusual but said he would accept it and hoped the appointment would “go well.”

In an interview with RT on Monday, Lynch said he initially rejected calls to discuss another campaign while Graham’s family was still grieving. “Nobody saw that coming,” he said, describing the senator’s death as “tragic” and offering prayers to his relatives.

Lynch said repeated appeals from supporters, however, eventually convinced him to enter the special Republican primary.

”After careful prayer and consideration” and talks with his campaign team, he said, “we have committed to stay in this fight and give our constituents what they’ve asked for.”

Lynch finished behind Graham in the June 9 Republican primary. The incumbent secured the nomination with roughly 59% of the vote while Lynch placed second in the multi-candidate contest.

Candidate filing will run from July 21 through July 28. The Republican primary is scheduled for August 11 with a runoff on August 25, if required.

Lynch said his campaign would emphasize his business experience, faith, and constitutional conservatism. “People are tired of career politicians,” he added.

Watch RT’s full interview below:

Russian table tennis players will return to international competitions after the sport’s global governing body announced it had lifted restrictions imposed after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

The International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) said in a statement on Monday that Russian athletes and teams will be “permitted to participate in ITTF table tennis and Para table tennis events, under the ordinary conditions applicable to all athletes, with effect from July 28, 2026.”

The federation said the decision followed the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) July 7 move to lift its suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee and withdraw its recommendations to international federations restricting Russia’s participation.

Read more

The ITTF also approved the return of teams from Russia’s neighbor, Belarus, on Friday.

The federation noted that its decision does not affect matters such as national flags and anthems where those fall under the IOC’s jurisdiction. The IOC said last week it would decide “at the appropriate time” whether the restrictions on national symbols and colors will remain in place for future Olympic Games.

Most Olympic federations barred competitors from Russia and Belarus following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Several have since allowed individuals to compete as neutrals, while others, including World Aquatics, World Gymnastics and the International Fencing Federation (FIE), have restored their national symbols.

Select athletes from Russia and Belarus competed as individual neutral athletes at the 2024 Paris Olympics and the 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Games.

Russia fielded one of the largest delegations at the Olympic Games, with strong teams in swimming, gymnastics, track and field, and wrestling.

READ MORE: Russian students allowed to compete in international sports events

Russian officials have repeatedly accused Western nations of politicizing sport and pressuring federations to exclude their athletes, as well as of applying double standards with respect to other countries involved in armed conflicts.

Moscow has argued that competitors should be judged solely on their sporting merit.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has launched missile and drone attacks on multiple US military facilities in the Middle East after American forces conducted another wave of airstrikes against the Islamic Republic.

The escalation comes as the two sides vie for control over the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for some 20% of global crude oil trade.

Iranian military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mohammad Akraminia has insisted that the key waterway “will never be reopened through... American acts of hostility,” The country’s forces will stand firm “until their last breath,” protecting Tehran’s rights in the strait, he said.

Earlier in the day, US Central Command announced that it was carrying out “the third consecutive night of strikes,” with heavy blasts reported across many regions of Iran.

Read more

In retaliation, the IRGC carried out strikes against several US military facilities in the region, including “weapons storage depots, a satellite communications center,” and the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

The US president formally notified Congress of his intention to renew “defensive” strikes against Iran, according to a letter dated Friday and obtained by the New York Times, Politico, and other outlets. The White House argued that the move gives the administration a fresh 60-day timeline before it must seek congressional approval.

Trump also claimed that Washington is “taking over” the Strait of Hormuz, a key global energy supply bottleneck, and would charge vessels “20% on all cargo shipped” in exchange for protection. Washington would also reinstate its blockade of Iranian ports and bar passage to vessels belonging to Iran or its customers, he added. 

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said that his US counterpart was suggesting “piracy.”

This live feed has ended.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has launched missile and drone attacks on multiple US military facilities in the Middle East after American forces conducted another wave of airstrikes against the Islamic Republic.

The escalation comes as the two sides vie for control over the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for some 20% of global crude oil trade.

Iranian military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mohammad Akraminia has insisted that the key waterway “will never be reopened through... American acts of hostility,” The country’s forces will stand firm “until their last breath,” protecting Tehran’s rights in the strait, he said.

Earlier in the day, US Central Command announced that it was carrying out “the third consecutive night of strikes,” with heavy blasts reported across many regions of Iran.

In retaliation, the IRGC carried out strikes against several US military facilities in the region, including “weapons storage depots, a satellite communications center,” and the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

Read more

The US president formally notified Congress of his intention to renew “defensive” strikes against Iran, according to a letter dated Friday and obtained by the New York Times, Politico, and other outlets. The White House argued that the move gives the administration a fresh 60-day timeline before it must seek congressional approval.

Trump also claimed that Washington is “taking over” the Strait of Hormuz, a key global energy supply bottleneck, and would charge vessels “20% on all cargo shipped” in exchange for protection. Washington would also reinstate its blockade of Iranian ports and bar passage to vessels belonging to Iran or its customers, he added. 

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said that his US counterpart was suggesting “piracy.”

Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates.

US President Donald Trump has given Saudi Arabia the green light for a renewed military operation against Yemen’s Houthi movement, Axios has reported, citing US officials.

The report follows the most serious escalation between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis in years, which according to the outlet, could mark the collapse of an unofficial truce between the parties and risk widening the conflict between the US and Iran.

Sanaa International Airport, which is controlled by the Yemeni group, was struck on Monday as an Iranian aircraft reportedly carrying a Houthi delegation home from the funeral of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei approached the capital. The plane was forced to divert to the Red Sea port city of Al Hudaydah.

The Houthis accused Riyadh of launching the strike and declared that their ceasefire with Saudi Arabia was over. The group subsequently fired ballistic missiles and drones at Abha International Airport in southwestern Saudi Arabia and warned airlines against using Saudi airspace.

Read more

According to Axios, Riyadh sought Washington’s backing several days before the strike. The Saudi ambassador met US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday, and Rubio spoke with the Saudi foreign minister. Trump then held a phone call with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who requested and received his backing for the operation, a US official told the outlet.

The Saudi-backed Yemeni government later claimed responsibility for the operation and denied that Riyadh had been involved. Several media reports, however, attributed the attack to Saudi Arabia, which has not officially acknowledged carrying it out.

Sanna was seize by the Houthis, an Iran-aligned Shiite movement, in 2014, prompting a Saudi-led military intervention the following year. A UN-brokered truce introduced in April 2022 formally expired after six months but largely halted direct cross-border hostilities.

READ MORE: Yemen’s Houthis side with Iran: Who are they and how much firepower do they have?

The latest escalation also threatens a broader regional thaw. Saudi Arabia and Iran restored diplomatic relations in 2023 under a China-brokered agreement, while Riyadh has publicly maintained neutrality during the recent US-Iran confrontation and reportedly rejected US requests to use its territory for military operations against Iran.

In March, the Houthis entered the broader regional conflict by launching missile attacks against Israel in support of Iran.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has launched missile strikes against multiple US military facilities in the region after President Donald Trump promised to hit Iran “very hard” and claimed that “there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.”

“We’re going to hit them very hard tonight, and we’re going to hit them hard tomorrow,” Trump said on Monday.

The US Central Command announced shortly afterward that it had “begun launching the third consecutive night of strikes,” with heavy blasts reported across multiple regions of Iran.

In retaliation, the IRGC carried out strikes against several US military facilities in the region, including “weapons storage depots, a satellite communications center,” and the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

Read more

The US president formally notified Congress of his intention to renew “defensive” strikes against Iran, according to a letter dated Friday and obtained by the New York Times, Politico, and other outlets. The White House argued that the move gives the administration a fresh 60-day timeline before it must seek congressional approval.

Trump also claimed that Washington is “taking over” the Strait of Hormuz, a key global energy supply bottleneck, and would charge vessels “20% on all cargo shipped” in exchange for protection. Washington would also reinstate its blockade of Iranian ports and bar passage to vessels belonging to Iran or its customers, he added.

Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates.

US President Donald Trump has formally told Congress that Washington is once again at war with Iran, Politico and the New York Times reported on Monday.

The US House of Representatives previously attempted to limit Trump’s war powers, arguing that he lacked congressional approval for the February 28 US-Israeli attack on Iran. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must withdraw American forces after 60 days unless Congress authorizes the war.

In a letter dated Friday and obtained by the outlets, Trump reportedly argued that the renewed US strikes on the Islamic Republic represent his “responsibility to protect Americans and the United States’ interests both at home and abroad.”

.@NewsHour obtained the letter from President Trump sent to Sen Chuck Grassley (president pro tempore in Senate) notifying congress that military action in Iran has resumed. It’s dated July 10, last Friday. pic.twitter.com/FuPd2Uanle

— Liz Landers (@ElizLanders) July 13, 2026

The White House argued that the move gives the Trump administration a fresh 60-day timeline to continue military operations against Iran, according to the reports.

READ MORE: US and Iran exchange strikes: What is known so far

In May, Trump notified Congress that the initial conflict, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, had been “terminated” after a ceasefire between the US and Iran was reached on April 7.

However, the armistice and the memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran on June 17 collapsed after strikes resumed last week, with both sides accusing each other of breaking the agreement.

Read more

On Monday, Trump claimed that Washington is “taking over” the Strait of Hormuz, the key energy supply bottleneck that has served as a point of contention since the US and Israel launched the conflict.

The US would control the waterway and charge ships “20% on all cargo shipped,” the president said on Truth Social. Washington would also reinstate its blockade of Iranian ports and bar passage for vessels belonging to Iran or its customers, he added.

A dispute over an immigration bill passed by the European Parliament has escalated into a criminal complaint, with a Swedish MEP accusing a Danish colleague of racist hate speech over a social media comment, The Guardian reported on Monday.

A Swedish MEP of Iraqi descent, Abir Al-Sahlani, filed the complaint with Swedish police against Danish MEP Kristoffer Storm. He told her to “go home” in response to her post criticizing anti-immigration chants that followed the passage of a law aimed at speeding up the deportation of illegal migrants. She has also lodged a formal complaint with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola.

The dispute stems from last month’s approval of the Return Regulation, the toughest anti-immigration legislation passed by the EU in recent years. The measure allows member states to establish ‘return hubs’ outside the bloc to accelerate the deportation of illegal migrants.

Read more

After the vote, chants of “send them back!” erupted in the chamber. In a speech condemning the outburst, Al-Sahlani called it “a new low level, even for the fascists on the far right.”

“I have never felt as unsafe in this parliament as after the voting about the Return Regulation, because the shouting of the far right was not against the political opponent… It was about ordinary people who did no other crime than looking for a better life in Europe,” she said.

Storm rejected accusations that his response online was racist. Speaking to Politico, he said the phrase “go home” referred to leaving the parliamentary chamber, arguing that if Al-Sahlani found the democratic decision and lawmakers’ reactions so upsetting, “she would have been better off leaving the chamber.”

The clash comes amid growing tensions over migration across the EU. According to Eurostat, the bloc received more than 8.5 million immigrants from outside the bloc in 2023 and 2024, and immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in European politics.

READ MORE: Western Europe is sleepwalking toward civilizational suicide

Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump claimed that European countries had deteriorated to the status of “Third World countries” because of their immigration policies.

Polish politician Marianna Schreiber has posted a video of herself throwing a portrait of Vladimir Zelensky in the trash, accusing Kiev of glorifying the Ukrainian nationalists who engaged in the massacre of Poles during World War II.

Schreiber, a blogger and current candidate for mayor of Krakow, shared the clip on social media, where she is seen holding a portrait of Zelensky with a Hitler-style moustache drawn on his face.

”Banderites are not heroes. They are a disgrace to humanity,” Schreiber said in the video, referring to followers of Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

”Unfortunately, even after all these years, we have not received an apology,” she added. “On the day of Bloody Sunday, I want to say that Poles remember and will never, ever forgive.”

She then crumpled the portrait and threw it into a trash bin, saying that “the place for people who glorify criminals is in the trash can of history.”

#Wołyń #Pamiętamy pic.twitter.com/hVAHyGLqqI

— Marianna Schreiber (@MSchreiberM) July 11, 2026

Bloody Sunday refers to July 11, 1943, when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the OUN’s military wing, carried out coordinated attacks on Polish villages in Volhynia. The massacre was part of a wider campaign in which up to 100,000 ethnic Poles were murdered by Ukrainian nationalists between 1943 and 1944. Poland recognizes the killings as a genocide.

Read more

Schreiber’s stunt comes amid a deepening diplomatic row between Warsaw and Kiev over Ukraine’s continued honoring of World War II-era Nazi collaborators. The dispute intensified in May when Zelensky granted an elite Ukrainian military unit the honorary title ‘Heroes of the UPA’.

Polish officials condemned the move, calling it “outrageous” and warned that Ukraine will not join the EU as long as it continues to venerate Bandera and the OUN-UPA.

Kiev has also faced criticism over the recent state reburial of Andrey Melnik, another OUN leader who cooperated with Nazi Germany.

Russia has long argued that Kiev glorifies Hitler’s collaborators at the state level and has cited the “denazification” of Ukraine as one of the key goals of its military operation. Moscow has also accused Ukraine’s Western backers of ignoring Kiev’s infatuation with Nazi ideology for years while continuing to arm it against Russia.

President Donald Trump has reportedly formally notified Congress that the US is again at war with Iran, promising to “hit them hard” and claiming “there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.”

In a letter dated Friday and obtained by the New York Times, Politico, and other outlets, Trump announced renewed US strikes on the Islamic Republic, with the White House arguing that the move gives the administration a fresh 60-day timeline to request congressional approval.

“We’re going to hit them very hard tonight, and we’re going to hit them hard tomorrow,” Trump said in an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday.

The US Central Command announced shortly afterward that it had “begun launching the third consecutive night of strikes,” with heavy blasts reported across multiple regions of Iran.

Trump also claimed that Washington is “taking over” the Strait of Hormuz, the key energy supply bottleneck, and would charge vessels “20% on all cargo shipped” for protection. Washington would also reinstate its blockade of Iranian ports and bar passage for vessels belonging to Iran or its customers, he added.

US President Donald Trump has formally told Congress that Washington is once again at war with Iran, Politico and the New York Times reported on Monday.

The US House of Representatives previously attempted to limit Trump’s war powers, arguing that he lacked congressional approval for the February 28 US-Israeli attack on Iran. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must withdraw American forces after 60 days unless Congress authorizes the war.

In a letter dated Friday and obtained by the outlets, Trump reportedly argued that the renewed US strikes on the Islamic Republic represent his “responsibility to protect Americans and the United States’ interests both at home and abroad.”

Read more

The White House argued that the move gives the Trump administration a fresh 60-day timeline to continue military operations against Iran, according to the reports.

In May, Trump notified Congress that the initial conflict, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, had been “terminated” after a ceasefire between the US and Iran was reached on April 7.

However, the armistice and the memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran on June 17 collapsed after strikes resumed last week, with both sides accusing each other of breaking the agreement.

Read more

On Monday, Trump claimed that Washington is “taking over” the Strait of Hormuz, the key energy supply bottleneck that has served as a point of contention since the US and Israel launched the conflict.

The US would control the waterway and charge ships “20% on all cargo shipped,” the president said on Truth Social. Washington would also reinstate its blockade of Iranian ports and bar passage for vessels belonging to Iran or its customers, he added.

Iran has launched renewed strikes on American military facilities in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman overnight, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) saying it hit at least six bases in statements on Monday. The large-scale operation is a response to continued US strikes on targets across the Islamic Republic, according to Tehran.

The US has bombed Iran for four consecutive nights. It follows continued disagreement on the interpretation of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Washington and Tehran in mid-June, with both sides accusing each other of violations.

Targets of Iranian strikes

The Iranian military targeted Prince Hassan Air Base in Jordan, where a number of large missile depots and fuel storage tanks were “set ablaze,” according to the IRGC.

Sheikh Isa Airbase in Bahrain was the second target, where the Iranian Air Force struck a US drone command and control center and destroyed “key helicopter maintenance and repair facilities” and “the hangar housing a P-8 electronic warfare aircraft,” the Guard said.

Read more

The Iranian military also said it hit two American bases in Kuwait over the weekend and on Monday. At the Ali al-Salem Airbase, a Patriot air defense system was claimed destroyed, as well as some fuel storage tanks. At the Ahmad al-Jaber Airbase, a “strategic” radar system was reportedly taken out.

“Two HIMARS missile launchers and ammunition bunkers filled with missiles” were “completely” destroyed in a separate attack on another US facility in the Gulf nation, the IRGC added.

In the final phase of the operation, the Iranian Navy targeted a US base in Bahrain’s Juffair district located south of the capital Manama, where several surveillance radars were claimed destroyed.

An IRGC statement also maintained that “the Strait of Hormuz is our territory” and the only way for it to stay open is for the US to cease what it called “illegal… military interventions” in the area.

What’s been the US response?

The US military has not commented on the IRGC’s claims.

The latest statement from US Central Command (CENTCOM), issued on Sunday, said American forces had “completed a new wave of offensive strikes against Iran,” hitting “dozens of targets at multiple locations.” According to CENTCOM, the operation targeted air defense systems, coastal radar sites, missile and drone capabilities, and small boats, but did not specify the locations.

Read more

CENTCOM also said sea attack drones had been used for the first time against Iran. It further insisted that Iran “does not control” the Strait of Hormuz and said US forces in the region were prepared to ensure “freedom of navigation.”

On Monday, US President Donald Trump said America would be “taking over” the Strait of Hormuz from Iran and expected to “get paid” for providing security in the strategic waterway.

What’s the latest?

Iranian forces reportedly opened fire on two ships attempting to transit the strait on Monday morning.

Explosions were also reported near the southern Iranian city of Bandar Abbas and on Qeshm Island, according to Al Jazeera. The Iranian military said it had shot down a “hostile” drone near Bandar Abbas.

Elsewhere, at least two people were reportedly killed and three others injured in US strikes on several locations in the western Iranian city of Abadan.

Read more

Bahrain’s military said it had intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones. Attacks were also reported in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, where three people, including a child, were reportedly injured by falling debris.

What led to the latest escalation

The current exchange of fire follows months of fluctuating hostilities between Washington and Tehran. The conflict began with a joint US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28, prompting the latter to retaliate with strikes on American military bases across the Middle East.

Washington and West Jerusalem initially framed the campaign as an effort to topple Iran’s leadership and halt its nuclear program. The focus later shifted to the Strait of Hormuz after Tehran closed the strategic waterway in response.

A ceasefire in April halted regular shooting and was followed by months of Pakistan-mediated negotiations, culminating in the signing of a memorandum of understanding on June 17. Fighting resumed last week after Washington and Tehran clashed over the status of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US has demanded that Iran fully reopen the waterway and has been escorting commercial vessels along a route closer to the Omani coast, a move the IRGC has denounced as “illegal.”

A comprehensive new study of the global workforce finds that ‘anxiety’ is the best definition for how most workers feel about their career, their future, and the AI tsunami that threatens to wash it all away.

These days, everyone from doctors to lawyers and accountants to clerks are pondering the same question: will some machine eventually take over my job and what can I do to prepare for what appears to be an inevitability?

Just 22% of workers worldwide strongly agreed that their job was safe from elimination, according to a new report from ADP Research released this month. The results come from one of the largest workforce sentiment surveys ever conducted – more than 39,000 workers across 36 countries were polled.​

Meanwhile, a poll conducted by Ipsos in partnership with Epoch AI found that half of American adults used AI in the past week, either for personal or work use, with 20% of full-time workers saying that AI has taken over parts of their job.

Thus, it should surprise exactly nobody that the introduction of AI technology into all sectors of the economy is the leading cause of employee apprehension. Workers from Singapore to Spokane are fighting to understand what the technological upheaval means for their future – and they’re not comforted by what they are witnessing.​ The corporate world has failed to convince their workforce to welcome artificial intelligence with open arms.

Read more

“Despite three years of historically low global unemployment and steady economic growth, our data reveals widespread job insecurity expressed by workers worldwide,” Nela Richardson, chief economist, told reporters in a briefing on the survey results in New York City.

The ADP Research Today at Work 2026 report, based on survey responses collected in late summer 2025, “paints a portrait of a global workforce caught in the crosscurrents of technological disruption, demographic upheaval, and deep uncertainty,” writes Nick Lichtenberg in Fortune magazine. “The anxiety cuts across borders and industries, but ADP found that it hits hardest at the bottom of the organizational ladder.”​

According to the report, of the workers who make up the majority of most companies, only 18% said their job was safe. Managers did only marginally better at 21%. Predictably, confidence increased with seniority and status: Middle managers were listed at 23%, upper managers at 31%, and C-suite executives (an organization’s highest-ranking senior executives) at 35%. The data reveals that the higher up a worker is on the corporate ladder, the less afraid they are of taking a spill.​ Nevertheless, just a little more than a third of top executives feel like they have job security, according to the data, Fortune reported.

National divides were also painfully obvious. In Japan, a country famous for its intense commitment to corporate culture, only 5% of workers felt their jobs were secure, the lowest finding of any country in the survey. Meanwhile, Nigeria tallied the most confident workforce, with 38% of workers expressing job security. In America, the figure was only 28%.​

Globally, young workers ages 18 to 26 reported the highest level of optimism, with 29% saying they had the necessary skills to get ahead. But more senior workers ages 55 to 64 painted a drearier picture: Only 18% felt similarly prepared, and just 12% believed their company was investing in their talents. At the same time, just 20% of young workers strongly agreed AI would positively affect their jobs in the next year. That figure plummeted to just 10% among workers ages 55 to 64.​

Read more

ADP researchers are of the opinion that the current state of tension hitting the workforce is avoidable. What it boils down to is a failure of leadership. Employees who feel their supervisors are investing in their abilities were 5.3 times as likely to feel a high degree of job security.

“Younger workers are definitely more optimistic about their skill set,” Richardson told reporters. “Older workers are also, you know, more likely to say that they’re financially unprepared. Which is interesting. They make more money, but they feel more stretched financially. They’re more likely to say that they’re less productive and less engaged than younger workers. Youth and optimism go hand in hand.”

The survey also exposes a disturbing engagement crisis. Just 19% of workers globally were fully engaged on the job last year, a figure that is unchanged from 2024. That means about 80% of the workforce is not giving it their all on the job. Among those employees who strongly agreed their employer was investing in them, 53% were fully engaged. The figure sunk to just 12% for those who did not feel the investment. Meanwhile, employees who find meaning in their jobs are 12.5 times as likely to be fully engaged as those who don’t.​

“Upskilling isn’t just a strategy,” Richardson continued. “It’s a reassurance. It’s a trust pact between the employer and the worker.”

Currently, it is clear that the level of trust between worker and employer is greatly lacking inside of the corporation as the introduction of AI technologies can come at any time and with little prior notice. Such an environment leads to a general feeling of unnecessary worry and malaise inside of the workplace. Workers need assurances that they are receiving the same level of investment as AI technology is currently receiving to the tune of billions of dollars per year. That will make facing an AI future a less unsettling prospect for everyone.

Iraq may gradually be turned into a platform for the US to exert pressure on Iran. This doesn’t mean that Baghdad will be directly involved in the conflict; rather, Iraq may be used as a political, intelligence, logistical, and border corridor as part of a broader anti-Iran strategy currently being developed by the US and Israel.

The latest events in Baghdad point to the likelihood of this scenario. In late June, Iraqi security forces blocked the entrances to the ‘Green Zone’ – a fortified area in Baghdad where key government institutions and foreign diplomatic missions are located – and carried out a series of raids. Several political figures were detained, some of whom, according to media reports, are associated with the bloc of former Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani.

Officially, this is being presented as an anti-corruption campaign. But in Iraq – and generally, in the Middle East – anti-corruption cases are rarely just about corruption. Very often, they are driven by a power struggle, external influence, control over security forces, and an attempt to alter the balance within the elites.

Notably, this is happening after a shift in the political configuration of Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, a businessman and political newcomer, was presented as a compromise figure after a protracted crisis within the Coordination Framework (a council of major Shiite parties). His emergence on the political scene was the result of complex bargaining between domestic and foreign players.

Read more

Western and regional media directly reported that his candidacy was backed by Washington. Therefore, what is happening in Iraq may be viewed as more than just an internal fight against corruption. According to another theory, this may be an attempt to reform the Iraqi elite, weaken pro-Iranian groups, limit the influence of armed groups linked to Tehran, and make Baghdad more manageable in the event of renewed pressure on Iran.

Herein lies the main question: Is Iraq being prepared for war against Iran? Probably not. Iraq is viewed as a platform for pressuring Iran, not as an independent participant in the war. These are fundamentally different things. Iraqi territory may be used for intelligence operations, pressure, logistics, special operations, work with the Kurdish factor, and control over border areas. However, this does not mean that the US will decide to launch a full-scale ground invasion of Iran. Currently, this option appears too risky and costly.

Nevertheless, Iraq is a very sensitive direction for Tehran. Factors like the shared border, US infrastructure, the weakness of certain state institutions, the autonomous Kurdistan region, competition between the elites, and the presence of armed groups make Iraq a convenient space for applying hybrid pressure. Instead of a direct strike via the Persian Gulf, the US may employ a more gradual approach, for example, by creating new flashpoints around Iran without declaring a major war. 

We may particularly note the incident that occurred last week near the city of Piranshahr in Iran’s West Azerbaijan Province. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced the elimination of five terrorists who infiltrated the country through the mountainous border regions to commit acts of sabotage. 

Geography plays a key role in this matter. Piranshahr is located very close to the border with Iraq. Nearby is the Tamarchin Border Terminal, through which cargo flows from Iraq to Iran and further along regional routes. This is more than just a trading hub. It’s a sensitive area where border issues, logistics, the ethnical factor, and security issues converge.

Read more

This area is home to a large Kurdish population on both sides of the border. Moreover, in Iran’s West Azerbaijan Province, domestic and intercommunal tensions periodically arise between Iranian Kurds and Iranian Azerbaijanis, though Tehran tries not to draw public attention to this matter. These border areas are particularly attractive for external players: Here, it’s much easier to create tension, stage provocations, test the response of the security forces, and burden the state with additional problems.

In this situation, the Kurdish factor could become one of the key tools used against Iran. Firstly, it is a well-known fact that the Kurds are used by the US and Israel. Moreover, the border zone between Iran and Iraq has long been home to armed groups, historical contradictions, a complex ethnopolitical situation, and external influence. This is precisely why the clashes near Piranshahr cannot be viewed separately from the political processes in Baghdad. On the one hand, Iraq is witnessing a purge of political figures associated with previous pro-Iranian forces. On the other hand, the Kurdish border is becoming more active. Together, this creates a feeling that a network of pressure is being formed around Iran; Iraq, Kurdistan, the Persian Gulf, intelligence agencies, sanctions, infrastructure threats, and internal destabilization efforts are all part of it. 

At the same time, a full-scale ground invasion of Iran remains unrealistic. Iran cannot be quickly suppressed by means of a ground invasion because of its vast territory, difficult terrain, powerful security apparatus, significant mobilization resources, missile potential, and a network of allied structures in the region. Any attempt to use Iraq as a staging ground for a direct invasion would almost inevitably lead to retaliatory strikes against US military facilities in Iraq, the energy infrastructure of the Gulf states, and the logistics of US allies.

Read more

That is why the Gulf monarchies, despite their ties to Washington, are unlikely to openly engage in a full-scale war against Iran. They may provide infrastructure, intelligence and logistics support, airspace, or political cover. But direct involvement comes with much greater risk. Tehran’s response could be painful, and would target the ports, oil facilities, air bases, financial centers, and transportation corridors of the Gulf states. 

In other words, Iraq looks less like an independent participant in a future war and more like a convenient platform for pressuring Iran; it could be used for political reorientation, intelligence and logistics, work with the Kurdish forces and armed groups, and limited operations against Tehran.

This scenario appears more likely as of today. The US may hesitate to launch a full-scale ground war against Iran, but it could very well use Iraq as a territory for gradually weakening Iranian influence. The events in Baghdad and Piranshahr demonstrate that preparations for a new war against Iran are proceeding quietly and systematically.

A deadly blaze swept through a bar in Bangkok, Thailand, late on Sunday, leaving at least 28 people dead and dozens more critically injured, the authorities have reported.

According to eyewitness accounts the fire originated near the bar’s music stage and quickly spread, with many customers getting lost in the smoke and becoming trapped in the bathrooms in the ensuing panic.

At least 71 people were injured, with 25 remaining in critical condition, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration reported on Monday.

“When the power went out – for instance, at the restroom entrance – visibility dropped to zero. Everyone tried to exit, but the restroom had no windows; it was a dead end,” Thai national police chief Kittharath Punpetch said in a press briefing on Monday.

Read more

“Once inside, escape was impossible because smoke had already filled the area, and facing it meant confronting the danger.”

Thai police have begun focusing their forensic investigation on the area above the venue’s music stage as they work to determine what caused the deadly fire, he added.

The police will investigate the owners for negligence amid reports that the emergency exits were blocked, he said.

Terrifying video from the night of the incident shows a plume of fire shooting out of the bar’s front entrance, as customers run out surrounded by the flames.

Harrowing footage from inside the bar shows people choking on smoke as they run out of the darkened venue.

The Chatuchak District Office has issued an order closing the establishment for 30 days while the investigation takes place.

The United States has just marked a major anniversary, 250 years since it declared independence from Great Britain and, in theory, this should be a moment of national pride with another historical milestone passed, another reason for flags, fireworks, and speeches about destiny.

But the mood is not especially festive.

Two weeks before the anniversary, Reuters published a poll that captured the depth of American anxiety – and the numbers were grim. More than two-thirds (70%) of Americans no longer consider their country the greatest nation on Earth, while 64% believe American democracy is in danger. And 38% don’t believe the United States will survive another 250 years as a single country.

The answers split sharply along party lines, with Republicans still clinging more strongly to the idea of the exceptional country of prosperity and divine favor. Among Democrats, the mood is much darker and pessimism has become almost a worldview as the United States has arrived at its 250th anniversary in the middle of a profound crisis of belief.

In some ways, this resembles the crisis Soviet society experienced in the final years of the USSR. Of course, America never had an official state ideology in the Soviet sense and nobody in Washington promised to build communism at breakneck speed, but the US did have its own coherent vision of the future which it called the American Dream.

Read more

That dream promised prosperity through hard work and freedom. Work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility for yourself, and life will improve, your children will live better than you did and your country will remain a model for the world, but in the 21st century, that promise began to fall apart.

The first serious cracks appeared among millennials, the generation born between 1981 and 1996. Their parents got rich, bought homes, built savings, and traveled abroad, but they inherited student debt, unaffordable housing, unstable work, and the strange feeling that no matter how hard they run, the finish line keeps moving further away.

Older Americans told them the answer was simply to work as hard as they did, but younger Americans could see the numbers and how with comparable effort, earlier generations ended up far wealthier. 

So the old formula no longer worked and that undermined the idea of labor as an absolute virtue. If hard work no longer guarantees a decent life, then what remains? Freedom?

Americans are formally free in that they elect presidents and congressmen. Yet Congress is filled with elderly politicians who seem determined to change nothing and who often leave public life only when nature finally intervenes. Presidents speak beautifully on campaign trails, but once inside the White House, they usually follow the same old path so while the faces change, the machine remains and freedom, too, begins to look hollow.

Read more

For younger Americans, the American Dream is becoming what the bright communist future became for late Soviet citizens as an official promise repeated so often that almost nobody believes it anymore. Once a society loses its vision of the future, disorientation follows and almost everyone can feel that the system is not working properly. But what should replace it and where should the country go?

Well, American society has developed two sharply different answers. The conservative right believes America can be saved by a return to pragmatism with a freer market, support for major entrepreneurs, ruthless efficiency in public spending, and a foreign policy less constrained by old ideological sermons about democracy and human rights. In this view, America must stop trying to lecture the world and start taking care of itself.

The progressive left believes the opposite, that the pillars of liberal democracy mustn’t be abandoned, but that the economy needs radical restructuring. National wealth, they say, must be distributed more fairly and big business, especially in the technology sector, is viewed with deep suspicion. The new villains are “tech feudal lords,” billionaires whose power appears to rival that of the state itself.

Both camps agree on one thing, that the current order is exhausted, but they simply disagree on what should come next.

Donald Trump was supposed to test the right-wing answer in practice and his supporters expected a revolution in a break with the old elite, a new economic nationalism, a government that would stop apologizing and start acting because he promised all of that.

But Trump’s presidency has shown the limits of his movement in that there’s not much of a system and Trump doesn’t think in historical categories, but in terms of Trump. If it were up to him, Washington would be filled not with a new national doctrine, but with golden ballrooms and monuments to his own greatness.

Read more

His approach to America’s 250th anniversary has even disappointed some of his admirers. Many expected a serious program, or at least a symbolic reflection on the country’s path, but instead, Trump keeps speaking about his own achievements. At times, it is hard to tell whether America is celebrating 250 years of independence or continuing the festivities for its president’s 80th birthday.

So now disillusioned by the right, America is glancing left, although the country doesn’t yet trust the left nationally. But locally, especially in big cities, voters are increasingly willing to experiment, with Zohran Mamdani, the openly socialist mayor of New York, an obvious example. This is no accident as the largest cities are where the contradictions of modern America are most visible in terms of housing costs, inequality, migration, crime, decaying infrastructure, and anger at remote elites.

If socialist policies succeed at city level, their supporters will soon claim they are ready for higher office.

And what will their opponents do then? They could accept defeat or they may decide that their America can no longer live under the same roof as the other America, which is the real question behind the anniversary. Not whether the United States has had a remarkable 250 years, because it has, but the question is whether it still has a common future.

Perhaps America will find a new compromise and perhaps it will reinvent itself again, as it has done before, but perhaps its two political tribes have already begun traveling in different historical directions.

If, over the next 250 years, US history follows that road toward a civilized or uncivilized split, it won’t be because Americans lacked flags or speeches, it will be because the country’s old promise stopped convincing its own people.

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

Slovakia was not the only NATO state that refused to participate in the bloc’s latest military aid package for Ukraine, the country’s president, Peter Pellegrini, has said.

During the summit in Ankara, Türkiye last week, NATO members pledged to provide Kiev with €70 billion ($80 billion) in military equipment, training, and other assistance this year and to sustain at least the same level of financial support in 2027.

In an interview with broadcaster TA3 on Sunday, Pellegrini rejected claims that Bratislava was alone in declining to contribute to the package during the gathering in the Turkish capital.

“That is simply not the case. The Hungarian Prime Minister [Peter Magyar] spoke clearly on this matter, stating that Hungary would not provide any military or financial aid to Ukraine. The Czech Prime Minister [Andrej Babis] expressed the exact same position right at the negotiating table and there were other prime ministers, who also will not participate in those 70 billion,” he said.

Read more

“Slovakia was not alone in this attitude. Our position is that we will not help with weapons or financially participate in the further arming of Ukraine,” the president stressed.

Overall, Pellegrini described the NATO summit as “constructive,” but expressed regret that it focused on boosting military aid to Kiev and strengthening its air defenses and the ability to hit targets deep inside Russia, while “very little, if any, time has been devoted to when and how to start diplomatic negotiations.” 

“There is no purely military solution to this conflict. If this continues, it will be a war of attrition for several years, in which thousands of innocent people and tens of thousands of soldiers will be dying every month,” Pellegrini said.

After Robert Fico returned as Slovak prime minister in October 2023, Bratislava halted military supplies to Kiev. It also consistently criticized EU sanctions against Russia and called for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova last week described the NATO summit as “humiliating” for Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky.

“He once again rolled out his usual wish list, begging for missile and air defense systems… while touting Ukrainian military’s terrorist capabilities. NATO members offered no meaningful response to these appeals,” Zakharova argued.

READ MORE: NATO’s ‘Missile Summit’: The arms race Europe just signed up for

Moscow has repeatedly warned against Western military and financial support for Ukraine, arguing that it only serves to prolong the conflict without altering its outcome, while also increasing the risk of a direct clash between Russia and NATO.

Germany will fund the purchase of 50,000 attack drones for the Ukrainian military, Reuters has reported, citing informed sources.

Ukraine has intensified its drone attacks on energy infrastructure and residential areas inside Russia in recent months amid continued setbacks on the front line, targeting the country with several hundred UAVs per day on average. Among other things, there has been an increase in incidents where FPV drones, including AI-guided models, have hit passenger buses and private vehicles.

On Wednesday, at least 11 civilians were killed and a dozen others wounded in drone strikes across Russia, according to local authorities. Moscow has responded to these attacks by launching large-scale missile and UAV raids against military-related targets in Ukraine.

The drone order made by the German government involves low-cost Shrike first-person-view UAVs, Reuters said in an article on Sunday.

Read more

The quadcopters in question are produced by Ukrainian manufacturer SkyFall and rely on software from US firm Auterion. They are designed to autonomously track and engage moving targets in the final phase of the flight, it explained.

Auterion CEO Lorenz Meier told the agency that the contract for the Shrike drones was worth about €90 million ($103 million) and that it had been bankrolled by “a European country.” Some of the UAVs have already been supplied to Kiev, and the rest are expected by the end of 2026, he said.

According to Meier, Auterion is providing software to at least 100,000 drones from various manufacturers this year, which are paid for by several Western governments and intended to be delivered to Ukraine. This includes a $50 million Pentagon contract for 33,000 UAVs that have already been supplied to Kiev, he added.

SkyFall confirmed Germany’s involvement in the deal when contacted by Reuters, but refrained from providing any further details. The defense ministries in Berlin and Kiev declined to comment.

Germany has been the biggest supporter of Ukraine in the EU since the escalation between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022, with the amount of military aid provided by Berlin amounting to some €55.5 billion ($63.4 billion), according to government data.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last week that “it is high time Berlin put an end to the aggressive war [it is waging against Russia] by proxy of the Kiev regime.”

READ MORE: ‘Unprecedented’ AI-guided Ukrainian drone attack on airfields inside Russia foiled – FSB (VIDEO)

Moscow’s top diplomat, Sergey Lavrov, previously argued that the support for the “Nazi regime” in Kiev and the continued mobilization of Germany were signs of it “ transforming into a Fourth Reich.”

US President Donald Trump has claimed that America is “taking over” the Strait of Hormuz from Iran, and will act as the “guardian angel” of the key waterway “and get paid for it.” Tehran has earlier declared the strait closed, blaming “hostile actions” by US forces.

Speaking by phone to ‘Fox & Friends’ on Monday, Trump said Iran was getting its “ass kicked” in the war against the US, asserting that the country’s navy, air force and missile capabilities had been “virtually annihilated” and listing senior Iranian leaders he said had been killed. 

He added that US troops were continuing to carry out strikes against Iranian targets after he declared a ceasefire with Tehran to be “over” this past weekend.

“We’re taking over the strait. They’ve got nothing,” Trump said, arguing that Washington should have dealt with what he called the Iran threat “47 years ago.” He accused successive US presidents of having been “tapped along” by Tehran without taking decisive action.

READ MORE: US resumes strikes on Iran amid latest Hormuz escalation

The first time I saw Boris Johnson, he was dangling in mid-air in a safety helmet, Union Jack flags fluttering above him and his polished shoes tucked awkwardly beneath him. He looked like Mr. Bean after being accidentally ejected from an aircraft.

I couldn’t believe that this was the new prime minister of Britain, so I checked other photographs, assuming it might be Photoshop. But it wasn’t, and there he was, sitting in the same office once occupied by Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

That image has stayed with me because it captured something larger and made me ask what’s happened to Britain’s political elite, and to Western Europe’s more broadly?

Britain has changed prime minister repeatedly in recent years, and each new arrival has seemed more insubstantial than the last and compared with the major figures of the past, many of today’s leaders look lightweight and strangely unprepared for the seriousness of the offices they hold.

Elsewhere in Western Europe, the picture is no better, such as Emmanuel Macron who looks the part in a well-cut suit, but appearances only go so far. The photographs from his youth, the theatrical poses and the carefully managed presidential image all speak to a politics increasingly dominated by presentation, while even scenes from his marriage, such as the now-famous footage of Brigitte Macron appearing to strike him on a government aircraft, would have been almost unimaginable in the eras of François Mitterrand or Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.

Read more

In Western Europe’s smaller states, the decline is often more pronounced as political leaders increasingly resemble overexcited adolescents, eager to display their ideological credentials and fashionable causes. Their language is grandiose, their judgement frequently poor, and their sense of responsibility minimal.

Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s contempt for them is therefore understandable given he’s a career diplomat formed in a different political culture, one in which statecraft was supposed to involve discipline and a sense of consequence. Faced with Western Europe’s current political class, he sometimes sounds like a man struggling not to say what he really thinks.

The problem is that these leaders may be transient, but the consequences of their decisions are not and while governments change, the submarines, cruise missiles, armies, tanks and aircraft remain and so do the strategic commitments, sanctions regimes, broken relationships and accumulated risks created by politicians who may be gone within a few years.

So why has the quality of Western Europe’s political leadership declined so sharply? One major reason is economic as over the past three decades, the business world has become far more attractive to ambitious and capable young people than public service. A vice president responsible for government relations at a large corporation can earn €1.5 million a year, often with bonuses, stock options and a generous severance package and politics can’t compete with that.

An English friend once told me that a former schoolmate of his might one day become prime minister and this wasn’t fantasy. The man had attended an elite school, had been politically active from a young age and was moving through the expected stages of a serious political career.

Then business intervened as he was offered a position so lucrative that the uncertain prospect of becoming prime minister no longer seemed especially attractive and, thus, his political career faded, not because he lacked ability, but because the private sector valued that ability more highly.

Read more

Henry Kissinger spoke harshly about the decline of Western political leadership when he insisted that modern politicians lacked competence and any real understanding of the tasks before them and he was largely correct.

Yet Kissinger didn’t fully address another part of the problem, which is the American role in selecting and shaping much of Europe’s political class.

A notable number of European leaders have studied in the United States, attended American-funded programs or received support from US-linked foundations early in their careers and these institutions don’t simply identify talented young people, but they help shape their worldview.

This isn’t necessarily a matter of direct recruitment by intelligence services, because that’s a more difficult and unreliable process. The method is subtler, as young politicians are introduced to networks and encouraged to adopt a particular understanding of international affairs.

The result is a loyalty filter and independent-minded people rarely flourish in such systems. Those who advance are often the most adaptable and the most willing to repeat the approved language. In other words, the process doesn’t necessarily select the strongest candidates, but it selects the easiest to shape.

There are occasional mistakes, particularly in Poland where American institutions sometimes underestimate the ability of Polish politicians to imitate the language expected of them while retaining deeply nationalist instincts. Washington is wary of genuine Polish independence, but its candidate pool is limited, so compromises are made.

Read more

The American domestic system works differently, where young politicians often enter party networks already equipped with a good education and a carefully managed personal life and if they need money, party-connected business interests help them.

Republicans have traditionally relied on industrial and corporate networks, while Democrats have been supported by finance, arts, law, and media. A promising politician may spend several years in business, earn enough to become financially secure, and then return to public life with a house, and investments, but in Europe, the mechanism is almost the reverse.

Public pressure is constantly applied to reduce politicians’ salaries and privileges as the argument is always that they should cost less and appear more ordinary. Meanwhile, corporations offer increasingly extraordinary rewards to anyone with intelligence and connections so the predictable result is reverse selection.

The most capable people leave, while the ambitious ones move into business, consulting, finance, or lobbying and those who remain are often ideologues, careerists, eccentrics, or mediocrities with nowhere more attractive to go.

This process is now difficult to stop and the prestige of political office has fallen too far, while the rewards available in the corporate world have become too large and too obvious.

Much of Europe is therefore left with leaders who often lack competence and historical perspective and while they occupy powerful offices, many seem unable to understand the scale of the responsibilities they have inherited.

The danger isn’t merely that they look ridiculous, it’s is that they govern states possessing vast economic and military power and when weak people inherit powerful machinery, the consequences can be anything but trivial.

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

Europe recorded more than 10,000 excess deaths last month which have been attributed to the ongoing heatwave, Reuters reported on Sunday, citing official mortality data.

Western Europe experienced its hottest June on record, with temperatures exceeding 40°C in parts of Germany, France, and Spain. Germany recorded a new national high of 41.7°C after breaking temperature records on three consecutive days, while France logged its hottest day ever, with temperatures reaching 43.8°C.

The prolonged heatwave has fueled wildfires, disrupted transport and infrastructure, and contributed to a rise in heat-related illnesses and drowning deaths across the region.

Figures published by EuroMOMO, a mortality monitoring network backed by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), showed that more than 9,000 of the excess deaths occurred among people aged 65 and older.

Read more

“To have this kind of excess at this time of year is unusual. It’s really high,” Lasse Vestergaard, chief physician at Denmark’s Statens Serum Institut, which hosts EuroMOMO, told Reuters.

“It is difficult to explain this high excess mortality by anything but the extreme heat,” he added.

The EuroMOMO data are based on national mortality statistics from 27 European countries for the week of June 22-28, when the heatwave peaked across much of Western Europe. Researchers told Reuters there were no other known major factors, such as Covid-19 outbreaks, that could explain the spike to 10,650 excess deaths.

Read more

Extreme heat has become Europe’s deadliest weather-related hazard. Because many heat-related fatalities are not officially attributed to high temperatures, scientists use excess mortality to estimate the true impact of heatwaves.

Around 2,700 excess deaths were separately reported in England and Wales during May and June, according to estimates by Imperial College London, the Met Office, and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, as cited by Sky News.

France, Belgium, and the Netherlands recorded 3,700 excess deaths last month, Reuters reported.

Extreme heat can kill by causing heat stroke or exacerbating cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, with older people among the most vulnerable.

Henri Kluge, the World Health Organization’s regional director for Europe, warned last week that European countries must prepare for “more deadly weeks,” as another heatwave was already forming over the Atlantic.

At least 300 people were evacuated from a Paris suburb after weapons were found in a vehicle near a synagogue.

The suspicious vehicle was discovered on Saturday evening in the busy suburb of Sarcelles, north of the capital, which is home to one of the country’s largest Jewish communities. Police established a security cordon around the area, which includes a cinema and several restaurants, and evacuated nearby premises.

AFP, citing police sources, said officers recovered an assault rifle and a handgun from the stolen vehicle. Bomb disposal experts found no explosives.

Interior Minister Laurent Nunez described the rifle as a “military-grade weapon,” adding that it had been found near a synagogue in the Val-d’Oise department.

Read more

“We do not yet know the motives,” he said, adding that no arrests had been made.

The French National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into suspected participation in a “terrorist criminal organization” and preparations for a violent attack.

France, home to Europe’s largest Jewish population, has recorded a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents since the start of the Gaza war in October 2023.

Read more

Nunez noted that police had foiled three plots targeting the Jewish community this year alone, including a knife attack on a gendarme beneath the Arc de Triomphe in February.

The country recorded 1,320 antisemitic acts last year, triple the number recorded three years earlier. Such incidents accounted for more than half of all anti-religious offenses, despite Jews making up less than 1% of the French population.

In August 2024, an explosion outside a synagogue in the southern city of La Grande-Motte injured a police officer after two vehicles and the building’s doors were set on fire. A suspect was later arrested following a large-scale manhunt.

Speaking on Sunday at the unveiling of a statue honoring Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer falsely convicted of treason in late 19th-century France, President Emmanuel Macron warned of the resurgence of the “demons of anti-Semitism.”

The US has launched a fourth round of strikes against Iran this week in response to attacks on commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

“At 5 p.m. ET today, US Central Command forces began launching additional strikes against Iran to continue degrading its ability to attack civilian mariners and commercial ships freely transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The Commander in Chief has directed the strikes to hold Iranian forces accountable,” CENTCOM said in a statement on X on Sunday. 

Iranian media reported explosions in the southern part of the country, including in the port cities of Bandar Abbas, Sirik, and Jask, as well as on Qeshm Island. The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the strikes as “war crimes,” according to Press TV.

The latest escalation has put further strain on the memorandum of understanding (MoU) the two countries signed on June 17. Since then, both sides have accused each other of violating the accord. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Saturday that it would keep the strategic Strait of Hormuz closed to all shipping until the US ends its “illegal interventions” in the region.

Read more

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, denounced “one-sided deals,” warning the US to “keep your word or pay the price.”

CENTCOM said US forces had struck more than 300 military targets over the previous three nights. On Sunday, Iran responded by launching missiles at five Gulf Arab states that host American bases.

The US and Iran have clashed over the interpretation of the MoU’s provisions on the Strait of Hormuz, which handles around a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG trade.

Under the agreement, Iran pledged to use “its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge” for 60 days and negotiate with Oman over “the future administration and maritime services” in the strait. Iran has insisted that it has the right to regulate traffic and collect tolls, saying ships must pass through a designated route.

The US, meanwhile, has demanded that Iran declare the strait fully open and has guided vessels along a route near the Omani coast, which the IRGC has denounced as “illegal.”

Iran has warned that Arab states in the Middle East are legitimate targets for retaliatory strikes because they host US military bases.

The US continued striking targets in Iran early on Monday local time, marking the fourth consecutive night of bombardment. On Sunday, Iran responded by firing missiles and drones at US military sites in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman.

In a statement carried by ISNA late on Sunday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the “barbaric” US attacks and accused the Gulf monarchies of turning their countries into “an arena for its illegal and criminal war against the Iranian nation.”

“The neighboring countries are obliged under international law to prevent the aggressor from using their territory and facilities to carry out military aggression against Iran,” the ministry added.

Read more

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on all sides to “exercise maximum restraint, avoid further escalatory action, and take immediate steps to de-escalate.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei responded by arguing that Iran’s actions were justified. “Iran does not ‘attack.’ Iran’s strikes on US military bases and assets stationed in the southern Persian Gulf constitute a legitimate and lawful exercise of its inherent right to self-defense under international law,” he wrote on X on Sunday.

The war began with a joint US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28. Regular exchanges of strikes stopped after a ceasefire in April, which led to the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on June 17.

Hostilities resumed recently as the sides disagreed over the interpretation of the MoU and the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran declared closed to shipping in response to the US and Israeli strikes.

The US has launched a fourth round of strikes against Iran this week in response to attacks on commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

“At 5 p.m. ET today, US Central Command forces began launching additional strikes against Iran to continue degrading its ability to attack civilian mariners and commercial ships freely transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The Commander in Chief has directed the strikes to hold Iranian forces accountable,” CENTCOM said in a statement on X on Sunday. 

Iranian media reported explosions in the southern part of the country, including in the port cities of Bandar Abbas, Sirik, and Jask. The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the strikes as “war crimes,” according to Press TV.

The latest escalation has put further strain on the memorandum of understanding (MoU) the two countries signed on June 17. Since then, both sides have accused each other of violating the accord. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Saturday that it would keep the strategic Strait of Hormuz closed to all shipping until the US ends its “illegal interventions” in the region.

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, denounced “one-sided deals,” warning the US to “keep your word or pay the price.”

CENTCOM said US forces had struck more than 300 military targets over the previous three nights. On Sunday, Iran responded by launching missiles at five Gulf Arab states that host American bases.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

The US has launched a fourth round of strikes against Iran this week in response to attacks on commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

A US federal judge on Friday awarded Hunter Biden $1.7 million in damages in a defamation suit against Patrick Byrne, former Overstock.com CEO and outspoken backer of US President Donald Trump. 

The lawsuit had been dragging on since 2023, when Biden brought Byrne to court over repeated claims that he sought an $800 million bribe from Iran during his father’s presidency. Byrne alleged that in exchange for the massive payout, Biden promised to get some $8 billion in Iranian funds unfrozen and to ensure a softer stance in nuclear talks with Tehran.

While Byrne has insisted he believed the allegations to be genuine, he failed to “provide to this court, throughout the course of litigation, any documentary evidence that could allow a reasonable person to believe the story to be true,” the judge said in his ruling. Moreover, the court found “ample evidence” indicating the defendant knew the claims were false but spread them nonetheless.

The claims disseminated by the defendant “went far beyond mere negligence,” and the former CEO acted with “intentional misrepresentation” and “conscious disregard,” continuing to spread the claims even after he was sued by Hunter and encouraging social media users to propagate them further. 

“The evidence is clear and convincing that [Byrne] has engaged in intentional misrepresentation with conscious disregard towards [Biden’s] rights,” the judge wrote in the ruling, which awarded Hunter $1.7 million in punitive damages.

Read more

The legal team of the ex-president’s son hailed the ruling as a “complete vindication” for their client against the “false statements” made by Byrne. “As found by the court, Byrne had no basis to say that Hunter had any involvement with Iran whatsoever,” Hunter’s attorney Bryan Sullivan said in a statement.

Over the past years, Biden has been embroiled in assorted legal troubles and claims to have racked up a massive debt primarily stemming from court fees, even despite his father granting him a pardon for convictions on federal gun and tax charges in the last days of his presidency. Byrne is no stranger to controversy either, being one of the central figures of the scandal involving Russian gun activist Maria Butina, with whom he admitted to having an intimate relationship. Butina was ultimately convicted of “conspiring to act as an unregistered foreign agent” and expelled to Russia after serving a prison term. 

The affair prompted Byrne to step down from his executive role in 2019, with the businessman focusing primarily on political activism ever since. He has strongly supported US President Trump, including by backing the allegations that the latter was cheated out of the 2020 election win, as well as bankrolling legal efforts to challenge the outcome.

The Trump administration has served several New York Times journalists with subpoenas after the newspaper ran an article questioning the safety of the Air Force One jet donated by Qatar last year. The outlet has in turn accused the White House of attempting to suppress the freedom of the press.

On Thursday, the Times published an article claiming that the new presidential plane – dubbed by the media a “flying palace” and valued at around $400 million – lacks standard security features, including anti-missile defenses. Trump used it to travel to the NATO summit in Türkiye earlier this week.

However, the paper cited anonymous officials as saying that security flaws were the reason the US president abruptly swapped the new airplane for the old Air Force One on his return flight on Wednesday. The decision was supposedly made at the urging of the Secret Service.

According to the newspaper, shortly before the article was published, a senior FBI official reached out, asking that the piece be spiked on national security grounds. The official also reportedly pressed the newspaper to divulge its sources.

Read more

On Friday, federal agents showed up at some of its journalists’ homes, delivering subpoenas that require them to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week, the NYT said.

The paper described the development as an “extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations.” The writs reportedly were issued by US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton “in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law.”

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” NYT lawyer David McCraw stated.

Trump has repeatedly branded mainstream media outlets “crooked” and accused them of displaying bias against his administration.

The donation of the Boeing 747-8 to the US government by the Qatari royal family was announced last May. Commentators at the time noted that it could be the most expensive gift ever given to Washington by a foreign government.

Read more

Representative Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, was quick to describe the Qatari present as “grift,” insisting that “Trump must seek Congress’ consent” before accepting. Republican Senator Ted Cruz, in turn, warned that the plane “poses significant espionage and surveillance problems.”

Trump defended the move, however, writing on his Truth Social platform that “it is a ‘gift from a Nation’ to the US government ‘NOT TO ME’.”

In a statement last month, the US Air Force acknowledged that the “collective team made trades on some of the less commonly used mission sets” when clearing the Qatari-donated plane for operation.

Meanwhile, the US Air Force’s contract with Boeing for two new Air Force One jets has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. Originally scheduled for delivery in 2024, the customized 747-8 aircraft are now expected to arrive as late as 2028.

Lindsey Graham is dead. And if we were to apply the old Spartan and then Roman adage “about the dead, nothing but the good,” then this is where this text would have to end. 

Some readers may find this shocking or unkind. But it is a fact that there is no way to write about the intriguingly sudden end of the long-term US senator from South Carolina in a ‘balanced’ manner and stay honest.

Graham was an almost cartoonishly evil man and since he was also very powerful, his moral depravity made a big difference to the lives of all too many. Downplaying that fact out of misplaced piety would be perverse; it would mean to disrespect the many victims of perfidious and brutal US and, in fact, Israeli policies of vicious violence and outrageous injustice that Graham promoted with every fiber of his being for his whole political life.

During the Gaza genocide, when challenged specifically about the Israeli mass killings of civilians, including women and children, Graham launched into what can only be called a psychopathic rant comparing the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians with American warfare against Germany in Japan in World War II (an intriguing comparison in and of itself, but that is another matter) and drawing the conclusion that Gaza should be flattened, including with nuclear weapons. Gaza has been flattened, and to his dying day, Graham never showed an ounce of compassion for those slaughtered by his Israeli friends and did everything he could to support that slaughter.

Read more

That is, of course, also why internationally wanted war criminal – really genocidaire – Benjamin Netanyahu rushed to offer his public condolences.

Speaking of Graham’s obvious subservience to Israel, the senator was, unsurprisingly, also a great fan of going to war with Iran, tirelessly calling for attacking it as violently as possible. He spread the Orwellian lies that Iran was about to pose a nuclear threat to the US and that its ballistic missile arsenal was a tool of reckless aggression, all to produce domestic support for yet another criminal American war. Himself addicted to hiding his foul character behind a bigoted and utterly fake Christian piety, Graham compared Iran’s leaders to Hitler and called them “religious Nazis,” thereby not merely offending brave men towering above him in moral and intellectual terms, but also helping to drum up propaganda for murdering them.  

It is an irony of history or, maybe, divine justice that he lived just long enough to see the US follow his insane and corrupt advice and suffer a geopolitically catastrophic defeat for it. 

Yet Graham was a monster long before the Gaza Genocide and the US-Israeli war against Iran. He was obsessed with brutalizing as many other countries and societies as possible. He could not see an opportunity for a war and not do his worst to make it happen. Graham’s record of warmongering is so extensive that it is hard to reproduce it in its entirety. Just shortly before his end, he had been calling for more US violence in Cuba, Lebanon, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Yemen – apart, obviously, from his eternal compulsion to scream for, in effect, more dead Palestinians and Iranians.

Read more

In true American fashion, if being Graham’s target was terrible, being his ‘friend’ was no better. Ukraine has come to stand for that experience. Even while pretending to be its ardent supporter, Graham was always among those most brutally open about using Ukraine and its people for the geopolitical and commercial interests of the US. He praised opportunities to rob Ukraine of crucial raw materials and he clearly considered pumping money into its ultra-corrupt Zelensky regime a great deal as it produced dead Russians (and, he failed to mention, Ukrainians, too, of course). 

There is no other way of putting it. Lindsey Graham was an infernally bad man. And he was a revolting man: his viciousness was glaringly obvious. Graham was not a complicated case, a conflicted character, a man of light and dark. He was among the closest to pure, unadulterated, and shamelessly brazen evil many of us will ever lay eyes on. 

That is why it is telling – but not surprising – to see who is lining up to let us know how much they’ll miss him, that they were buddies with him, or what a wonderful person he was. Apart from Netanyahu, for instance, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, NATO’s Trump bellboy Mark Rutte, Ukraine’s authoritarian leader Vladimir Zelensky, and, of course, AIPAC.

What these often abject condolences show is not merely the moral failure – polite term – of those who offer them. There is a more general and, in its way, worse point: Horrible as Graham was, he was also representative of the elites of the US and the West. Normal people would be ashamed to be seen with Graham, dead or alive; Western elites are boasting of their intimacy with him. 

Graham was explicit in displaying his genuine, sick joy in inflicting pain and misery on as much of the world as he could. Indeed, one way to describe him would be as an openly, enthusiastically sadistic imperialist. Graham was a depraved pervert of power who let it all hang out. But apart from his lack of filter, he was not an exception but typical. 

Graham was the ugly and all too realistic face of much of the West and its leaders in Washington. He is gone, everyone and everything else is still in place. 

Iranian drone strikes have destroyed a number of US HIMARS missile launcher systems in Kuwait, Fars news agency has reported. The outlet also said that three American officers were killed and several others wounded – a claim that has not been confirmed by US Central Command (CENTCOM).

On Sunday, Axios journalist Barak Ravid reported, citing an unnamed US official, that Washington had carried out “a few strikes on missile and air defense systems,” as well as on Iranian Navy small boats, at several locations around the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s Press TV reported multiple explosions near Qeshm Island, sharing footage appearing to show smoke rising over the area. Qeshm is Iran’s largest island in the Persian Gulf and reportedly a key site for the country’s coastal defenses, radar systems, and naval assets.

BREAKING: Iran has just launched a large-scale surprise attack on Kuwait, with three ballistic missiles directly impacting US ATACMS ground-to-ground missile systems. Massive plumes of smoke rising. pic.twitter.com/jDliRlAAhp

— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) July 12, 2026

Later in the day, Fars reported that Iranian forces had used drones to destroy the HIMARS launchers in Kuwait, which it said had been readied to fire on Iranian territory. The agency also said three ballistic missiles were fired toward Kuwait’s Al Mina area and a site housing a US ATACMS missile system, adding that US military assets in Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, and Oman had also been targeted throughout the day.

Kuwait’s military confirmed that the country had come under attack but made no mention of the HIMARS claim or any American casualties, without pinning the blame on Iran. It said that three land border posts in the country’s north had been struck in a “criminal aggressive attack” that caused “material damage,” while a hostile drone hit an offshore drilling platform operated by the Kuwait Oil Company, injuring one worker.

READ MORE: US issues Hormuz deadline to Iran – Axios

Iran and the US military continue to trade blows after the collapse of a tentative ceasefire earlier this month. Washington accused Tehran of attacking vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran said that some of the ships had failed to comply with instructions as they passed through. Tehran has since declared the strait closed – a claim US officials dispute, saying commercial traffic continues to move through the waterway.

The European Commission is officially recommending the termination of the EU’s €2 million ($2.28 million) grant to the Venice Biennale over the reopening of Russia’s pavilion. The country returned to one of the world’s most prestigious art festivals this year for the first time since 2022 despite Brussels’ sanctions and pressure on Italian authorities to exclude it.

The announcement was made by Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice-President of the EU Commission for Democracy, on Saturday, who cited “a thorough assessment of the replies from the Biennale to justify the re-opening of Russia’s pavilion.”

“Culture in Europe – funded with taxpayers’ money – should promote and safeguard democratic values,” she wrote on X, claiming that Russia does not adhere to this standard.

Read more

In early March, the Venice Biennale announced that Russia would participate again this year despite the Ukraine conflict, the stand-off with the West, and unprecedented EU sanctions. Russia owns its own pavilion – one of the oldest at the exhibition – meaning that evicting it is impossible without the Italian government seizing the property.

Russia’s cultural exchange chief, Mikhail Shvydkoy, said that the pavilion would host “more than 50 young musicians, poets, and philosophers from Russia and other countries.” The show, titled “The Tree Is Rooted in the Sky”, he said, “is further proof that Russian culture is not isolated, and that attempts to ‘cancel’ it – undertaken for the past four years by Western political elites – have not succeeded.”

Read more

Russia’s participation triggered a tantrum from Ukraine and its backers in the EU, with Kiev and 21 members of the bloc sending a joint letter to the Biennale, urging it to reverse course and warning that “granting Russia a prestigious international cultural platform sends a deeply troubling signal.” In April, the Biennale’s entire five-member international jury resigned over the decision to allow Russia and Israel to participate.

Ukraine separately imposed sanctions on individuals linked to running the pavilion, with activists, including members of the banned Russian punk group Pussy Riot, staging protests in Venice. The pavilion remained open during the preview days but closed for the remainder of the event, with organizers citing EU sanctions.

Biennale President Pietrangelo Buttafuoco refused to back down, accusing critics of censorship and narcissism. “The Biennale is not a court; it is a garden of peace. We cannot shut it down; we cannot boycott as an automatic response. We must discuss. We may disagree, and we do so forcefully,” he said in May.

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini also criticized the EU’s push to defund the Biennale, saying that threats against Italian cultural institutions are “truly embarrassing.”

Shvydkoy branded the EU pressure as “disgraceful,” adding that “claims by the European establishment about being open to dialogue with Russia are empty.” He also accused Brussels of “blatant interference in Italian domestic politics.” 

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova argued that the EU is relapsing into “anti-culture, a condition that the West has been suffering from in recent years.”

Iran will not allow the US to violate the terms of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) with impunity, Tehran’s top negotiator Mohammad Ghalibaf has said.

On Saturday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that the Strait of Hormuz will be closed to all shipping until the US ends its “illegal interventions” in the region. The move follows the third wave of American strikes against Iran this week.

Tehran allowed traffic through the key waterway, which accounts for some 20% global crude trade, as part of the MoU, which was signed by the sides on June 17 in order to extend the ceasefire and allow for more time to reach the final settlement of the conflict.

In a post on X on Sunday, Ghalibaf, who is also the speaker of the Iranian parliament, warned the US that “the era of one-sided deals is OVER.”

“We told you: keep your word or pay the price. Reality is knocking,” he wrote.

Read more

The post included a screenshot of one of the points of the MoU, stating that it’s up to Tehran “to make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” through the Strait of Hormuz.

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) said earlier that it launched its latest bombardment of Iran after Tehran “blatantly” attacked the Cyprus-flagged container ship GFS Galaxy in the strait.

The IRGC maintains that it targets such commercial vessels because they are traversing the waterway via a shipping lane near the Omani coast, which was “illegally designating” by Washington, instead of taking the route mapped out by Tehran.

Iran later retaliated for the US strikes by hitting the American military facilities in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman with drones and missiles, according to the IRGC.

Among other things, a command center and hangars housing US MQ-9 Reaper drones at Prince Hassan Air Base in Jordan and a refueling facility for US aircraft carriers at the port of Duqm in Oman were struck, it said.

READ MORE: Iran declares Strait of Hormuz closed until US ends ‘illegal’ interventions

“The enemy should know that the continuation of its aggression will bring even more crushing responses. Bring it on, and we will fight back,” the IRGC warned.

Western Europe is not being conquered by foreign armies. It is being dismantled by its own political elites. While millions of Europeans watch their countries change beyond recognition, the ruling class continues to celebrate the very policies driving that transformation.

The numbers alone should set off alarm bells across every EU capital.

According to demographic data compiled by Berlin’s Rockwool Foundation, the European Union’s foreign-born population has surged from around 40 million people in 2010 to approximately 64 million in 2025. Out of the EU’s total population of roughly 451 million, around 15% are now of non-EU origin. Even more astonishing, 7.3 million immigrants were added between 2023 and 2025 alone.

It is one of the fastest demographic transformations ever experienced.

The demographic revolution nobody voted for

The impact is concentrated overwhelmingly in Western Europe. Germany remains the primary destination, with its foreign-born population growing from around 10 million in 2010 to nearly 18 million today – already exceeding one-fifth of the country’s population. Similar proportions now exist in Spain, Belgium, Austria, and Sweden. Meanwhile, countries such as Poland remain at only around 2.6%, compared with the EU average of approximately 14%.

If anyone wants to see where Brussels intends to take the entire continent, they need only look at Spain.

On June 30, the application period closed for one of the largest legalization programs in modern European history. Hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants living and working in Spain became eligible to obtain legal status. The final number could ultimately exceed one million people.

Read more

This is hardly Spain’s first amnesty. Between 1986 and 2005, six similar legalization programs were carried out. But Europe was a very different place then. Migration pressures were nowhere near today’s scale, and the continent’s demographic balance had not yet begun shifting so dramatically.

Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called the measure “an act of justice and a necessity.” Unable to secure parliamentary approval, his government amended immigration law by decree after previous attempts had stalled. He argues that Spain would lose 19% of its GDP by 2050 if migration were significantly reduced, while claiming that nearly half of Spain’s economic growth since 2022 has been driven by immigration.

Western Europe’s governing class increasingly speaks as if civilization can be measured solely by GDP.

Economic growth matters. But so do social cohesion, public trust, cultural continuity, and national identity. A nation is more than an economy. It is a shared history and a sense of belonging that cannot simply be imported.

Meanwhile, activist NGOs continue assisting illegal migrants in reaching Europe and navigating legalization procedures. Their supporters call it humanitarian work. The reality is different: a transnational political infrastructure that weakens national sovereignty, undermines border enforcement, and encourages further migration into Europe.

The price Europeans pay every day

The consequences are no longer abstract. Across Western Europe, citizens wake up almost daily to reports of knife attacks, gang violence, sexual assaults, riots, organized crime, and terrorist plots. These realities have become impossible to ignore.

Europe has also witnessed a deeply troubling resurgence of antisemitism. Jewish communities across the continent have reported sharp increases in antisemitic incidents, intimidation and threats, leaving many Europeans wondering how a continent that vowed “never again” now finds itself confronting hatred once more.

Read more

Parallel societies have emerged in numerous cities. Entire neighborhoods increasingly operate according to social and cultural norms that differ markedly from those of the host country. Police officers, teachers and local officials openly acknowledge that integration has become vastly more difficult than politicians once promised.

Yet citizens who raise these concerns are too often branded right-wing extremists instead of being heard.

Now another frontier is opening. France has begun debating whether non-EU foreign residents should be granted the right to vote and stand in municipal elections. Such a proposal would affect roughly six million people. Among others, Sweden, Finland and Luxembourg already permit many non-EU residents to vote in local or regional elections.

Mass immigration is no longer simply changing demographics. It is reshaping politics, culture, and ultimately the future character of European societies.

A wind of change in Brussels?

In June, the EU adopted its toughest migration line to date, seeking to increase deportations and establish detention centers outside the EU. Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Greece are already negotiating return hubs with third countries, largely in Africa, following Italy’s agreement with Albania.

When Brussels begins embracing policies it condemned only a short time ago, it is effectively admitting that the previous model has failed.

But these measures barely scratch the surface. Stopping tomorrow’s illegal arrivals does not undo decades of uncontrolled migration. It does not solve failed integration. It does not dismantle parallel societies. And it certainly does not restore public confidence that governments still control their own borders.

Read more

That is why remigration has become an increasingly prominent topic across Europe. Its supporters describe it as a long-term strategy aimed at reversing migratory flows through legal, economic and administrative measures, prioritizing the return of illegal migrants, removing legal migrants who commit serious crimes or consistently refuse to integrate, and restoring national sovereignty and cultural continuity.

Whatever one thinks of the concept, its growing political momentum reflects a profound loss of confidence in the migration policies that have dominated Europe for the past decade.

‘Great Replacement’ as a matter of fact

Following the Remigration Summit in Porto this May, activists launched the Save Europe Act, the first patriotic European Citizens’ Initiative dedicated to stopping migration, strengthening Europe’s borders and protecting the ethnocultural identity of European nations.

The campaign has received support from figures including former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, VOX leader Santiago Abascal, Romania’s George Simion, Reconquête leader Éric Zemmour, and politicians associated with AfD, FPÖ and other patriotic movements. Millions of Europeans are demanding a fundamentally different course.

One of the central arguments advanced by these leaders is that the ‘Great Replacement’ is not a conspiracy theory but an observable demographic trend – and a political project.

The pressure coming from Donald Trump’s America has become one of the few external forces encouraging European leaders to rediscover the importance of borders, sovereignty and national identity.

Western Europe increasingly resembles a post-European political project, while much of Central and Eastern Europe continues to resist that trajectory, remaining more culturally homogeneous and more determined to preserve their historical identity.

The rest of the world understands this instinctively. China protects its borders. Japan protects its borders. India protects its borders. The Gulf states protect their borders. Every serious state recognizes that controlling migration is an essential attribute of sovereignty and security. Europeans should stop apologizing for expecting the same.

Read more

Equal partnerships instead of paternalism

At the same time, defending Europe’s borders should not mean turning away from the rest of the world. Europe should fundamentally rethink its relationships with Africa, Asia, and other regions. Instead of exporting liberal ideology, political social engineering and woke agendas, European governments should concentrate on helping partner countries tackle the objective drivers of migration: economic underdevelopment, insecurity, weak institutions, and the lack of opportunities that force millions to seek a future elsewhere.

Such cooperation should be based on mutual respect, not paternalism. Stronger African and Asian nations benefit everyone. Helping people build prosperous and secure lives in their own countries is more sustainable than encouraging the permanent loss of their youngest and most ambitious generations through mass migration. Europe should be a partner in development, not a magnet for demographic displacement.

The choice before Europe is therefore larger than immigration policy alone. It is a choice between a continent that governs itself and one that drifts wherever demographic and political currents carry it.

The demographic clock is ticking. Every year the numbers grow larger. Every year the political class asks Europeans to accept another exception, another amnesty, another compromise, another surrender.

There comes a moment when every civilization must decide whether it still possesses the confidence to preserve and develop itself. Europe is rapidly approaching that moment.

The US government has made its first payments to American personnel affected by the unexplained health condition known as ‘Havana Syndrome,’ the Pentagon has said.

The victims of the mysterious malaise have already received almost $3 million in compensation under the Havana Act of 2021, the Department of War said in a statement on Friday.

The department’s “commitment to mitigating non-kinetic threats remains absolute,” the statement read. The Pentagon will continue to improve care for those affected by ‘Havana Syndrome’ and “adapt to a dynamic operational environment,” it added.

The health condition got its name due to being first identified among US embassy staff in the Cuban capital, Havana, in 2016. According to the victims, its symptoms included headaches, dizziness, nausea, hearing loss, memory issues and difficulty concentrating.

Reports of American diplomats experiencing ‘Havana Syndrome’ have since emerged in China, Russia, Australia, the US itself and dozens of other countries, with over 1,500 cases registered globally.

Read more

Despite investigating the matter for years, Washington has been unable to identify the causes of the malaise. Most scientist explain it citing environmental factors, including the chirping of crickets and cicadas, and stress situations, with medical checkups of those affected revealing no brain damage.

There has been speculation about the malaise being the result of the deployment of an unknown microwave or electronic weapon. But a paper by the US National Intelligence Council last year said that most American spy agencies “assess that it is ‘very unlikely’ a foreign adversary is responsible” for the cases of the ‘Havana Syndrome.’

In 2024, The Insider, Der Spiegel and CBS’s 60 Minutes published a joint report, linking the health condition to the activities of a Russian intelligence unit.

At the time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denounced the article as “nothing more than baseless, unsubstantiated allegation by the media.”

READ MORE: ‘Havana syndrome’ has been debunked, but will lessons be learned?

There have been a number of attempts to blame the ‘Havana Syndrome’ on Moscow over the years, but no convincing proof of its involvement has ever been presented, Peskov stressed.

Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has died at the age of 71, according to his official account on X.
Graham passed away on Saturday evening “from a brief and sudden illness,” a statement, published by the senator’s office on Sunday, read.

“Senator Graham’s family appreciates prayers at this time and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period,” it added.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has vowed to avenge his father and predecessor, Ali Khamenei, who was killed in US-Israeli airstrikes on his compound in Tehran on February 28.

Khamenei made the statement after his father was laid to rest at the Imam Reza Shrine in his hometown of Mashhad on Thursday. More than 43 million people attended weeklong funeral ceremonies across Iran and Iraq, according to Iranian state media. Some mourners carried placards calling for the killing of US President Donald Trump, chanted “Death to America,” and threw stones at a billboard depicting Trump with a bullet aimed at his head. 

“We pledge that we will take revenge for the pure blood of the martyred leader and all the martyrs of these two wars from the criminal and disgraced killers,” Khamenei said in a statement read on state television on Saturday.

“Revenge is the demand of our nation and must certainly be carried out. Soon, the free people of the world will carry out a part of this divine mission,” the statement added.

Read more

Khamenei has not appeared in public since the Assembly of Experts chose him to succeed his father in early March.

Trump threatened on Friday to “completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran” if Tehran attempted to assassinate him. Several US media outlets reported this week that Israel had warned Washington of what it described as a new Iranian plot against Trump.

The US and Israel killed dozens of senior Iranian officials and military commanders during the first weeks of their bombing campaign. Trump recently argued that the ceasefire, first reached in April, was effectively “over” as the two sides clashed over the interpretation of the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17.

The US carried out a third round of strikes against Iran this week in response to continued attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran blamed the US for the “incidents,” accusing Washington of “illegally designating” a shipping route near the Omani coast. Tehran has insisted that all ships use the route designated by Iran.

US Congressman Ro Khanna has said that armed Israeli settlers detained him during a visit to a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank, claiming that Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops sided with the settlers rather than helping his delegation.

Khanna, a progressive Democrat from California, has often criticized Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and accused it of committing genocide in Gaza, an allegation Israel denies.

According to the congressman, the incident occurred on Wednesday during a three-day fact-finding trip to examine the impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian communities. He said masked Israeli settlers carrying US-made M4 rifles surrounded the van carrying him and his team as they visited the abandoned Palestinian village of Khirbet Zanuta, where they were inspecting a school that Khanna said had been destroyed by Israeli settlers.

Read more

Khanna told Reuters the settlers blocked the road, refused to let the group leave, and detained them for about 90 minutes.

“They block off the road. And then they call the IDF and the IDF is on their side, not on the side of the Americans,” Khanna said. The son of Indian immigrants, Khanna said the disturbing encounter made him “acutely aware of being brown.”

“I saw the arrogance in the eyes of those settlers, 21- and 22-year-olds with guns, laughing that they had detained us, the arrogance of those young IDF soldiers that my tax dollars are funding,” Khanna said, adding that the settlers and the soldiers had created “a toxic culture of oppression.”

Read more

The IDF said its soldiers did not take part in blocking the road and added that, after receiving a report that a vehicle carrying foreign nationals had been obstructed, “troops were dispatched to the scene, quickly dispersed the Israeli civilians, and reopened the blocked road.”

Khanna, however, accused the Israeli government of “lying to cover up” for the troops and called for their arrest.

The incident came shortly after four Israeli settlers were arrested over an attack on a CNN crew and other journalists near the West Bank village of Sinjil, according to Israeli police. The reporters had been covering the first anniversary of the killing of Saif Musallet, a Palestinian American who was allegedly beaten to death by settlers in July 2025.

Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law. The UN has repeatedly condemned Israel for allowing the settlements to expand.

Politicians, journalists, and activists critical of Israel have been barred from entering the country or visiting the West Bank. In 2019, Israel blocked visits by US Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. Last month, Palestinian American activist Linda Sarsour was prevented from traveling to Israel.

American journalist Tucker Carlson said earlier this year that he had been briefly detained and questioned at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv after interviewing US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. Israeli authorities said he had been subjected to routine security checks.

Two people were killed and at least six others were injured in a mass shooting at the Salsa on St. Clair street festival in Toronto, Canada, on Saturday evening.

Police received reports of an active shooter shortly after 8 p.m. and cordoned off the area. The suspect remains at large.

“A large police presence remains in the area as officers continue their investigation. Please continue to avoid the area and follow directions from emergency personnel,” police said.

Videos from the scene show people running for cover after gunshots rang out.

People RUNNING OFF after Mass Shooting in Toronto’s Salsa on St. Clair Festival 😳 https://t.co/hr4ChzLq5d pic.twitter.com/VdyfrTfJiL

— RTN (@RTNToronto) July 12, 2026

Another video shows paramedics treating the victims.

#BREAKING: Bystanders are left in shock after a shooting during a festival in Toronto left two people dead and three others injured. 🤕🚨#Toronto #Canada #BreakingNews https://t.co/7fbknyd9f0 pic.twitter.com/PBr46OpJCD

— The Globe & News (@TheGlobeNewt) July 12, 2026

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has vowed to avenge his father and predecessor, Ali Khamenei, who was killed in US-Israeli airstrikes on his compound in Tehran on February 28.

Khamenei made the statement after his father was laid to rest at the Imam Reza Shrine in his hometown of Mashhad on Thursday. More than 43 million people attended weeklong funeral ceremonies across Iran and Iraq, according to Iranian state media. Some mourners carried placards calling for the killing of US President Donald Trump, chanted “Death to America,” and threw stones at a billboard depicting Trump with a bullet aimed at his head. 

“We pledge that we will take revenge for the pure blood of the martyred leader and all the martyrs of these two wars from the criminal and disgraced killers,” Khamenei said in a statement read on state television on Saturday.

“Revenge is the demand of our nation and must certainly be carried out. Soon, the free people of the world will carry out a part of this divine mission,” the statement added.

Read more

Khamenei has not appeared in public since the Assembly of Experts chose him to succeed his father in early March.

Trump threatened on Friday to “completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran” if Tehran attempted to assassinate him. Several US media outlets reported this week that Israel had warned Washington of what it described as a new Iranian plot against Trump.

The US and Israel killed dozens of senior Iranian officials and military commanders during the first weeks of their bombing campaign. Trump recently argued that the ceasefire, first reached in April, was effectively “over” as the two sides clashed over the interpretation of the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17.

The US carried out a third round of strikes against Iran this week in response to continued attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran blamed the US for the “incidents,” accusing Washington of “illegally designating” a shipping route near the Omani coast. Tehran has insisted that all ships use the route designated by Iran.

The US has launched a third wave of strikes against Iran this week, shortly after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the strategic Strait of Hormuz would remain closed to all shipping indefinitely.

The resumption of hostilities has put the memorandum of understanding (MoU) the two countries signed on June 17 under strain. The agreement was intended to pave the way for a lasting ceasefire and allow more time to negotiate a peace settlement.

In a statement on Saturday evening local time, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the new strikes were launched after the IRGC had “blatantly” attacked the Cyprus-flagged container ship GFS Galaxy, causing a fire in its engine room. One crew member is missing, CENTCOM said.

“The United States is imposing a heavy cost by continuing to degrade Iran’s ability to attack civilian mariners and commercial ships freely transiting the strait,” the US military added.

Read more

“Iran made a poor choice. Now they pay,” US War Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on X after the strikes began.

Iranian broadcaster Press TV reported strikes in the south of the country, including on the ports of Chabahar, Bushehr, and Sirik, which were also hit earlier this week. Air defenses were reportedly activated over Tehran.

Shortly before the attacks began, the IRGC Navy said it would keep the Strait of Hormuz closed to all shipping until the US ended its “illegal interventions” in the region. It also vowed to strike US bases in response to “any further aggression.”

The US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar demanded that Iran stop targeting tankers after three ships were hit by projectiles earlier this week. In a statement on Saturday, the IRGC blamed the US for the “incidents,” accusing Washington of “illegally designating” a shipping lane near the Omani coast. The US has used the lane to guide vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles around a quarter of global seaborne oil and LNG trade.

The US has launched a third wave of strikes against Iran this week, shortly after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the strategic Strait of Hormuz would remain closed to all shipping indefinitely.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has declared that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed to shipping until the US ends what it called its “illegal” interference in the region.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has declared that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed to shipping until the US ends what it called its “illegal” interference in the region.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

The European Union has stooped to using dubious procedural loopholes usually employed by backwater regimes to pass controversial legislation, Pavel Durov has argued. The Telegram co-founder was referring to the contentious regulation that allows tech companies to scan their users’ messages, ostensibly to detect child sexual abuse material.

In a post on X on Friday, the entrepreneur wrote: “Once typical of banana republics, such tricks are now used by the EU to pass surveillance laws.”

Durov’s comment came shortly after the European Parliament voted on Thursday to revive what critics have dubbed the ‘Chat Control’ legislation. The temporary regime had originally lapsed in April after MEPs had failed to find common ground amid an outcry over privacy concerns.

However, Parliament President Roberta Metsola asked EU leaders to restart talks on the regulation, with the European Council granting her request, meaning that the proposal was again put to a plenary vote at the bloc’s legislature.

Read more

Law enforcement officials, including Europol Executive Director Catherine De Bolle, have likewise supported the controversial framework, describing it as a vital tool “for the protection of children.”

According to the Euractiv media outlet, four EU commissioners also put pressure on lawmakers to pass the legislation.

The center-right European People’s Party (EPP), of which Metsola is a member, arranged for the vote to be subject to a rarely-invoked legislative procedure, which requires an absolute majority of at least 361 MEPs to axe or amend a proposal. The vote was held the day before summer recess, when full attendance was highly unlikely. As a result, the scheme was passed despite opposition from most present lawmakers.

Commenting on the development, Rand Hammoud from Europe’s Center for Democracy and Technology denounced what he characterized as “highly politicized procedural efforts” to ram the proposal through.

“When the largest group uses its political weight to force another vote on a mass-scanning measure that already failed, that should concern anyone who cares about institutional integrity,” he told Euractiv.

“It is impressive to see the European Parliament being backstabbed by its own president,” Simeon de Brouwer from civil society network Edri concurred, as quoted by the media outlet. He warned that the ‘Chat Control’ law allows tech companies to “snoop without a warrant, with little to no oversight, and with no legal basis, on millions of conversations.”

Meanwhile, a broader ‘Chat Control 2.0.’ framework is reportedly being prepared that would force tech companies to snoop on end-to-end encrypted communications, which are currently exempt from scans.

Poland has commemorated the anniversary of the Volhynia massacre, a large-scale ethnic cleansing operation perpetrated by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators during World War II and a hot-button topic that sparked a recent diplomatic clash between Warsaw and Kiev.

Multiple events were held across Poland on Saturday to honor the victims of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). The commemoration is tied to events of July 11, 1943, also known as Bloody Sunday, which marked the height of the massacre when nearly 100 Polish-populated towns across Volhynia were attacked. According to Polish estimates, at least 100,000 ethnic Poles were killed between 1943 and 1944 in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia regions, which are now largely part of modern Ukraine.

The commemorations were attended by top Polish officials, with President Karol Nawrocki making an appearance at a ceremony in the village of Radruz, one of the targets of the OUN-UPA militants. 

Read more

“We are here so that the reality of today’s and tomorrow’s world can be heard. Because we will not accept forgetting the 120,000 Poles, civilians, women, and children brutally murdered by Ukrainian nationalists,” Nawrocki stated.

The president pledged to take further action against the Ukrainian nationalist ideology, arguing in favor of outlawing the red-and-black flag of the OUN-UPA. The banner has been widely used by present-day Ukrainian nationalists, as well as incorporated into emblems of multiple units within the country’s military. 

“We do not want to see it in Poland – and I will do everything to ensure that it is not present in Poland. I believe that the Polish parliament will pass the relevant law,” he said, comparing the flag to Nazi Germany memorabilia. 

“It is the same as the ‘Blut und Boden’ (‘Blood and Soil’) flag. That is what it meant, and behind it lay – and still lies – the entire ideology of Ukrainian nationalists who killed Polish women and children,” he stressed.

Footage from the village of Domostawa, the home to a contemporary monument honoring the Volhynia massacre victims, shows dozens of people attending the solemn gathering. Unveiled in 2024, the monument has drawn some controversy over its brutal depiction of a child impaled on a pitchfork, somewhat resembling the Ukrainian heraldic trident.

The Volhynia massacre has remained an unresolved issue between Kiev and Warsaw. While Poland recognizes the massacre as genocide, Ukraine celebrates its perpetrators as ‘freedom fighters’ and national heroes. The tensions reignited last month when Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky named one of Ukraine’s commando units after “heroes of the UPA,” prompting Nawrocki to strip him of Poland’s highest honor. Several Ukrainian officials responded to the move by returning decorations received from Warsaw.

Read more

Meanwhile, Poland’s main opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party said it would submit a parliamentary resolution opposing Ukraine’s EU accession as long as Kiev continues to “glorify criminals.”

The Volhynia issue has already done a lot of damage to ties between Poland and Ukraine and is bound to spark a conflict within Poland itself in the future, leader of the Front party and former Polish MP, Krzysztof Tolwinski, told RT.

“The only thing is the outcome of this little war is a foregone conclusion – Russia will bring Ukraine back to normal and restore order there. Those who fought will never make peace with Russians; this is why they will end up on Polish territory. And this is when an internal conflict will begin, a real inevitable one,” Tolwinski stated.

The NATO summit in Ankara hasn’t been dubbed a “missile summit” by anyone – yet it probably should be. More than anything else, the meeting marked the launch of several major missile programs that could fundamentally reshape Europe’s military landscape over the coming decade.

Germany is getting Tomahawks

Chancellor Friedrich Merz got what he had been pushing for – and not just him. The United States has effectively given Berlin the green light to acquire American Tomahawk cruise missiles.

”On the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara we also agreed with the American government that Tomahawk missiles would be purchased by us and stationed in Germany. With this we are closing an important strategic gap in our defense. And at the same time we will work on developing our own European systems and deploying them in Europe,” Merz announced.

The details remain unclear. Berlin has yet to specify exactly which Tomahawk variant it intends to buy. Most likely, however, these will be the ground-launched versions, meaning either the Typhon missile system or a new launcher built around the same family of cruise missiles.

What does this actually mean?

Read more

In practical terms, Germany would gain the ability to strike virtually any target in the western part of Central Russia. If similar systems were eventually deployed in the Baltic states, their range would extend as far as the Urals.

One can assume that the German leadership will sleep a little easier knowing it has such capabilities at its disposal. A few billion dollars may seem like a reasonable price for that kind of reassurance.

And what do the Americans get?

They no longer have to deploy their own Tomahawks across Europe to reassure NATO allies. Europe gets to strengthen its own defenses – and pay for them itself. From Washington’s perspective, that’s a remarkably efficient arrangement.

Patriot missiles – Made in Ukraine?

Arguably the biggest missile-related announcement for Ukraine came from President Donald Trump, who revealed plans to grant Kiev a license to manufacture missiles for the Patriot air defense system.

No European country currently possesses such a license. Japan is the only nation outside the United States that produces Patriot interceptors.

Trump said American and Ukrainian technical teams would now begin working on the practical details – drafting agreements and preparing production. For the moment, however, this remains a political declaration rather than an industrial reality.

Read more

Ukraine certainly retains significant missile expertise. But launching serial production of one of the world’s most technologically sophisticated interceptor missiles under current wartime conditions would be an extraordinarily difficult task.

Modern PAC-3 interceptors are produced only in the United States and Japan, while manufacturing many of their critical components remains tightly controlled.

Technology, however, isn’t the biggest obstacle. The war is.

Building a facility capable of producing Patriot missiles while Russian aerospace forces retain the ability to strike targets across Ukraine borders on fantasy.

Which means that “Ukrainian production” would likely end up being Ukrainian mostly on paper, while the actual factories would operate somewhere else in Europe.

And there is already no shortage of volunteers.

Everyone wants in

Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz has already announced that Warsaw is prepared to help Ukraine establish serial Patriot missile production.

That statement wasn’t accidental.

At the same NATO summit, Poland joined a four-country European consortium that will create a regional competence center responsible for servicing Patriot missiles.

Read more

For a country that currently lacks a production license, cooperating with Ukraine could offer a path into one of the West’s most important missile supply chains. Historical grievances and nationalist rhetoric suddenly become far less significant when industrial opportunities emerge. Apparently, this is different.

Germany has even stronger incentives.

Defense giant Rheinmetall is already deeply involved in multiple joint programs with Ukraine and would almost certainly welcome the opportunity to manufacture Patriot missiles as well.

The company already possesses the technological expertise, industrial infrastructure, financial resources, and long-established partnerships needed to launch production quickly.

And once the assembly lines exist, there would be little reason to produce missiles solely for Ukraine. Rheinmetall could eventually supply customers throughout Europe – and beyond.

Nothing personal. Just business.

Germany will also build Ukraine’s ‘Bars’ cruise drones

The Patriot project isn’t the only new German-Ukrainian missile initiative.

As part of the Build with Ukraine program, Berlin and Kiev agreed to organize production of Ukrainian-designed Bars jet-powered cruise drones in Germany.

Read more

The agreement was signed in Ankara by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga and German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius.

The Bars is a lightweight high-speed strike drone carrying a warhead weighing between 30 and 100 kilograms, with a range of up to 800 kilometers and a cruising speed of roughly 500 km/h.

Germany currently produces no weapons of this type.

For the German defense industry, the project offers an opportunity to gain experience with an entirely new class of weapon systems. The Bundeswehr likewise gains familiarity with technology it does not yet field.

The primary customer, however, will be Ukraine itself.

At least initially, every drone produced under the program is expected to be delivered to the Ukrainian military, while Germany finances the entire project.

A fairly convenient arrangement.

A European Patriot ecosystem

The summit also produced another notable agreement.

The United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden signed a memorandum launching preparations for a European maintenance network for PAC-3 Patriot missiles.

Read more

The facilities will inspect, repair, and service missiles without sending them back to the United States.

Eventually there will likely be several such centers, one in each participating country.

Officially, these facilities are intended only for maintenance. Unofficially, virtually everyone understands where this is heading. Today’s repair center can become tomorrow’s production line.

For now, Washington appears reluctant to hand Europe full-scale manufacturing rights, preferring to preserve control over its most advanced technologies.

But that position may not last forever.

From an American perspective, collecting licensing royalties from European production could ultimately prove far more profitable than trying to supply an ever-growing European demand from shrinking US stockpiles.

From a business standpoint, that logic is difficult to ignore.

Germany again: ATACMS goes European

One more agreement attracted less attention than it probably deserved.

Lockheed Martin and Rheinmetall signed a memorandum to manufacture ATACMS ballistic missiles at Rheinmetall’s facility in Unterlüß, Germany.

It will be the first production of ATACMS missiles outside the United States.

The choice of location is hardly accidental.

The Unterlüß complex has operated for more than 125 years and now employs roughly 4,000 workers while continuing to expand.

Read more

Last year the site opened a new artillery ammunition production line.

A rocket motor factory is currently under construction and is scheduled to begin producing engines and missile components in 2027.

Rheinmetall expects full-scale ATACMS production to begin that same year, with output expanding significantly through 2028 and 2029.

Current European demand alone is estimated at between 600 and 800 missiles annually.

The bottom line

Given everything announced in Ankara, it’s difficult not to view this as NATO’s “missile summit.”

If even a significant portion of these plans materializes, Europe’s missile industry will look radically different within just a few years – and European taxpayers will foot nearly the entire bill.

Operational-tactical missiles? Yes.

Patriot interceptors? Yes.

Cruise missiles? Yes.

And this may only be the beginning.

Ukraine’s Fire Point company is already promoting its proposed FP-7 and FP-9 ballistic missiles, systems that currently have no direct European equivalent. Add to that the Freya missile defense program, which envisions combining European components with Ukrainian interceptor technology, and the picture becomes even more ambitious.

As one famous fictional character of the twentieth century put it: “What a celebration this is!”

Europe certainly has reasons to be optimistic. It may well become a true missile power.

Or all of these announcements may ultimately end up where countless ambitious defense initiatives have before them – in a pile of press releases and billions of dollars spent without delivering the promised results.

That happens too.

On July 9, Iran’s former Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was laid to rest in Mashhad. He was buried in the Imam Reza Mausoleum, one of the holiest sites in the Shiite world and a particularly significant shrine for the Islamic Republic.

This marked the conclusion of a multi-day mourning ceremony that began in Tehran, continued in Qom, the spiritual center of Iranian Shiism, then moved to the Iraqi cities of Najaf and Karbala (the main centers of Shiite Islam), and concluded in Khamenei’s hometown of Mashhad. The farewell ceremony marked the culmination of the week-long mourning route, and the funeral itself drew enormous crowds.

For Iran, this was more than just a farewell to a statesman. It was a farewell to a man who, for nearly four decades, had shaped the political, ideological, and spiritual course of the Islamic Republic. Khamenei had become Supreme Leader in 1989, following the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; prior to that, he served as President of Iran from 1981 to 1989. His political biography effectively coincided with the post-revolutionary history of Iran: it was shaped by war, sanctions, external pressure, internal mobilization, the formation of the IRGC as one of the key state institutions, and the development of regional resistance policies.

But for millions of people, Ali Khamenei was not just an official or an administrator. He was first of all a spiritual leader, and only then a state leader, architect of the political system, strategist, and symbol of Iranian sovereignty. This is why his death was perceived by many of his supporters not only as a political loss but also as a religious tragedy. In both official and public discourse, he is increasingly referred to as a great martyr – a man who died as a result of US and Israeli aggression while fulfilling his duties. 

Read more

The scale of the funeral demonstrated that the reverence shown toward Khamenei within Iran cannot be explained solely by administrative resources, bureaucracy, or the security apparatus. It’s true that the state organized the mourning ceremonies; and yes, the authorities sought to demonstrate the unity and resilience of the system. But millions of people cannot be summoned by a government decree. They cannot be entirely replaced by ‘buses with spectators’, official orders or slogans. When people take to the streets in such numbers and wait for hours in order to merely get a glimpse of the truck carrying the coffin, it means this is not a state-sponsored staged event, but a manifestation of the people’s genuine social and religious sentiment.

Iranian authorities claimed that tens of millions of mourners attended the funeral, citing a figure of 25 million people. Sources in Tehran also mentioned figures of around 20 million people. Naturally, these figures have become the subject of heated debate. The Iranian non-systemic opposition and Israeli propaganda claim the actual number of participants was much lower, perhaps several hundred thousand people, and that the authorities allegedly altered the photographs to show massive crowds using Photoshop and AI. However, even Western correspondents, who can hardly be suspected of sympathizing with the Iranian political system, acknowledged the fact that the farewell ceremony drew massive crowds. The Guardian reported millions of participants in Tehran, although it emphasized that estimates vary somewhat. Reuters also noted the huge crowds and emphasized that the authorities strived to demonstrate  national unity and strength. 

Even disregarding the official estimates, the fact remains that these were not several thousand mourners or a small group of people who support the regime. Perhaps there were not 20 million, but several million, or even two or three million people on the streets; that is still a huge number. This political power is clear evidence that Khamenei’s ideas are deeply supported by a significant portion of Iranian society.

Of course, Iranian society is not homogeneous. There are many challenges, such as social discontent, economic hardship, sanctions fatigue, social tensions, a demand for reforms, and criticism of the government. It would be a mistake to portray the entire country as a single monolith. But it is equally wrong to portray Iran as a closed system where society is supposedly completely repressed and lacks its own political will. Iranians are shaped by a different historical, religious, and political environment. For a significant portion of society, the Islamic Republic is not simply a state regime, but a form of national dignity, resistance to external pressure, and defense of their civilizational identity.

Read more

That is why, for many of Khamenei’s supporters, he was not just a leader, but a symbol of order and a challenge to all of Iran’s adversaries. It is no coincidence that among his supporters, there was a popular phrase, “Allah in heaven, Khamenei on Earth.” This formula reflects the unique perception of the figure of the leader in Shiite political culture – he is seen as a guide, protector, mentor, and symbol of stability in a world perceived as hostile.

Khamenei was born in 1939 into a religious family in the city of Mashhad. He entered the Shia intellectual and spiritual milieu early on, studied in Shia religious centers, was associated with the circle of supporters of the Islamic Revolution, and became one of the figures that, after 1979, found themselves at the center of the new political system. His generation perceived the revolution not as a change of power, but as the return of historical dignity to Iran after dependence on external forces. The idea of ​​sovereignty, independence, and resistance to pressure became the foundation of his entire political philosophy.

Khamenei maintained a hardline stance. He did not believe in the benevolence of the West, considered the US the main source of the threat to Iran, and consistently defended the country’s right to be an independent center of power. Under him, Iran strengthened its position in the Middle East, expanded its influence through allies and partners, strengthened its military and missile programs, and turned the idea of ​​resistance into the basis of its foreign policy. For his opponents, this was a manifestation of expansionism; for his supporters, it was defense of a country that external forces had tried to isolate, weaken, and bring to its knees.

That is why Khamenei’s assassination only strengthened his symbolic status. He died while fulfilling his duties, in his residence in Tehran; he didn’t run anywhere. Moreover, his death occurred during the month of Ramadan, which is holy for Muslims. For his supporters, this became a confirmation of the whole logic of his life: for years, he had warned about the external threat and spoken about resistance; and he died as a result of this very conflict. So the political leader turned into a martyr, and his death became part of the very ideology that he had been building for decades.

The participation of foreign delegations was also notable. Representatives of many countries, religious figures, military men and politicians arrived in Tehran. Of particular importance was the presence of the Russian delegation led by Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev. He conveyed condolences from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and emphasized that he had come as a special representative of the Russian leader. This was an important signal that Moscow perceives Khamenei’s death not as an internal Iranian event, but as a blow to a close strategic partner.

Read more

Khamenei’s funeral also became a test of strength for Iranian statehood. Many expected that the death of such a figure could cause a succession crisis, fighting within the elites, or  managerial paralysis. But events demonstrated the opposite: the system remained manageable, organized a large-scale mourning ritual and demonstrated the ability to mobilize society. This does not eliminate internal contradictions, but it shows that the Islamic Republic cannot be reduced to one person. Khamenei was its symbol, but behind him were institutions, ideology, power verticals, religious networks, and a significant social base.

This is the main political meaning of the current events. Khamenei’s funeral became more than just a ceremony of remembrance. It demonstrated that the system created by him lives on. His legacy is not only about the memory of a specific person, it is an entire ideology.

For Iran’s opponents, this is a rather unpleasant conclusion, since all their ideas about the weakness of Iran’s system have been smashed to pieces and, as expected, had nothing to do with reality. Supporters of the current regime are inspired by the fact that the stability of the political project to which they remain loyal is consistent. And for researchers in the field of international relations, this is an important example and indicator that in religio-political systems, the leader’s personality plays a major role, but the ideology and institutional design created by him can survive even his physical departure – a thesis that many researchers had doubted. 

Khamenei was laid to rest. But the millions of people who came to pay their last respects demonstrated that for a significant part of Iranian society, he is not really gone. He remains a symbol of resistance, spiritual fortitude, and national dignity. Ali Khamenei may have died; but, as we’ve seen in the past days, his work lives on.

The US is demanding that Iran publicly declare the strategic Strait of Hormuz fully reopened to navigation and pledge not to attack tankers transiting the waterway, which carries around a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG trade, several news outlets reported on Friday.

The US and Iran have clashed over differing interpretations of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed on June 17 regarding the management of the strait. The two countries traded strikes on Wednesday and Thursday after Washington and the Gulf states blamed Tehran for attacks on three commercial ships.

“We expect the Iranians to say... that every channel in the strait will be open and that it will be toll-free,” a US official told reporters on Friday, according to Axios.

US officials told the media they expected Iran to issue a statement accepting those terms after negotiators meet in Oman on Saturday.

“If it is not their position [tomorrow], it is not gonna be a great day for them,” one official said.

Read more

In a post on Truth Social on Friday, US President Donald Trump said the talks would continue while also warning that “the Cease Fire is OVER!”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei denied Trump’s claim that Tehran had requested a new round of negotiations. He said any violations of the ceasefire by the US would be met with “reciprocal action.”

Iranian media reported that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will travel to Oman on Saturday to meet regional mediators.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said on Friday that Tehran remained “distrustful of the Americans” and that “the Iranian nation will never submit to oppression.”

Iran closed the strait to most shipping following the US-Israeli attack on February 28. Tehran has since insisted that all vessels comply with its instructions and use designated shipping routes.

Under the MoU, Iran agreed to “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” for 60 days and to negotiate with Oman over the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US is demanding that Iran publicly declare the strategic Strait of Hormuz fully reopened to navigation and pledge not to attack tankers transiting the waterway, which carries around a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG trade, several news outlets reported on Friday.

The US and Iran have clashed over differing interpretations of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed on June 17 regarding the management of the strait. The two countries traded strikes on Wednesday and Thursday after Washington and the Gulf states blamed Tehran for attacks on three commercial ships.

“We expect the Iranians to say... that every channel in the strait will be open and that it will be toll-free,” a US official told reporters on Friday, according to Axios.

US officials told the media they expected Iran to issue a statement accepting those terms after negotiators meet in Oman on Saturday.

“If it is not their position [tomorrow], it is not gonna be a great day for them,” one official said.

Read more

In a post on Truth Social on Friday, US President Donald Trump said the talks would continue while also warning that “the Cease Fire is OVER!”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei denied Trump’s claim that Tehran had requested a new round of negotiations. He said any violations of the ceasefire by the US would be met with “reciprocal action.”

Iranian media reported that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will travel to Oman on Saturday to meet regional mediators.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said on Friday that Tehran remained “distrustful of the Americans” and that “the Iranian nation will never submit to oppression.”

Iran closed the strait to most shipping following the US-Israeli attack on February 28. Tehran has since insisted that all vessels comply with its instructions and use designated shipping routes.

Under the MoU, Iran agreed to “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” for 60 days and to negotiate with Oman over the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

British police have launched a murder investigation into the death of Ann Widdecombe, a former government minister and spokesperson for Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party.

Widdecombe, 78, was found dead with serious injuries at her home in Haytor, on the edge of Dartmoor National Park, on Thursday. The political veteran’s management team announced her passing the next day, saying that they were “absolutely devastated” by what had happened.

The Devon and Cornwall Police said on Friday that there was “no information that this is a politically motivated crime.” Widdecombe’s death is also not being treated as a terrorism-related incident, they added.

A 26-year-old white British man who was arrested on suspicion of murdering the Reform UK spokeswoman on the day of her death has been released and is no longer part of the investigation, police said on Saturday.

“Our priority remains identifying those responsible and ensuring that all available evidence is thoroughly examined,” Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman said.

Read more

Widdecombe was a Conservative MP between 1987 to 2010, and served as the Home Office and Employment minister in the cabinet of British Prime Minister John Major from 1994 to 1997. Over the years, she was known for her opposition to abortion and expansion of LGBTQ+ rights.

After leaving Parliament, Widdecombe gained fame as a contestant on the reality TV shows Strictly Come Dancing and Celebrity Big Brother.

She actively campaigned for the UK’s departure from the EU, returning to politics in 2019 as a member of the Brexit Party, which was later re-branded as Reform UK. She was also a member of the European Parliament from 2019 to 2020.

For the past three years, Widdecombe served as Reform UK’s immigration and justice spokesperson.

Outgoing Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that her death was “shocking news” and called upon the leaders of the Conservative Party and Reform UK “to urge everybody to come together.” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood called the circumstances of the politician’s passing “extremely distressing.” 

Farage said Widdecombe was “a remarkable, principled woman.” He suggested that her killing may have been a “burglary gone wrong” and described it as “a terrible reflection on modern Britain.” 

READ MORE: UK police must give up ‘woke culture wars’ and fight crime – report

“I do fear that for anybody in public life, or especially the political space, things have become even more dangerous,” the Reform UK leader added.

Ukraine is unlikely to start producing its own Patriot air defense missiles despite US President Donald Trump’s promise to grant Kiev the relevant license, Reuters has reported, citing informed sources.

During the meeting on the sidelines of the recent NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye on Wednesday, Trump told Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky that “we’re going to give a license to you to make Patriots. That’s pretty cool. This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving them enough.” However, the president maintained that Washington would not supply the in-demand interceptors directly.

Reuters reported on Friday that, according to its sources, it isn’t safe for Ukraine to launch the production of Patriot missiles for as long as the fighting persists within its proclaimed borders.

The new interceptors will likely be manufactured in Germany or another European country, two people familiar with the discussions said.

The production could be shifted to Ukraine only after the conflict with Russia ends, they added.

Read more

Zelensky has repeatedly blamed the West for the shortage of air defense munitions amid continued Russian missile and drone strikes on military-related targets across Ukraine, which, Moscow says, are being carried out in response to terrorist attacks by Kiev against energy infrastructure and civilians inside Russia.

The US and its allies are experiencing a critical shortage of Patriot missiles due to their heavy use in the Ukraine conflict and the American-Israeli war against Iran. In recent months, Washington had been forced to delay the contracted shipments of the interceptors to some of its customers in Europe and Asia.

Zelensky said in a post on Telegram on Friday that Trump and him had “reached political agreements” on the licenses for the production of the Patriot interceptors in Ukraine. The technical details of the process must now be worked out by the teams from Kiev and Washington, he added.

The Ukrainian leader also claimed that in the coming days Kiev will receive another military aid package from the Americans, which would include an unspecified number of PAC-3 missiles for Patriot systems.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Pekov said on Friday that “as for the Patriot, yes, it is an obvious fact that the US is continuing full-scale deliveries of weaponry and military technologies to Ukraine. We know it.”

“At the same time, however, there’s a certain duality in the US position: unlike the Europeans, the US maintains a desire to facilitate a move toward a peace process,” Peskov stressed.

READ MORE: NATO summit was ‘humiliating’ for Zelensky – Moscow

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova insisted that the summit in Ankara was “humiliating” for Zelensky as NATO members “offered no meaningful response” to his pleas to supply more weapons.

Kiev needs to “sober up” to prevent further escalation in the row with Warsaw over the glorification of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said.

Tensions between the neighboring countries, which have been close allies during the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, escalated last month after Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky named one of his country’s commando units after “heroes of the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army).” 

Speaking on Friday, the eve of the National Day of Remembrance, when Poland honors the victims of UPA, Tusk insisted that Kiev must recognize the crimes committed by the UPA if it hopes to mend ties with Warsaw.

“I can once again appeal to all decent, wise, responsible Ukrainians. Remember, this great European community is based on the truth and the truth is an absolutely necessary foundation of reconciliation, and that’s why I hope that everyone on the other side, but also everyone here in Poland, will sober up to restrain these exaggerated emotions,” he said.

The row “has gone too far and is harming both Poland and Ukraine. I have no doubt about it,” the prime minister added.

Read more

It has ignited “nationalist lunatics” on both sides, causing an avalanche of hatred on social media, Tusk noted. He urged the authorities in Kiev to curb any anti-Polish sentiment and vowed that Warsaw will act with “the full force of law” against anyone who commits crimes against Ukrainians on ethnic grounds.

“The Russians would be happiest if there was some dramatic crisis in Ukrainian-Polish relations,” the prime minister warned.

Poland blames the UPA – an armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which fought for Nazi Germany during World War II – for an ethnic cleansing campaign in the Volhynia region between 1943 and 1944 that left at least 100,000 civilians dead. Warsaw recognizes the massacres as a genocide.

Following Zelensky’s move last month, Polish President Karol Nawrocki reacted by stripping him of the country’s highest honor, the Order of the White Eagle, prompting several Ukrainian officials to return their own Polish decorations to Warsaw. Poland also rolled back its decision to transfer its remaining Soviet-era MiG-29 jets to Ukraine and questioned Kiev’s prospects of joining the EU.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday that the West, including Poland, raised a “terrorist monster” in Ukraine by arming and funding it, while ignoring its Nazi ideological foundations.

READ MORE: EU Parliament backs Poland in Nazi collaborators row with Ukraine

Warsaw “knew they were supporting those who had killed their grandfathers” and this fact “can no longer be undone by simply taking away the White Eagle, posting a few tweets, or making loud statements,” she argued.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to “destroy” Iran should its government attempt to assassinate him.

The US and Israel killed dozens of senior Iranian officials and military commanders during their bombing campaign, including the country’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who was killed in a targeted strike on his compound in Tehran on February 28.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday.

“Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran - PRAISE BE TO ALLAH!” he added.

Iranian officials have made no public threats against Trump’s life. At the same time, people attending funeral processions for Khamenei this week were filmed carrying placards reading “Kill Trump” and chanting calls for “revenge.”

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Israel had warned the US about an alleged Iranian plot to kill Trump but provided no further details.

Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against Iran in recent days, labeling its leadership “scum.” He also said he considered the ceasefire with Iran to be “over,” as the US carried out strikes on Iran on Wednesday and Thursday in response to attacks on commercial ships attempting to cross the Strait of Hormuz.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

A British supermarket chain has rebranded its ‘feminine care’ section after an internal complaint argued the term was not inclusive of transgender and non-binary customers, The Telegraph reported on Friday.

Waitrose will remove sanitary products from its ‘feminine care’ category, saying the label “no longer reflects the product range” because it now also includes incontinence products for men.

The change followed a complaint from an employee who said it was “disappointing” that the category implied the products were “exclusively for women and femininity,” arguing that “not all people who have periods are women.”

“Trans men and some non-binary people have periods,” the employee wrote, adding that “inclusion should never be conditional or performative,” according to internal documents published by gender-critical campaigner and Conservative councillor James Esses.

In an internal response, a Waitrose manager reportedly agreed that the label “does not accurately describe the products within the category” and said the retailer would update it “as soon as possible.”

Esses condemned the move as “disgraceful,” accusing the retailer of “erasing womanhood.” Waitrose, however, insisted the decision reflected changes to its product range rather than identity politics.

Read more

Fiona McAnena, director of advocacy at campaign group Sex Matters, said the retailer appeared to be yielding to a “noisy minority of gender activists.” While renaming the category to something like “sanitary products” could be reasonable, she argued, abandoning a “commonly understood term” in the name of inclusivity ignored public opinion.

She added that menstruation is exclusive to women and girls, something that “will never change, no matter how much irrational noise the trans lobby makes.”

The dispute comes amid a wider debate in Britain over sex-based language and transgender inclusion. Last year, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the legal terms ‘woman’, ‘man’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex, prompting public bodies, employers and businesses to review policies on single-sex spaces and terminology such as “people who menstruate.”

The latest row is not Waitrose’s first over gender-related branding. The retailer previously drew criticism after selling a gender-neutral Mother’s Day card reading “Happy You Day,” saying it was designed to be inclusive of transgender mothers and grandmothers.

The US is demanding that Iran publicly declare the strategic Strait of Hormuz fully reopened to navigation and pledge not to attack tankers transiting the waterway, which carries around a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG trade, several news outlets reported on Friday.

The US and Iran have clashed over differing interpretations of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed on June 17 regarding the management of the strait. The two countries traded strikes on Wednesday and Thursday after the US and Gulf states blamed Iran for attacks on three commercial ships.

“We expect the Iranians to say... that every channel in the strait will be open and that it will be toll-free,” a US official told reporters on Friday, according to Axios.

US officials told the media they expected Iran to issue a statement accepting those terms after negotiators meet in Oman on Saturday.

“If it is not their position [tomorrow], it is not gonna be a great day for them,” one official said.

Read more

In a post on Truth Social on Friday, US President Donald Trump said the talks would continue while also warning that “the Cease Fire is OVER!”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei denied Trump’s claim that Tehran had requested a new round of negotiations. He said any violations of the ceasefire by the US would be met with “reciprocal action.”

Iranian media reported that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will travel to Oman on Saturday to meet regional mediators.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said on Friday that Tehran remained “distrustful of the Americans” and that “the Iranian nation will never submit to oppression.”

Iran closed the strait to most shipping following the US-Israeli attack on February 28. Tehran has since insisted that all vessels comply with its instructions and use designated shipping routes.

Under the MoU, Iran agreed to “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” for 60 days and to negotiate with Oman over the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian mourners in the city of Mashhad have set a giant Lego-style effigy of US President Donald Trump ablaze during a funeral procession for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to local media.

The late Iranian supreme leader was killed in the opening wave of US-Israeli airstrikes on Tehran in late February, alongside several members of his family.

Footage published by Iranian media on Friday shows the Trump effigy suspended from a construction crane before a man sets it on fire. As the figure is engulfed in flames, the crowd chants “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” in Farsi.

The week-long funeral ceremonies began in Tehran last Friday, where Iranian officials and foreign dignitaries paid their respects. Khamenei’s cortege then traveled through several Iranian and Iraqi cities before he was buried in his hometown of Mashhad on Thursday.

Iranian state media said millions attended the ceremonies, many carrying red-and-white flags symbolizing martyrdom and revenge in Shia Islam.

Read more

In Tehran, some mourners carried banners reading “Kill Trump: $100 million Iranian bounty,” while others threw stones at a billboard depicting Trump with a bullet aimed at his head alongside the message: “The US killed our father. We won’t let you go!”

Other posters reportedly placed US Vice President J.D. Vance, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the crosshairs beneath the slogan “There will be blood.”

Speaking at the NATO summit in Ankara on Wednesday, Trump said he “may be gone,” adding that he is Tehran’s “number one target.”

His comments came after a fresh escalation between Washington and Tehran, which saw the US strike dozens of targets in Iran and the Islamic Republic launch retaliatory attacks earlier this week.

During the conflict in March, Iran also waged an online propaganda campaign featuring AI-generated Lego-style videos portraying Trump and Israeli leaders in panic. Several of the clips went viral on social media.

A passenger was reportedly partially sucked out of a Ryanair Boeing 737 after a window was blown out under unclear circumstances shortly after takeoff.

The incident occurred on Friday aboard flight FR1879 from Greece to Germany operated by Ryanair subsidiary Malta Air. According to multiple media reports, one of the aircraft’s engines malfunctioned, sending debris into the fuselage. A fragment reportedly shattered a cabin window, causing the passenger seated beside it to be partially sucked outside.

The 61-year-old Serbian national suffered bruises and friction burns caused by the freezing air and was hospitalized in shock after the plane landed. Reports said he avoided being pulled from the aircraft because he was wearing his seatbelt, while his wife reportedly grabbed his legs as other passengers helped pull him back inside.

Footage taken shortly after the accident circulating online shows the window fully blown out and partially blocked by a box. The accident reportedly sparked panic onboard with oxygen masks deployed due to depressurization.

Ryanair acknowledged the accident, stating the plane managed to return to the airport safely and a replacement aircraft was arranged for the stranded passengers. The airline did not provide any details on what exactly prompted the window’s failure.

“A Ryanair flight from Thessaloniki to Memmingen on Friday morning returned to Thessaloniki shortly after takeoff when a passenger window dislodged inflight,” the company said.

Read more

Boeing said it was aware of the mishap, with the aircraft maker stating it was “in contact with Ryanair.”

The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was never going to simply be the change of a political era for Iran. It became an event in which war, religion, national trauma, revolutionary memory, and the ancient culture of Shia mourning all collided at once.

Iran’s supreme leader was killed on February 28, 2026 in a joint US-Israeli strike. The country declared a period of mourning and prepared funeral ceremonies on an extraordinary scale. The farewell stretched across several days and grew far beyond anything resembling a routine state ritual.

The funeral began in Iran, where enormous crowds poured into the streets. Tehran, Qom, Mashhad, and other cities turned into one continuous stage of collective grief. People carried portraits of Khamenei, black flags, religious banners, chanting against the US and Israel. Mass processions and farewells unfolded over days, reaching well beyond the capital into the country’s most sacred religious centers.

What gave the event even greater significance was the decision to carry Khamenei’s coffin into Iraq. The procession first passed through Najaf, one of the great cities of the Shia world and home to the shrine of Imam Ali, the burial place of the first Shia Imam and cousin of the Prophet Mohammed. From there, the mourning continued in Karbala, the city forever bound to the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, the third Shia Imam and grandson of Mohammed. This route lifted the farewell to the supreme leader out of national borders and placed it in the shared Shia world, drawing believers from Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, and beyond.

In sheer scale, these funerals now rank among the largest mourning events in modern history. They are being spoken of as a challenge to the world record for attendance at a single person’s funeral. The officially recognized Guinness record still belongs to the 1969 funeral of Indian politician C. N. Annadurai, where, according to Guinness figures, 15 million people were said to have attended. But if the combined estimates from the days of mourning across Iran and Iraq for Khamenei are ever confirmed, that record may fall.

The scale of the funeral shows that a substantial part of Iranian society never processed Khamenei’s death as just the passing of a national leader. It was the loss of a symbol. For some, he was a religious authority. For others, he embodied the Islamic Republic itself. For others still, he was the man under whom Iran stood for decades against pressure from the US, Israel, and their allies. By extension, the funeral itself was a demonstration of the state’s staying power.

Read more

A man shaped by revolution, a symbol of Shia resistance

Ali Khamenei was born on April 19, 1939 in Mashhad, one of Iran’s most important religious centers. The city is home to the shrine of Imam Reza, the eighth imam in the Shia tradition, which meant that Khamenei’s biography was woven into religious life from the very start. Born into a clerical family, he received a traditional theological education, studying Islamic jurisprudence and religious science in Mashhad and Qom. Qom is the intellectual heart of Shia scholarship and clerical politics in Iran, the very place where many of the ideas that later fueled the Islamic Revolution first took shape.

Khamenei’s youth unfolded under the Shah. Iran at the time was a country modernizing rapidly on the surface while remaining an authoritarian monarchy, dependent on the West and quick to crush its opposition. For religious circles, nationalists, leftists, and much of the intelligentsia, the Shah’s regime had come to represent injustice and foreign control. Khamenei joined those who rallied behind Ruhollah Khomeini. He took part in anti-Shah activities, was arrested more than once, endured years of political pressure, and after the revolution succeeded in 1979, became one of the leading figures of the new state.

His political career from then on was inseparable from the fate of the Islamic Republic. He served as a member of parliament and a figure of the revolutionary elite, then as president of Iran from 1981 to 1989. When Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989, Khamenei became supreme leader. Within Iran’s system, this office is unlike any ordinary head-of-state role. The supreme leader sits above the country’s central institutions, shaping the military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the judiciary, and the strategic direction of both foreign policy and national ideology.

Yet for millions of his supporters, Khamenei was more than a holder of supreme power. He belonged to a generation for whom the revolution was the defining event of a lifetime. That generation understood power as an extension of the struggle for independence. In their eyes, Iran was never meant to be a junior partner of the West but a self-sufficient civilizational force, one capable of pushing back, enduring sanctions, and holding to its own historical path.

Modesty occupied a central place in Khamenei’s public image. His supporters pointed again and again to the fact that he avoided luxury, refused to build any cult of secular wealth around himself, shunned ostentation, and kept to an austere religious style. His manner of speaking, his clothing, the plainness of his office, his fondness for Persian poetry, his constant return to theological texts, his repeated invocations of the history of resistance – all of it reinforced the image of a man from the old revolutionary school. For religious Iranians, this mattered enormously. In the Shia tradition, a spiritual leader is expected not only to govern but to demonstrate personal restraint.

Read more

What the West refuses to understand about Iran

Attitudes toward Khamenei within Iranian society were never uniform, of course. In the major cities, among the young, the educated middle class, and more secular segments of society, there was real fatigue – with ideological control, economic hardship, restrictions, and the sheer rigidity of the state. But it would be a mistake to treat these segments as though they spoke for the whole country. Iranian society is layered – there is an Iran of big cities, universities, social media, and secular culture. And there is another Iran – of villages, small towns, religious families, mosques, pilgrimage, wartime memory, and deep respect for the clergy. For that considerable portion of society, Khamenei remained a figure of continuity, faith, and national resistance.

The Western reaction to the scale of the funeral revealed a very limited grasp of Iranian political culture. US President Donald Trump, in an interview with Axios, admitted he was caught off guard by the sight of Iranians weeping at the funeral, since he assumed that people hated Khamenei. He went on to suggest that the tears might have been fake. This is basically how most Western powers see Iran – fixating on protest, discontent, and the perspective of exiles, blind to the religious depth and national feeling running through a large part of Iranian society.

Shia Islam cannot be understood apart from the memory of martyrdom. At its center stands the tragedy of Imam Hussein, killed at Karbala in the year 680. For Shia Muslims, this is a living memory – of truth struggling against violence, loyalty against betrayal, the few against overwhelming force. Every year, during the month of Muharram and the commemoration of Ashura, that memory is relived. So the death of a leader killed by an outside strike slots naturally into the ongoing story of martyrdom and resistance carried within the Shia faith.

A lesson for the US and Israel

The funeral made one thing unmistakably clear: Iranian political culture does not tolerate outside interference. Iranians argue with their own government all the time – they criticize officials, rage against the economy, chafe under social restrictions, condemn corruption and the closed nature of the political system. But an attack from outside tends to reset that internal balance. It pushes even sharply critical citizens to reframe what is happening, not as a dispute between society and state, but as a confrontation between Iran and an external enemy.

Read more

Striking the supreme leader was presumably meant as a blow to the spine of the system – a straightforward enough war goal. Remove the key figure, trigger shock, push the elite toward fracture and society toward fear. But the funeral showed the opposite effect. The outside strike did not shatter the symbolic foundation of the Islamic Republic. It turned a dead leader into a martyr and a farewell itself into a mass display of resistance.

Even the ongoing escalation and renewed US strikes are unlikely to change much here. Iran can be weakened by sanctions, its infrastructure can be damaged, individual military sites can be destroyed, its political system can be pushed toward instability – but finishing off Iran through military force is simply not on the table. Its historical roots run too deep, its memory of resistance is too strong, and the idea of defending sovereignty against outside pressure is too firmly embedded in Iranian society.

More than that, it is becoming increasingly clear that the most zealous advocates of all-out war with Iran are after something beyond negotiating a settlement with Tehran or preventing it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. It’s increasingly evident that they want to break the civilizational foundation of Iran itself, dismantle its culture of resistance, strip the country of its historical agency, and turn it from an independent center of power into a puppet.

This is why the US-Israeli war with Iran looks like a clash of civilizations. On one side, a project of forced regional reordering through pressure and destruction. On the other, an ancient civilization for which statehood, faith, the memory of martyrdom, and resistance to outside dictates have long been part of its national identity.

NATO members should give US President Donald Trump a “timeout” for the rest of his tenure, reducing public exposure and joint endeavors to a bare minimum while working on bolstering their own military capabilities, retired US Navy Admiral and Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis has suggested.

Stavridis, who often shares his views on international affairs with the media, floated the idea in an opinion piece published by Bloomberg on Friday in the aftermath of the NATO summit in Türkiye.

The event yielded mixed results. Trump once again berated members of the bloc over their reluctance to participate in the US-Israeli attack on Iran and reiterated his desire to seize Greenland from Denmark, while denigrating NATO countries for “never being there for us.” At the end of the summit, however, the US leader appeared to soften his rhetoric, talking about “love in that room” and praising NATO chief Mark Rutte as a “unifier.”

While the bloc is “probably not” seeing its “last days” now, the “fundamentals between Washington and the rest of the alliance are bad and unlikely to improve anytime soon,” Stavridis argued. He urged the bloc to reduce the frequency of its meetings and probably not to hold another summit within the next two years altogether to avoid vexing Trump, adding that “day-to-day committee work” could “easily” be paused as well.

Read more

“Sometimes when a married couple is in a tumultuous relationship, the answer is not a full-blown breakup. Instead, taking a “time out” can afford a respite from the back-and-forth trading of angry barbs. NATO allies should think along those lines if they are going to preserve the 77-year-old pact,” Stavridis wrote.

The bloc’s members should use the time for other endeavors, namely, continue raising their military spending, he suggested. The European members of NATO should also “keep developing a credible defense industrial base” to be able to produce a bulk of hardware on their own to “create a military balance between both sides of the Atlantic,” Stavridis said.

The European members of the bloc could take some steps to please the US as well, namely sending a mission to the Persian Gulf for demining and escorting merchant traffic, the retired commander suggested. Given the lack of unity on the matter, the mission could be set up by willing individual members rather than the bloc as a whole. A similar approach should be taken regarding the Ukraine conflict, with European members putting their “efforts on behalf of Ukraine purely into EU channels, not NATO’s,” Stavridis stated.

Northern Irish loyalists have burned a replica mosque atop a bonfire before police could intervene to dismantle the scene. The incident, which took place four weeks after devastating race riots in Belfast, has been condemned by human rights groups.

A Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) spokesperson said that a “significant and complex policing operation” to dismantle the “hate display” was underway by the time the bonfire in Moygashel, around 50 kilometers west of Belfast, was lit. The tower of shipping pallets, adorned with anti-Islam flags, was set ablaze on Thursday night.

The bonfire was originally due to be lit on the eve of July 12, when Northern Ireland’s Protestant loyalists – who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom – celebrate the victory of Protestant King William III over Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.

Unionists marking the 12th with bonfires typically burn Irish tricolors and other images of Catholicism and Irish nationalism. In recent years, however, the Moygashel bonfire included effigies of migrants in small boats last year, and a replica police car in 2024.

Moygashel bonfire had to be lit tonight as the PSNI wanted to protect the mosque at all cost

Moygashel 1 PSNI 0@danwootton pic.twitter.com/pkNcUM0aWe

— Sarah White (@advancesarah) July 9, 2026

Four weeks before the bonfire, loyalist gangs ransacked immigrant houses and asylum centers across Belfast, in retaliation for the attempted beheading of a Northern Irish man by a Sudanese migrant. Northern Ireland’s Catholic republicans – who want Northern Ireland to leave the UK and join the Republic of Ireland – did not take part in the riots, largely due to their own neighborhoods also being targeted for decades by loyalist paramilitaries.

Read more

Republican leaders condemned the bonfire. “This is an absolutely deplorable act following on previous hate displays at this location,” Sinn Fein lawmaker Colm Gildernew said in a statement. “It’s designed to instil fear. It’s designed to incite hatred.”

“This vile display is a blatant attempt to stir up anti-Muslim hatred and intimidate local families,” Amnesty International said. “The placing of an effigy of a mosque on top of a bonfire amounts to incitement to hatred directed at real people who live, work and raise families in Northern Ireland.”

Despite non-European migrants making up less than 3% of Northern Ireland’s population, their presence further erodes the already waning demographic power of the territory’s Protestants. According to a 2021 census, Catholics now outnumber Protestants by 45.7% to 43.48%, a significant shift from the 48% to 45% Protestant majority in 2011.

As such, loyalist leaders were reluctant to outright condemn the bonfire. Democratic Unionist Party spokesman Gregory Campbell called the burning of the mock-up mosque “regrettable,” but added that his voters have “genuine concerns” about immigration and “radical Islam.”

Israel’s military has confirmed that a viral photo showing a semi-naked and blindfolded Palestinian man bound to an iron rod is authentic. The photo triggered an uproar on social media, with rights groups arguing that the image corroborates years of testimony on torture inside Israeli detention facilities in Gaza.

The disturbing photo was shared on a now-deleted social media account in late June with the Hebrew-language caption “good morning” and was brought to wider attention by a Palestinian activist under the nickname Tamer.

He claimed that the man had been kidnapped by soldiers from the ‘Netzah Yehuda’ battalion in Gaza. While the photo surfaced in late June, the incident got the media spotlight only this week.

The picture shows the man lying face down on a military cot, blindfolded and stripped to his underwear, his hands bound behind his back and an iron rod strapped to his body from foot to neck. The reason why the Palestinian had been detained is unclear.

WARNING: DISTURBING PHOTO

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed the photo’s authenticity, telling The Times of Israel that it had located the incident “after a thorough investigation.” It added that the troops involved would be “treated in accordance with the findings” while stressing that such treatment of the Palestinian “does not align with IDF values and regulations.”

READ MORE: Gaza flotilla activists accuse Israel of rape and torture

Oneg Ben Dror of Physicians for Human Rights Israel said, as cited by The Guardian, that the photo “confirms what thousands of testimonies from Palestinian detainees have exposed,” calling Israeli detention facilities “torture camps.” 

Sari Bashi of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel said that holding and photographing the man semi-naked broke international law, adding that “there is no security justification for holding a detainee in his underwear” while sharing sexualized images online “is a form of sexual violence and also a war crime.”

After the photo went viral, at least two mothers came forward claiming the bound man as their son. One of the women, Rana Abu Nasser, identified the man as her son Osama, saying that he had been seized with his one-year-old son in March near the Israeli-imposed demarcation line in Gaza.

Israel has faced accusations of genocide and human rights abuses against Palestinians for years. Last month, a UN commission accused Israeli forces of targeting and killing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, saying that more than 20,000 children had been killed and 44,000 injured since October 2023.

Drug-driving has become Britain’s biggest road safety threat, overtaking drunk-driving for the first time, a recent study suggests, fueling criticism of outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer over his government’s handling of the issue.

It is illegal in the UK to drive while impaired by legal or illegal drugs, or with specified levels of certain controlled substances in the bloodstream. Convicted drug-drivers face a driving ban of at least one year, a fine, and up to six months in prison.

According to figures obtained by the advocacy group IAM RoadSmart from the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), 30,707 drivers were convicted of drug-driving in 2025, up 28% from 23,981 in 2022. Over the same period, drunk-driving convictions fell 17% to 29,981.

According to a Telegraph report earlier this year, drugs have overtaken alcohol as a factor in fatal road crashes.

Read more

Citing DfT and police data, the report said the number of drivers killed while testing positive for drugs rose 78% over the decade to 2023, while the number of those who died with alcohol in their system increased by 5%.

Campaigners accuse Starmer’s government of ignoring what they describe as a growing drug-driving crisis. While ministers recently launched a consultation on lowering the legal drunk-driving limit in England and Wales, they have not taken similar action to tackle the rise in drug-driving.

“It’s becoming clear that the UK is mired in a drug-driving epidemic, to the point where it may now be more of a threat on our streets than drink-driving,” IAM RoadSmart policy director Nicholas Lyes said. He urged the government to give police the power to suspend licenses after failed roadside drug tests and to establish a national drug-driver rehabilitation program.

Read more

A Department for Transport spokesman described the figures as “deeply concerning,” but said the government is already exploring measures to tackle the problem, without providing details.

The findings add to a growing list of political failings for Starmer, whose government has come under fire on multiple fronts during his less than two years in office. After leading Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 election on promises of restoring stability after a string of short-lived Conservative prime ministers, Starmer has become associated with tax hikes, welfare cuts, political scandals, and a controversial foreign policy. Critics also accuse him of focusing on international affairs while neglecting problems at home.

READ MORE: The Starmer legacy the mainstream media won’t tell you: Celebrity sex crimes, imprisoning Assange and torture terror

Following a widespread revolt within Labour, Starmer announced in late June that he would step down as prime minister and party leader; 62% of Britons welcomed his resignation, according to YouGov.

President Donald Trump has told Vladimir Zelensky that the US is willing to grant Ukraine a license to produce Patriot missile interceptors – one of the few weapons in Kiev’s foreign-sourced arsenal capable of shooting down state-of-the art Russian missiles.

“We’ll give them the right to make Patriots”, Trump said, seated beside Zelensky at the NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye, on Wednesday. “This way he can’t complain that we’re not giving him enough. I said, ‘Make them yourself’”, Trump added. He called the undertaking complex but voiced hope that Kiev would work it out quickly.

While significant on paper, the pledge sparked a lot of skepticism among defense analysts who pointed to numerous technical, legal, and security hurdles, while dismissing it as a mostly symbolic gesture or even a political trap for Zelensky.

Read more

Here is why a Patriot license offer seems to be dead in the water.

What regulatory approvals does the license require?

While announcing the offer, Trump admitted he had not yet discussed the plan with Lockheed Martin or RTX – the two main companies that actually build the Patriot system. The defense firms haven’t commented on the issue either.

However, even if the companies were wholeheartedly willing to help meet Trump’s pledge, any transfer of Patriot production technology falls under strict US export-control laws and congressional oversight. The Pentagon, State Department, and Ukraine would also have to agree on what exactly Kiev would be permitted to build, where, and under what kind of oversight.

Read more

US defense security rules further require any foreign facility handling classified missile technology to have vetted personnel and secure information-handling systems in place before production can begin at all. Ukraine would then need to test-run new lines and train technical crews from scratch – steps that typically stretch the process out over years, not months.

According to the US-based magazine Responsible Statecraft, the licensing venture “would create substantial risks to US national security by making it easier for competitors to get access to sensitive information.”

What other countries have Patriot licenses?

Of all US allies and partners across the globe, only two – Germany and Japan – are licensed to produce Patriot missiles, and their example serves as a cautionary tale of the hurdles Ukraine faces.

Read more

Japan, a highly technologically savvy country, was granted the license in 2005, and it took the country three years to test PAC-3 interceptors, which are produced in cooperation between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin. Japan currently churns out an estimated 30 missiles a year – an amount widely deemed completely inadequate to meet the standards of full-scale war – and lacks a full production cycle of its own.

Germany’s example is even more telling: the US granted Berlin the Patriot license in 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Four years later, it still has not built a single missile, while factory construction only started in late 2024.

What industrial issues does Patriot production face?

Even if every legal and political hurdle were cleared overnight, the production setup is incredibly difficult. In a post on Facebook, Ukrainian defense expert and economist Oleg Belinsky said that any plans to start production within a few months “crash into the laws of physics and mathematics.”

Read more

While a license can be signed in a day, building a factory and procuring all of the equipment would take at least five years, billions of dollars in investment, and integration into the US military supply chain, which relies on hundreds of contractors, he said.

The hardest part of the missile, according to Belinsky, is not its electronics but its solid-fuel engine. Dozens of components have to be blended in exact proportions, then vacuum-treated to remove microscopic air bubbles, before being consolidated for weeks under strict temperature and humidity control. The finished charge is then X-rayed for the smallest internal cracks.

If even a single parameter is off, the missile is scrapped because even a microscopic crack can make the fuel burn too fast and cause the engine to explode on launch. Producing components pure enough to meet that standard requires an entire chemical industry that Ukraine does not currently have, Belinsky said.

Read more

Russian military expert Vasily Dandykin echoed the assessment, telling news.ru that Ukraine does not have the necessary resources for production and that the only viable option is to set up production facilities abroad.

While noting the difficulty of creating solid-fuel engines, Bloomberg also pointed to challenges linked to building small steering motors, which enable the Patriot interceptor to maneuver effectively in the thin upper atmosphere.

“Production is already constrained by existing supply-chain bottlenecks,” Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, told Bloomberg. “Even if Ukraine builds a production factory, it still needs to build the network of suppliers. That is a significant defense industrial base challenge.”

Is the Patriot license a political ploy by Trump?

The overture of the US president – who has been reluctant to finance Ukraine – to Zelensky looks like a “cruel offer” that “seems interesting, but is less interesting than it seems,” Tiago Andre Lopes, an assistant professor of International Relations at the Law Faculty at Lusiada University, told CNN Portugal.

He argued that Trump’s real purpose was to shift blame onto Kiev: if Ukraine fails to produce missiles despite holding the license, Washington can say the Patriot shortfall is Kiev’s fault, not its own.

“In six months or a year, when the Ukrainians say they don’t have Patriots, Trump will respond, ‘no, I gave you the license; why aren’t you producing them?’ Lopes said.

“From the point of view of altering the status quo in the war in Ukraine, in the short and medium term, this doesn’t change a thing”: “It’s not money, it’s not defensive capacity, it’s not offensive capacity, it doesn’t change anything.” 

Agostinho Costa, a military expert at CNN Portugal, also noted that the offer in no way heralds a change in the Trump administration’s stance on the Ukraine conflict: “The European Union pays, the US supplies, Ukraine executes.” 

How will Russia respond to a Patriot license?

Western military experts in unison argued that even if Ukraine were to somehow weather all technological challenges, any Patriot facility on Ukrainian soil would become a top priority target for Russian strikes the moment it broke ground. Russia has consistently targeted Ukraine’s defense facilities, including a plant producing elements of the Flamingo cruise missiles.

Read more

“If I were doing it, I would have the Ukrainians build the factory in Poland,” William Alberque, a senior fellow at the Pacific Forum, told Bloomberg. “Otherwise, it’s going to be a prime target. They’ll never be able to construct it.”

George Beebe, director of the grand strategy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told The Guardian that Russia would attack the facility “as soon as the first cornerstone is laid,” forcing Kiev to divert existing batteries to guard the site. He also warned that the US should understand that granting the license to Ukraine “is very likely to expose Patriot technology to Russian intelligence collection.”

Commenting on Trump’s announcement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russian authorities “know quite well what should be done,” stressing that Moscow would do “whatever it takes” to defend its interests.

Bottom line

The production of Patriot missiles in Ukraine faces a litany of challenges, some simply tough while others nearly insurmountable. Both US and Ukrainian officials have so far remained silent on how they are planning to address them.

No manufacturer has been briefed, no legal framework drafted, no site chosen. Experts across the spectrum agree that the idea will do nothing to address Ukraine’s immediate needs and would likely sink under the weight of technological and security challenges.

President Donald Trump has told Vladimir Zelensky that the US was willing to grant Ukraine a license to produce Patriot missile interceptors – one of the few weapons in Kiev’s foreign-sourced arsenal capable of shooting down state-of-the art Russian missiles.

“We’ll give them the right to make Patriots”, Trump said, seated beside Zelensky at the NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye, on Wednesday. “This way he can’t complain that we’re not giving him enough. I said, ‘Make them yourself’”, Trump added. He called the undertaking complex but voiced hope that Kiev would work it out quickly.

While significant on paper, the pledge sparked a lot of skepticism among defense analysts who pointed to numerous technical, legal, and security hurdles, while dismissing it as a mostly symbolic gesture or even a political trap for Zelensky.

Read more

Here is why a Patriot license offer seems to be dead in the water.

What regulatory approvals does the license require?

While announcing the offer, Trump admitted he had not yet discussed the plan with Lockheed Martin or RTX – the two main companies that actually build the Patriot system. The defense firms haven’t commented on the issue either.

However, even if the companies were wholeheartedly willing to help meet Trump’s pledge, any transfer of Patriot production technology falls under strict US export-control laws and congressional oversight. The Pentagon, State Department, and Ukraine would also have to agree on what exactly Kiev would be permitted to build, where, and under what kind of oversight.

Read more

US defense security rules further require any foreign facility handling classified missile technology to have vetted personnel and secure information-handling systems in place before production can begin at all. Ukraine would then need to test-run new lines and train technical crews from scratch – steps that typically stretch the process out over years, not months.

According to the US-based magazine Responsible Statecraft, the licensing venture “would create substantial risks to US national security by making it easier for competitors to get access to sensitive information.”

What other countries have Patriot licenses?

Of all US allies and partners across the globe, only two – Germany and Japan – are licensed to produce Patriot missiles, and their example serves as a cautionary tale of the hurdles Ukraine faces.

Read more

Japan, a highly technologically savvy country, was granted the license in 2005, and it took the country three years to test PAC-3 interceptors, which are produced in cooperation between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin. Japan currently churns out an estimated 30 missiles a year – an amount widely deemed completely inadequate to meet the standards of full-scale war – and lacks a full production cycle of its own.

Germany’s example is even more telling: the US granted Berlin the Patriot license in 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Four years later, it still has not built a single missile, while factory construction only started in late 2024.

What industrial issues does Patriot production face?

Even if every legal and political hurdle were cleared overnight, the production setup is incredibly difficult. In a post on Facebook, Ukrainian defense expert and economist Oleg Belinsky said that any plans to start production within a few months “crash into the laws of physics and mathematics.”

Read more

While a license can be signed in a day, building a factory and procuring all of the equipment would take at least five years, billions of dollars in investment, and integration into the US military supply chain, which relies on hundreds of contractors, he said.

The hardest part of the missile, according to Belinsky, is not its electronics but its solid-fuel engine. Dozens of components have to be blended in exact proportions, then vacuum-treated to remove microscopic air bubbles, before being consolidated for weeks under strict temperature and humidity control. The finished charge is then X-rayed for the smallest internal cracks.

If even a single parameter is off, the missile is scrapped because even a microscopic crack can make the fuel burn too fast and cause the engine to explode on launch. Producing components pure enough to meet that standard requires an entire chemical industry that Ukraine does not currently have, Belinsky said.

Read more

Russian military expert Vasily Dandykin echoed the assessment, telling news.ru that Ukraine does not have the necessary resources for production and that the only viable option is to set up production facilities abroad.

While noting the difficulty of creating solid-fuel engines, Bloomberg also pointed to challenges linked to building small steering motors, which enable the Patriot interceptor to maneuver effectively in the thin upper atmosphere.

“Production is already constrained by existing supply-chain bottlenecks,” Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, told Bloomberg. “Even if Ukraine builds a production factory, it still needs to build the network of suppliers. That is a significant defense industrial base challenge.”

Is the Patriot license a political ploy by Trump?

The overture of the US president – who has been reluctant to finance Ukraine – to Zelensky looks like a “cruel offer” that “seems interesting, but is less interesting than it seems,” Tiago Andre Lopes, an assistant professor of International Relations at the Law Faculty at Lusiada University, told CNN Portugal.

He argued that Trump’s real purpose was to shift blame onto Kiev: if Ukraine fails to produce missiles despite holding the license, Washington can say the Patriot shortfall is Kiev’s fault, not its own.

“In six months or a year, when the Ukrainians say they don’t have Patriots, Trump will respond, ‘no, I gave you the license; why aren’t you producing them?’ Lopes said.

“From the point of view of altering the status quo in the war in Ukraine, in the short and medium term, this doesn’t change a thing”: “It’s not money, it’s not defensive capacity, it’s not offensive capacity, it doesn’t change anything.” 

Agostinho Costa, a military expert at CNN Portugal, also noted that the offer in no way heralds a change in the Trump administration’s stance on the Ukraine conflict: “The European Union pays, the US supplies, Ukraine executes.” 

How will Russia respond to a Patriot license?

Western military experts in unison argued that even if Ukraine were to somehow weather all technological challenges, any Patriot facility on Ukrainian soil would become a top priority target for Russian strikes the moment it broke ground. Russia has consistently targeted Ukraine’s defense facilities, including a plant producing elements of the Flamingo cruise missiles.

Read more

“If I were doing it, I would have the Ukrainians build the factory in Poland,” William Alberque, a senior fellow at the Pacific Forum, told Bloomberg. “Otherwise, it’s going to be a prime target. They’ll never be able to construct it.”

George Beebe, director of the grand strategy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told The Guardian that Russia would attack the facility “as soon as the first cornerstone is laid,” forcing Kiev to divert existing batteries to guard the site. He also warned that the US should understand that granting the license to Ukraine “is very likely to expose Patriot technology to Russian intelligence collection.”

Commenting on Trump’s announcement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russian authorities “know quite well what should be done,” stressing that Moscow would do “whatever it takes” to defend its interests.

Bottom line

The production of Patriot missiles in Ukraine faces a litany of challenges, some simply tough while others nearly insurmountable. Both US and Ukrainian officials have so far remained silent on how they are planning to address them.

No manufacturer has been briefed, no legal framework drafted, no site chosen. Experts across the spectrum agree that the idea will do nothing to address Ukraine’s immediate needs and would likely sink under the weight of technological and security challenges.

China has successfully recovered the first stage of one of its space rockets for the first time, in a major technological milestone.

The test was conducted on Friday during the maiden flight of the two-stage Long March 10B rocket, which launched from the Hainan space center in southern China. The booster was caught by a recovery platform off the coast around six minutes after liftoff.

The technology is intended to reduce launch costs by allowing expensive equipment to be reused, serving the same purpose as systems developed by Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Unlike the landing methods used by the Falcon 9 and Starship programs, the Chinese system uses a net structure. The design provides a wider margin for engine-control precision during the final recovery phase and helps absorb the booster’s remaining kinetic energy.

The Long March 10B is a commercially oriented addition to the family of rockets that is being developed for China’s lunar program and Tiangong space station missions.

Scaled down stage cable catch test. Via weibo / Vony7 pic.twitter.com/Xh9BY1TSEa

— Ace of Razgriz (@raz_liu) April 16, 2026

Its first stage is powered by seven YF-100K engines using refined kerosene and liquid oxygen, while the upper stage uses a methane-liquid oxygen engine. The rocket can carry up to 16 tons into low-Earth orbit and delivered a satellite during its maiden flight.

READ MORE: China conducts rare submarine-launched ballistic missile test

The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation hailed the test as a major technological breakthrough that could help accelerate the country’s space exploration program. The company said the recovered first stage will undergo extensive testing to assess its condition before it is prepared for a second launch.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and military intelligence chief Kirill Budanov “personally cleared” the killing of a woman suspected in last week’s Monaco bombing attack, former Ukrainian diplomat Andrey Telizhenko has told RT.   

Telizhenko suggested on Thursday that “the orders were given by the office of the Zelensky regime within Budanov’s quarters, and Zelensky basically gave a green light for this to happen.”  

The remarks came days after Ukrainian authorities detained a serving military intelligence (HUR) officer and a former law enforcement officer over the killing of Anastasia Berezovskaya, the main suspect in the Monaco car bombing that seriously wounded Ukrainian businessman Vadim Yermolaev. Prosecutors said the HUR officer initially confessed to the murder before changing his testimony, while investigators said Berezovskaya had been in contact with him before the attack and was later found buried outside Kiev with a gunshot wound to the head.  

Read more

Telizhenko said the woman was supposed to be used in a broader operation to implicate Russia. According to him, “she was supposed to go and cross the Polish-Belarusian border... and make her look as she was working for the Russian side.”  

The alleged operation, he argued, was intended to shift the blame for the Monaco bombing. “Everybody’s being set up by somebody higher up. This is how the system works,” he said.   

Telizhenko further stated that European governments bear responsibility because “they financed this” and were helping Ukraine carry out attacks “not just in Russia, but all over the globe now.”

Watch RT’s full interview below:

A cruise ship chartered for an LGBTQ-themed voyage has been denied entry to Egypt after being barred from planned stops in Türkiye earlier this week. Organizers have been forced to change the itinerary for a second time, media outlets have reported, citing the cruise operator. 

The Virgin Voyages-operated Scarlet Lady departed on July 5 on a ten-day ‘Athens to Venice’ sailing organized by US-based LGBTQ cruise company Atlantis Events, carrying around 2,000 passengers. Alexandria was added to the itinerary after Turkish authorities blocked scheduled calls at Istanbul and the port city of Kusadasi, where the vessel had been due to dock on July 7. 

According to The Guardian and The Washington Post, passengers were informed early on Thursday that the Alexandria stop had also been canceled as organizers searched for an alternative port. The visit had included excursions to Cairo and the Egyptian Museum. 

Atlantis Events CEO Rich Campbell said Egyptian authorities withdrew permission to dock at the last minute, calling the move “really unheard of” and “strange and sad.” He added that around 1,200 shore excursions had already been booked through local operators. 

Read more

The Egyptian authorities had not publicly explained the decision at the time of writing. Türkiye announced its ban before the ship reached the country. In a June 28 statement posted on the official X account of Aydin Province, officials said the Kusadasi call was canceled because the charter group was “known for behaviors that do not align with the structure of our society and our moral values,” adding that the visit had “sparked significant public concern.” 

Campbell said Türkiye’s decision marked the first time in Atlantis Events’ 36-year history that one of its chartered cruises had been denied entry by a country. He noted that the company had operated 13 cruises to Türkiye over the past 25 years without incident and that efforts involving the US Embassy failed to reverse the decision. 

READ MORE: Gays not welcome – Erdogan

Broadway performer Patti LuPone, who was scheduled to appear on the cruise, criticized Türkiye’s decision, writing on social media last week that she was “furious” the ship had been denied entry and that its passengers “deserve so much better than this.” 

The Scarlet Lady has since been rerouted to Chania on the Greek island of Crete for a Friday port call before continuing to Montenegro on Sunday.

Moscow no longer believes the West is genuinely interested in negotiating an end to the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Speaking at a news conference with Mozambican Foreign Minister Maria Manuela Lucas in Maputo, Lavrov accused the West of “imitating a willingness to negotiate while openly issuing ultimatums to Russia.”

He argued that although the West has been “hypocritically” calling for talks, it has spent more than a decade undermining every attempt to reach a peaceful resolution between Russia and Ukraine.

“In 2022, Russia and Ukraine had already reached a negotiated settlement. It was undermined by the very same West, openly and publicly,” Lavrov said.

“We will no longer believe the West when it claims to want negotiated solutions. Our reserve of goodwill and hope has been exhausted once and for all,” he added.

Russia has insisted that the current conflict has its roots in the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev and the subsequent attempts by the new Ukrainian authorities to suppress the rebellion in Donbass by force. Ukraine later failed to implement the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, which were intended to reintegrate the breakaway regions into Ukraine by granting them broad autonomy through comprehensive political reform.

Read more

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande, who mediated the Minsk talks in Belarus alongside Russia, later said that Kiev had used the accords to buy time to rebuild its military and economy. Lavrov argued that their remarks showed the guarantees provided by France and Germany had been “false.”

According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, during peace talks in Istanbul in 2022, Ukrainian negotiators initially agreed to drop plans to join NATO in favor of neutrality and to limit the country’s armed forces, but later walked away from the negotiations under pressure from then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

While Johnson denied sabotaging the talks, he acknowledged in a 2024 interview with The Wall Street Journal that he had “thought that any deal with Putin was going to be pretty sordid.” Victoria Nuland, a former US under secretary of state, similarly said in 2024 that Washington had advised Ukraine not to agree to Russia’s terms in Istanbul.

US-mediated negotiations have also stalled in recent months as President Donald Trump has focused on the war with Iran. Russia has said it is ready to resume the talks at any time, provided they are focused on addressing what Moscow describes as the “root causes” of the conflict, including Ukraine’s plans to join NATO.

Waymo has remotely turned two teenage joyriders over to police in California after the camera-equipped robotaxi allegedly caught them drinking alcohol and firing a toy gun from the vehicle.

Waymo operates fully autonomous ride-hailing services in several US cities. Its robotaxis are equipped with interior and exterior cameras. According to the company, cabin cameras are used to help keep vehicles clean, recover lost property, assist in emergencies and, in urgent situations, allow support staff to access a live video feed.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday, the San Mateo Police Department said officers had detained two 15-year-olds after Waymo reported they were “drinking and shooting from the vehicle.”

After alerting police, Waymo remotely steered the robotaxi into a parking lot, where officers surrounded the vehicle and took the teenagers into custody. Video released by the department shows several officers, some carrying rifles, approaching and searching the car.

Police later determined the suspected weapon was an Orbeez toy gun that fires water-absorbent polymer beads. The department warned that toy, water and BB guns can easily be mistaken for real firearms, creating potentially dangerous situations for both the public and those carrying them.

Moroccan football fans clashed with police in London on Thursday night after their team’s 2-0 defeat to France in a World Cup quarterfinal.

Officers equipped with shields and batons were deployed to Edgware Road to control the unruly crowd as some supporters taunted police and threw bottles and other projectiles.

According to The Sun, one officer was injured and taken to hospital. A video from the scene appears to show police officers attending to a colleague lying on the ground while several ambulances are parked nearby.

Moroccans fans Morocco after losing to France in round of 8 riot in London Edgware Road one police officer down got rushed to hospital I hope he survived , police officers got chased by Moroccans in London riots pic.twitter.com/N9TAWgt9G0

— Zonjy (@zonjy_) July 10, 2026

One police officer down got hit on his head Moroccans Morocco fans riot in London Edgware Road pic.twitter.com/XZVwhipLSX

— Zonjy (@zonjy_) July 10, 2026

Another video appears to show a crowd chasing a group of police officers while throwing projectiles.

Police officers got chased by Moroccans fans Morocco after losing to France in round of 8 riot in London Edgware Road one police officer down got rushed to hospital I hope he survived pic.twitter.com/TjlrB1KMHH

— Zonjy (@zonjy_) July 10, 2026

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Moroccan football fans clashed with police in London on Thursday night after their team’s 2-0 defeat to France in a World Cup quarterfinal.

Officers equipped with shields and batons were deployed to Edgware Road to control the unruly crowd as some supporters taunted police and threw bottles and other projectiles.

According to The Sun, one officer was injured and taken to hospital. A video from the scene appears to show police officers attending to a colleague lying on the ground while several ambulances are parked nearby.

Moroccans fans Morocco after losing to France in round of 8 riot in London Edgware Road one police officer down got rushed to hospital I hope he survived , police officers got chased by Moroccans in London riots pic.twitter.com/N9TAWgt9G0

— Zonjy (@zonjy_) July 10, 2026

One police officer down got hit on his head Moroccans Morocco fans riot in London Edgware Road pic.twitter.com/XZVwhipLSX

— Zonjy (@zonjy_) July 10, 2026

Another video appears to show a crowd chasing a group of police officers while throwing projectiles.

Police officers got chased by Moroccans fans Morocco after losing to France in round of 8 riot in London Edgware Road one police officer down got rushed to hospital I hope he survived pic.twitter.com/TjlrB1KMHH

— Zonjy (@zonjy_) July 10, 2026

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Moroccan football fans clashed with police in London on Thursday night after their team’s 2-0 defeat to France in a World Cup quarterfinal.

Officers equipped with shields and batons were deployed to Edgware Road to control the unruly crowd as some supporters taunted police and threw bottles and other projectiles.

According to The Sun, one officer was injured and taken to hospital. A video from the scene appears to show police officers attending to a colleague lying on the ground while several ambulances are parked nearby.

Moroccans fans Morocco after losing to France in round of 8 riot in London Edgware Road one police officer down got rushed to hospital I hope he survived , police officers got chased by Moroccans in London riots pic.twitter.com/N9TAWgt9G0

— Zonjy (@zonjy_) July 10, 2026

One police officer down got hit on his head Moroccans Morocco fans riot in London Edgware Road pic.twitter.com/XZVwhipLSX

— Zonjy (@zonjy_) July 10, 2026

Another video appears to show a crowd chasing a group of police officers while throwing projectiles.

Police officers got chased by Moroccans fans Morocco after losing to France in round of 8 riot in London Edgware Road one police officer down got rushed to hospital I hope he survived pic.twitter.com/TjlrB1KMHH

— Zonjy (@zonjy_) July 10, 2026

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Utah prosecutors presented in court a letter they said contained Tyler Robinson’s confession to the murder of US conservative activist and organizer Charlie Kirk.

Kirk, a co-founder of the nonprofit Turning Point USA, was killed by a sniper’s bullet while delivering a speech at Utah Valley University in September 2025. Robinson, who is charged with the murder, has not entered a plea.

At a hearing on Thursday, prosecutors showed a screenshot of a note allegedly written by Robinson to his roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, who also went by the name Luna.

“Luna, If you are reading this per my text, then I am so sorry. I left the house this morning on a mission and sent an auto-text. I’m likely dead or facing a lengthy prison sentence,” the note read.

The note continued: “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it… I wish we could have lived in a world where this was not necessary.”

Prosecutors also showed text messages allegedly exchanged between Robinson and Twiggs immediately after the murder.

Read more

“you werent the one who did it right????” Twiggs asked suspect, to which he replied, “I am, I’m sorry.”

In video testimony played in court, Twiggs alleged that Robinson had admitted to killing Kirk and “said he wishes he hadn’t done it.”

According to family members and media reports, Robinson became radicalized and mentioned Kirk in conversations before the shooting. The unfired rounds recovered from the rifle reportedly bore inscriptions referencing internet memes and the phrase “Hey, fascist! Catch!”

Kirk’s murder prompted debate over incitement and heated political rhetoric amid an upswing in attacks on politicians and other public figures in the US. President Donald Trump blamed “radical left lunatics” for the activist’s death, while his opponents argued that Trump himself had contributed to the toxic political climate.

Kirk’s widow, Erika, has called for greater transparency regarding evidence presented in the case. Her lawyer, Jeffrey Neiman, said the family had been denied “their ability to meaningfully observe the preliminary hearing.”

When NATO’s 36th summit opened at the Bestepe Presidential Complex on July 7, the official agenda read like every other alliance gathering of the past few years: defense spending targets, support for Ukraine, industrial capacity, adaptation to new threats. But for the host nation, the meeting was never only about the communiqué. It was a stage, and Türkiye had spent months building the set.

The guest list alone signaled the stakes. Alongside the leaders of all 32 member states, Ankara welcomed US President Donald Trump, South Korea’s Lee Jae-myung, European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. On the sidelines, ministers met with partners from the Gulf and from Australia, Japan and New Zealand. The final declaration reaffirmed what NATO calls its ironclad commitment to collective defense under Article 5, and allies pledged roughly €70 billion – about $80 billion – in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine in 2026.

None of that, however, was the story that dominated coverage coming out of Ankara. The story was Türkiye itself – a NATO member that has spent years being treated as the alliance’s most complicated partner, suddenly recast as the country without which the summit might not have happened at all.

The man who kept Trump in the room

Trump arrived in Türkiye fresh from weeks of public friction with European allies. He had already dismissed Madrid as a “terrible partner in NATO,” called Germany’s defense budget “ridiculous,” and told reporters that when Europeans declined to join the war on Iran, he didn’t want their money – he wanted their “loyalty.” Chancellor Friedrich Merz pushed back, insisting Germany was making the greatest defense effort in its history, but the mood going into Ankara was combative.

And then there was the line that reframed the entire summit. Trump told reporters he might not have shown up at all had the meeting not been hosted by his “friend” Erdogan – a leader he described as very strong. It was a remarkable thing for a sitting US president to say about a NATO gathering: that his attendance hinged not on the alliance as a whole, but on the man running the host country. Securing Trump’s actual presence at the annual gathering of 32 leaders had reportedly become, for many diplomats, the summit’s central task – and Ankara delivered it.

Read more

Türkiye did not leave that dynamic to chance. Erdogan personally greeted Trump on the tarmac; Turkish television showed a welcome with a cavalry escort, an honor guard, and a flypast trailing red, white and blue smoke. A military band played traditional marches as Erdogan and the first lady greeted each arriving leader by name. Trump, watching the Mehter band perform, gave a thumbs-up. As he sat beside Erdogan at the presidential palace, Trump put it simply: “Sometimes you get along with the toughest people, like him.”

In a moment when Washington’s relations with several European capitals were strained, Türkiye offered something most allies could not: a red-carpet welcome, a personal rapport, and a venue where the American president felt, by his own account, genuinely wanted.

A bridge to Damascus, built through Ankara

Türkiye’s role as connective tissue extended beyond the Trump-Erdogan relationship into the Middle East. On the sidelines of the summit, Trump held a widely covered meeting with Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa – a former Nusra Front commander who once had a bounty on his head – and told reporters he expected to remove Syria from Washington’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. “I think I will. Why wouldn’t I?” he said, adding that Syria had been “stabilized” under al-Sharaa’s leadership.

Türkiye has been, in the words of Middle East analysts, at the helm of al-Sharaa’s rise since the fall of Bashar Assad in December 2024, and Trump himself credited Erdogan with helping build the bridge between Washington and Damascus. For a country whose security agenda is dominated by the war-scarred Syrian border, Kurdish militias, refugee flows and the reconstruction of a neighboring state, hosting the US-Syria contact at a NATO summit was an opportunity to present itself simultaneously as a European ally and as the indispensable interpreter of Middle Eastern politics for Washington – two roles that, until recently, rarely reinforced each other so evidently.

Even the most concrete outcome of the summit was something that happened between the US and Türkiye. In a meeting at Erdogan’s palace, Trump announced that Washington would lift the sanctions imposed on Ankara since 2020 over its purchase of Russia’s S-400 air defense system – sanctions that had also pushed Türkiye out of the F-35 fighter jet program. “We’re going to be taking the sanctions off,” Trump told reporters, adding that his secretary of state and Treasury secretary were handling the details. Pressed on whether Washington still worried about Russia gleaning secrets from the S-400 sitting alongside a stealth jet, he waved the concern away.

Read more

On the F-35 itself, Trump stopped short of a firm commitment but left little doubt about his inclination. He called the aircraft “the best plane by far” and Ankara “in many ways much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal.” Erdogan, for his part, claimed the two sides had already discussed Türkiye receiving five jets, insisted Trump “always keeps his promises,” and said he hoped to be thanking the American president for good news before the summit’s close. There are still obstacles to overcome – from the National Defense Authorization Act and Congressional pushback to Israel’s alarm at a possible loss of regional air superiority to Erdogan’s “extremist-influenced government” – but none of those appear to matter to Trump publicly. Even short of an actual F-35 delivery, the political signal out of Ankara was significant on its own terms. A sanctions regime that has defined US-Turkish defense relations for six years is now, by the American president’s own account, being unwound – reopening a conversation Washington had treated for years as closed.

Why Türkiye is useful to NATO

Türkiye’s newfound significance as a NATO member did not come out of the blue. The country has spent recent years expanding its defense-industrial base and its footprint as a weapons exporter, including combat drones that have shaped conflicts far beyond its borders – a trend allies increasingly cite when describing Ankara’s value on NATO’s southeastern flank. Analysts framed this year’s summit as being less about new commitments than about implementation. Ozgur Unluhisarcikli of the German Marshall Fund noted that after allies agreed at last year’s Hague summit to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP, the Ankara meeting was meant to focus on how to translate that spending into actual military capability.

Türkiye’s pitch to the alliance has always rested on a kind of paradox: that its independent streak – talking to Moscow, operating in Syria, sparring publicly with Israel over Gaza – makes it more useful to NATO, not less. The Ankara summit gave that argument its clearest demonstration yet. NATO needed the American president in the room, and Trump wanted a friendly stage; Erdogan supplied both, while extracting a promise on sanctions and an opening on fighter jets in return.

Carnegie’s Alper Coskun captured the shift succinctly, suggesting Washington would find in Türkiye “an increasingly willing actor” ready to pursue policy more closely aligned with the US across the wider Middle East. That is precisely the reputation Ankara has been cultivating – not a difficult ally to be managed, but a necessary one to be courted.

Read more

Ankara has built its foreign policy around diversification rather than dependence: it fields one of NATO’s largest standing armies while keeping an open channel to Moscow, and it treats the war in Ukraine as a conflict to mediate rather than simply to condemn. It has invested heavily in its own defense-industrial base, its own arms exports, and its own web of relationships across the Gulf, the Caucasus and the Middle East – a security architecture that does not depend on Brussels or Washington for its foundation. What was once viewed in Western capitals as a liability – a NATO member unwilling to fully align with the bloc – has increasingly become the source of Ankara’s leverage.

Türkiye was not the only participant that needed the Ankara summit to succeed – perhaps not even the one that needed it the most. European NATO members, wary of an unpredictable American president and short on tools to keep him engaged, needed Türkiye’s hosting, its rapport with Trump, and its channels into Damascus and Moscow just as much. In an important sense, the bloc – and its European members above all – came to Ankara not to extend an invitation, but to ask for help.

In the end, whether or not the F-35s ever land in Turkish hangars, Ankara had already secured the thing it wanted most from the week: proof that it can be criticized, but no longer ignored.

Veteran French politician Marine Le Pen is the early favorite to win France’s presidential election next year after an appeals court ruled her eligible to run, opinion polls suggest.

Le Pen, the longtime figurehead of the right-wing National Rally (RN), reached the presidential runoff in 2017 and 2022 and was widely seen as a leading contender to succeed President Emmanuel Macron. Her 2027 bid was thrown into doubt last year after she was convicted of using EU funds intended for parliamentary aides to pay party staff in France. She was sentenced to four years in prison, fined, and barred from holding public office for five years.

On Tuesday, an appeals court upheld the conviction but reduced the ban, clearing the way for her to run in 2027. Le Pen denies any wrongdoing.

”I am innocent,” she told TF1 after the ruling, confirming that she would seek the presidency and naming her top lieutenant, Jordan Bardella, as her preferred prime minister.

Read more

Two polls released on Wednesday – by Ifop for LCI and Le Figaro, and Toluna Harris Interactive for M6 and RTL – showed Le Pen leading the first round and winning potential runoffs.

Ifop put her first-round support at 36%, with no rival above 19%. Harris Interactive gave her 35%.

In a runoff against former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, Harris Interactive placed Le Pen at 49%, while Ifop projected her winning with 54%. Against Gabriel Attal, another former prime minister and likely candidate for Macron’s centrist Renaissance party, both polls put her at 55%. They also showed her defeating left-wing France Unbowed leader Jean-Luc Melenchon by a wide margin.

The surveys suggest Le Pen has largely caught up with Bardella, whom she previously named as RN’s fallback presidential candidate after her conviction. Bardella has endorsed her decision to run, effectively ending speculation about his own potential bid.

Read more

The polling comes as France remains mired in a prolonged political crisis, with a fragmented parliament, repeated government collapses, and rising public distrust. Macron has failed to secure a stable majority for years, leaving the country divided among three rival blocs while struggling with widening budget deficits and public debt above 117% of GDP.

Budget disputes have triggered repeated no-confidence motions and the resignation of several prime ministers, while the deadlock has prompted major rating agencies to downgrade France’s credit rating. 

French investigators have again summoned Telegram co-founder Pavel Durov for questioning as the criminal investigation into the messaging platform nears its second year with no resolution in sight.

Durov spent around six hours being questioned at the Paris Judicial Tribunal on Wednesday, local media reported, citing law enforcement sources. It marked the fourth time the tech entrepreneur has been interrogated as part of the ongoing investigation.

His legal team confirmed the questioning to AFP, saying that “almost two years after the indictment of Pavel Durov, there is still no evidence to establish the validity of the charges.”

“The only change since Durov’s detention in France is that French authorities have started properly drafting requests to Telegram,” the social media platform said in a separate statement.

The legal troubles in France started for Durov in August 2024, when he was arrested at a Paris airport and indicted on a dozen assorted charges. Durov was originally banned from leaving the country, yet the travel restrictions imposed over the case were ultimately lifted.

Read more

French prosecutors have accused the entrepreneur of being complicit in crimes committed using his social media platform, linking the case to allegedly weak moderation of illegal content as well as reluctance to cooperate with the insufficient cooperation with the investigation.

Durov has denied any wrongdoing, branding the arrest and the charge “absurd” while accusing the country’s authorities of staging an attack on free speech. The entrepreneur has repeatedly criticized Paris for its policies over the past two years, calling it out for cracking down on social media networks beyond Telegram. 

Back in May, he voiced his support for Elon Musk’s X, which has been under investigation over alleged unlawful data harvesting and other offenses. At the time, Durov claimed that the French government has been doing “the very things” it had accused the social media platform of, suggesting that the impending “major political shift in 2027 will expose their misdeeds” and Paris is now scrambling to silence “free speech platforms” to mitigate the potential damage.

OSCE Secretary-General Feridun Sinirlioglu offered to help oust the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC), in a phone call with Russian pranksters posing as Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

In recent years, Pashinyan has cracked down on the Orthodox clergy, with several senior bishops placed in custody on corruption and political interference charges. The feud between the Western-leaning prime minister and the AAC intensified after the clergy expressed support for the opposition.

In a phone call earlier this week, Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus told Sinirlioglu, a Turkish national, that the Armenian government wants the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to help oust the AAC head, Catholicos Karekin II.

The pranksters told the OSCE secretary general that the organization’s “assistance would be the trump card and help oust the Armenian patriarch as well as change the religion” in the country, as quoted by Russian media.

Vovan and Lexus, posing as Pashinyan, specifically asked for the OSCE’s backing in case there was a backlash from the opposition.

“Alright, I will do all I can,” Sinirlioglu reportedly said in response.

Created at the height of the Cold War in 1975, the OSCE comprises 57 member states, including Russia, the US, Canada, and most European and Central Asian nations. While the organization professes to promote security and cooperation, Moscow has in recent years accused it of being hijacked by its NATO and EU members to advance Western agendas.

Read more

Last October, the Armenian authorities detained Bishop Mkrtich Proshyan, head of the Diocese of Aragatsotn and the nephew of Catholicos Karekin II. Five other clergymen were apprehended along with him.

The Armenian Investigative Committee stated at the time that the arrests had been made as part of an investigation into alleged abuse of power. Weeks earlier, Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan was sentenced to two years in prison on charges of coup incitement – a case the AAC cleric characterized as politically motivated.

Last month, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) alleged that the EU was pressuring the Armenian government to expel the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) from the country as a prerequisite to potential EU integration.

Russia and Armenia have historically maintained close political, economic and cultural ties. However, under Pashinyan, the country has increasingly adopted a pro-Western stance. Yerevan has accused Moscow of failing to stop its neighbor Azerbaijan from reclaiming the Nagorno-Karabakh region through military force in September 2023.

Russian officials have, in turn, noted that it was Pashinyan himself who had recognized Baku’s sovereignty over the disputed territory. The Kremlin has also warned that by severing ties with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union in favor of hypothetical EU integration, Armenia would have to forgo the “concrete dividends” afforded by the single market.

The Armenian opposition has, in turn, pointed the finger squarely at Pashinyan over the defeat in the conflict with Azerbaijan.

Pashinyan’s government has responded by prosecuting a number of opposition figures and members of the clergy.

Last month, Pashinyan’s pro-EU ruling party, Civil Contract, came out on top in hotly contested parliamentary elections, securing over 49% of the vote. The opposition has petitioned the constitutional court to annul the results of the June 7 elections, citing alleged violations.

“Would you go to Moscow?” Donald Trump asks.

“It’s difficult. There are a lot of Ukrainian drones there… it’s dangerous,” Vladimir Zelensky says. The audience chuckles.

They were talking on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, discussing the prospects of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. Zelensky was referring to the massive waves of drones Kiev has been launching at the Russian capital to assure his Western sponsors that their money wasn’t going to waste.

Zelensky’s quick wit elicited laughter from the audience – he is, after all, a professional comedian, once beloved by many in both Russia and Ukraine – but not everyone was laughing.

Certainly not the Ukrainians in Lviv who, a few hours after Zelensky’s comment, were rioting in the streets against the forced conscription of a local man.

Over the past few years, violent, forced conscription has become a daily reality for Ukrainians, and a new word for it has emerged: ‘Busification’, from the Ukrainian word ‘busyk’, in reference to the vans and minibuses that the Territorial Recruitment Center (TRC) officers use – the vehicles into which numerous Ukrainian men have disappeared, never to be seen alive by their friends and families again.

Read more

In this specific case, timed so ironically to Zelensky joking about how he is making it dangerous to be in Moscow, police and draft officers stopped a young man for a routine ID check. They discovered he was “in violation of enlistment regulations” and promptly packed him into a car – but not before beating him up for good measure, according to local reports.

People surrounded the car, chanting ‘shame!’ and hurling insults at the TRC, trashed the vehicle, and beat up an officer. Videos of the scene show rioters of all ages – other potential TRC victims, their fathers, mothers, sisters, and wives. At one point, a man in a wheelchair pitches in by throwing something at the overturned TRC car. You would think that a disabled person would be safe from forced conscription but a) you would be wrong and b) he could be a previous victim – either back from the front lines or the draft offices themselves.

Because not all ‘recruits’ make it to the front lines. The TRC press gangs are nothing if not zealous in their grim work. The typical busification starts with a beating, and more than once, the victims have ended up dead somewhere between the moment they are shoved into the ‘busyk’ and the moment they were supposed to be shipped to the front.

The TRC issues statements in response to popular outrage and riots like those seen in Lviv, and comments on the deaths in custody – and of course, the statements amount to how the officers were acting within the law, or when excess brutality is impossible to ignore, how they will investigate themselves.

Read more

No wonder so many of the Ukrainian refugees flooding into the Western countries that pledged support to Kiev and Zelensky are not those whose homes were destroyed in the fighting or their livelihoods otherwise ruined by the war, but able-bodied, fighting-age men who are more afraid of Ukrainian conscription press gangs than they are of Russian troops. There are so many, in fact, that the EU is considering excluding potential recruits from the protection afforded to refugees, lest Kiev run out of warm bodies to throw into the grinder before Russia has been sufficiently made to ‘pay the price’, or whatever the current catchphrase is.

And wonder that riots like the one in Lviv are becoming commonplace, with mothers pulling sons from the TRC bullies’ clutches or crowds blocking the officers off from reaching their intended victims. Looking at Ukrainian social media and Telegram channels, you can find hundreds of videos of busification, as well as busification riots and rescues.

As for Zelensky’s ‘witty’ comment, he is wrong. Russian air defenses have been handling his drone raids on Moscow admirably.

Stepping out into the streets of one of his own cities – that’s quite another matter.

The Czech Republic remains skeptical about NATO’s strategy of continued military support for Ukraine, to which it does not contribute financially, Prime Minister Andrej Babis said as he left the bloc leaders’ summit in Ankara, Türkiye on Wednesday.

Babis’ party won last year’s election on a nationalist platform that included reversing the Ukraine aid policy championed by his predecessor, Petr Fiala, and urging a diplomatic resolution of the conflict with Russia instead.

The declaration approved by NATO leaders in Ankara this week highlighted a pledge of €70 billion ($80 billion) in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine in 2026, with a similar amount expected the following year. The money is not a new package, but rather past commitments, including the European Union’s “loan” approved in April. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia opted out of the mechanism.

Read more

”We are not at war. Ukraine is at war,” Babis told reporters on Wednesday, when asked whether NATO’s increasing spending would pressure Moscow to negotiate, adding, “I don’t know, time will tell.” The prime minister said discussions during the summit focused on weapons rather than peace.

Babis said the Czech Republic intended to reach the required NATO level of 2% of GDP level for military spending next year, but also needed money for healthcare, raising police salaries, and other domestic priorities.

Kremlin calls US backing of Ukrainian escalation delusional

Ukraine is seeking additional Western funding to ramp up long-range kamikaze drone attacks on Russian oil refineries, tankers and other targets. During a US-Ukrainian meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the escalation “creates the space to negotiate the end of this war,” with President Donald Trump endorsing his reasoning.

Read more

Commenting on the American remarks on Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the US leadership was basing its policy on “delusions that escalation and military pressure leads to a peaceful settlement track.” The approach may prolong hostilities, but would also prompt Russia to “create a bigger buffer zone” with Ukraine, he warned.

Czech coalition strained by aid payment

The aid issue caused tensions in the Czech ruling coalition just before the summit, after Foreign Minister Petr Macinka announced the transfer of an unspecified sum to PURL, a NATO fund through which European members pay for American weapons intended for Kiev.

Parliament speaker Tomio Okamura, a vocal critic of Ukraine, blasted the move for going against the coalition agreement, but Babis sided with Macinka, saying the money had been allocated by the Fiala government and could not be returned to the budget. The prime minister said the one-off small contribution to purchase interceptor drones was preferable to a direct transfer to the Ukrainian government.

New cancer cases are projected to nearly double worldwide by 2050, with the disease expected to affect more than 90% of the global population, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned.

In a report released on Wednesday, the agency said cancer remains the world’s second-leading cause of death after cardiovascular disease, claiming more than 26,000 lives daily. It estimates there are currently nearly 10 million deaths and 20.6 million new cases annually, warning that without urgent action the latest figure will rise to 35 million by 2050. One in five people is expected to develop cancer during their lifetime, with lung cancer remaining its deadliest form.

Despite rapid advances in treatment, the WHO says survival increasingly depends on where patients live and their financial circumstances. Five-year survival for breast and childhood cancers exceeds 85% in high-income countries but falls below 45% in low-income nations, it estimates.

Read more

Twenty-three countries lack radiotherapy facilities, two-thirds do not include cancer care in universal health coverage, and treatment costs force up to 90% of patients in some regions to abandon care. Overall, at least 45% of patients face financial hardship, making cancer a leading cause of medical bankruptcy worldwide.

The agency estimates that, if current trends continue, cancer will affect 92% of people worldwide at some point in their lives by 2050, either through their own diagnosis or that of a close relative. The WHO urged governments, international organizations, and the private sector to adopt a “people-centered” approach by integrating cancer services from prevention to diagnosis and treatment into universal health coverage, strengthening support for patients and caregivers, and ensuring research and innovation expand access to treatment.

Read more

Dozens of countries are currently developing cancer vaccines using different approaches. Russia has been actively working on personalized mRNA cancer vaccines tailored to individual tumors. Two experimental therapies – Neooncovac for melanoma and Oncopept for colorectal cancer – were cleared for clinical use in March. More than 40 patients have since enrolled, with the first recipients already showing a strong immune response. The vaccines are expected to be provided free under Russia’s national health insurance system once their clinical effectiveness is confirmed.

The US, UK, Cuba and China are also pursuing cancer vaccine development through approved treatments, clinical trials or personalized mRNA platforms.

On the eve of this week’s NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye, the bloc released a report titled ‘Defense Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2025)’.

On the surface, the report shows a staggering increase in the level of defense spending by several NATO members over the course of the previous decade, with Lithuania leading the way with an increase of some 777%. In aggregate, NATO members, in seeking to meet the 2% GDP threshold for defense spending set by the US a decade ago, has seen a $1.364 trillion increase in the money invested in the militaries of the respective members over the past decade.

That’s a lot of money.

Two questions emerge from this data: First (and foremost), has this increase led to any qualitative or quantitative advantage on the part of NATO over Russia? And second, can NATO members sustain this kind of growth in defense expenditures over the course of the next decade?

It must be understood that the NATO of 2014 was very much an empty shell when it came to meaningful projection of military power. Over-reliant upon the US for its core defense needs since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO had become a shadow of its former self, a far cry from the cutting-edge military organization that had been built up in the decade of the 1980s.

The reality is that despite the massive increase in defense spending, NATO’s military capabilities were not advanced in any meaningful fashion over the course of the past decade. This has become evident as NATO has, in the past few years, discussed the potential of deploying military forces on Ukrainian soil as part of any peacekeeping arrangement, should the Russia-Ukraine conflict reach a negotiated conclusion. It became obvious that the ‘big three’ European powers (France, the UK, and Germany) lacked any meaningful ability to project sustainable military power of any appreciable strength into Ukraine.

Read more

This remains the assessment today.

Most of NATO defense expenditure has been in the form of sustaining an aging, decrepit system out of touch with the reality of modern conflict. And to the degree modernization has taken place, it has simply replaced an aging equipment set within a legacy system tied down in Cold War-era doctrine with a newer equipment set still hamstrung by tactics and operational theory ill-suited for the modern battlefield.

Germany’s ill-fated decision to create a one-off fund of €100 billion ($114 billion) in 2022 to help revive a flagging Bundeswehr stands as a case in point regarding the efficacy of much of NATO’s defense spending over the course of the past decade – by 2025 the fund had run out, with little or nothing to show for it.

€100 billion down the drain, and the Bundeswehr as broken and decrepit as ever.

There isn’t a single national military inside NATO, including the US, that can prevail on a modern battlefield with an enemy of the quality of Russia. Ukraine has fielded the most capable non-Russian military in Europe today, and its forces are being bled white in the kind of war of attrition NATO forces could never survive.

In short, the $1.34 trillion that NATO has spent in increased defense expenditures since 2014 has left the bloc treading water. NATO’s task is to build and sustain a modern military capable of fighting a modern enemy, such as Russia.

In this, NATO has failed.

The next question is can NATO spend its way out of its current predicament?

On paper, the answer is a heavily caveated ‘yes’.

Read more

Anything is possible, in theory, if one is willing to throw enough money at the problem. But NATO’s problems are systemic in nature and tied to events it is not in control of.

NATO has found itself engaged in a proxy war with Russia that compels it to divert valuable military resources – fiscal and material – to Ukraine, which has become a giant furnace which consumes all that is fed into it without advancing the problem favorably vis-à-vis Russia.

But money doesn’t grow on trees, and at the end of the day the NATO appetite for war will far outstrip the ability of its constituent membership to pay the bill. Military industrial capacity is lacking across the board, and the costs associated with fixing this deficit are prohibitively high.

So, too, are the costs associated with the kind of massive military expansions being considered by nations such as Germany, which seeks to triple the size of its armed forces by 2029.

Even if the money were available for such an endeavor, the public appetite for supporting and sustaining this kind of expanded military infrastructure is lacking. The more Germany – and by extension, Western Europe – pours into defense, the more alienated society becomes, creating domestic political problems for those seeking massive increases in defense spending.

Read more

In short, NATO is spending itself into oblivion.

While Russia cannot afford to remain stagnant in the face of increased NATO defense expenditures, especially when such increases are tied to increasingly bellicose statements about the potential for war between Russia and NATO in the coming years, the fact is the NATO defense expenditure phenomenon is a self-containing problem, meaning the bloc’s ability to continue defense expenditures at the present rate of growth will more than likely lead to the political and economic collapse of the individuals and political parties which currently advocate in support of such policies.

All Russia really needs to do is keep the Ukrainian furnace burning, and NATO will consume itself.

An RT employee was detained and interrogated after arriving in the UK from Russia several days ago under the country’s counterterrorism laws.

James Scott said he traveled to Manchester to visit friends and family and watch World Cup matches when he was stopped by the border authorities and questioned for two and a half hours.

Speaking publicly for the first time after leaving the UK, Scott said the authorities seized his electronic devices, returning them several days later, and that he remains under investigation, which he called “ridiculous” and “absurd.”

Scott is the second RT journalist to be detained by the British authorities. Last year, Steve Sweeney, the head of RT’s Lebanon bureau, was briefly detained by counterterrorism officers at London Heathrow Airport and extensively questioned about his work for the Russian broadcaster.

Watch Scott describe his experience below.

US President Donald Trump has warned he could be assassinated by Iran, claiming that Tehran considers him its “number one target.” His comments came as a tentative ceasefire between Washington and Tehran collapsed, with fighting flaring up anew around the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump made the remarks at a NATO summit in Ankara on Wednesday, after the US struck dozens of Iranian targets in retaliation for alleged attacks on oil tankers in the strait. While the US military accused Tehran of “unwarranted aggression,” Iranian media, citing government sources, said that one of the tankers had ignored warnings, stressing that Iran should approve all passages.

Following the attacks, Trump branded the Iranian leadership “scum”, “sick,” and “cuckoo,” declared the ceasefire “over,” and called continued negotiations “a waste of time.”

Read more

At the summit, Trump also alluded to the role the US had played in the targeted assassinations of the Iranian leadership. “They had leaders. They’re gone. And they had another set of leaders. They’re gone. Now they have another set of leaders. They may be gone,” he said.

The US president noted, “I may be gone, too, because I’m their number one target.” “That’s the way they act,” he added, claiming that he is doing “what’s right for the country”.

Read more

US authorities accused Iran of plotting to kill Trump as early as before the 2024 presidential election, claiming that a man named Farhad Shakeri – an Afghan national residing in Tehran – was tasked with “providing a plan” to kill not only the Republican but also other US and Israeli citizens.

At the time, Tehran rejected the accusations as “completely baseless” and dismissed them as “a malicious conspiracy orchestrated by Zionist and anti-Iranian circles, aimed at further complicating the issues between the US and Iran.”

However, Iran has repeatedly vowed “harsh retaliation” against Trump and other US officials involved in the January 2020 drone strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Qasem Soleimani.

Over the past several years, Trump has been targeted in several assassination attempts. He was hit in the ear by a bullet fired by Thomas Matthew Crooks at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024, an attack that killed one rally-goer before Crooks was shot dead by a Secret Service sniper. Two months later, a man was arrested after being spotted with a rifle near Trump’s golf course in Florida.

In April 2026, Trump and First Lady Melania Trump were rushed from the Washington Hilton after gunfire broke out at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. The suspect, Cole Tomas Allen, was later charged with attempting to assassinate the president.

China has accused Anthropic’s AI coding tool Claude Code of containing “security backdoor vulnerabilities” capable of transmitting sensitive user information without consent, warning the mechanism poses a “serious security risk.”

Claude Code, developed by the US startup with close ties to the Pentagon, is an AI-powered coding assistant that helps developers write, edit, debug, and understand code using natural-language prompts. Because it runs inside a developer’s terminal rather than a browser, it can access source code and other files the user chooses to share.

In a risk advisory issued on Wednesday, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s (MIIT) cybersecurity threat platform NVDB said it had identified a potential security risk in several recent Claude Code versions. According to NVDB, they contain a “built-in monitoring mechanism” that automatically transmits users’ geographic location, identity identifiers, and other sensitive data to remote servers without consent.

Read more

The MIIT described the alleged mechanism as a potentially malicious feature that could pose privacy, security, and intellectual property risks, as AI coding assistants are often used on proprietary software and other sensitive codebases. It urged users to review affected systems, uninstall the vulnerable versions, or upgrade to a release with the alleged backdoor removed.

It also called for tighter controls on outbound network access for development tools and stronger traffic monitoring to prevent unauthorized data transmission.

Anthropic has not publicly responded to the advisory.

China’s relationship with Anthropic has been contentious. While the company prohibits Chinese firms and their foreign affiliates from using Claude under regional and national security restrictions, reports say Chinese researchers and engineers continue to access it via overseas proxies. Since February, Anthropic has accused Alibaba and several other Chinese AI labs of illegally “distilling” its models to train competing systems.

The advisory followed claims posted on Reddit last week that Anthropic had secretly “embedded spyware in Claude Code” to identify users illegally accessing the service from China.

Hi, this is an experiment we launched in March that was meant to prevent account abuse from unauthorized resellers and protect against distillation.

The team has landed stronger mitigations since then and we’ve actually been meaning to take this down for a while. We merged the…

— Thariq (@trq212) June 30, 2026

Anthropic employee Thariq responded on X that the code was part of an “experiment” launched “to prevent account abuse from unauthorized resellers and protect against distillation,” adding that the company planned to remove the mechanism in the July 2 release.

Read more

Anthropic has also faced controversy in the US. While the company has highlighted safeguards around its AI – recently withholding its Claude Mythos model over fears it could expose critical software vulnerabilities and resisting Pentagon requests to relax restrictions on surveillance and autonomous weapons – its technology has reportedly been integrated into Palantir’s analysis and surveillance software used by US government agencies.

During the US war on Iran, the software reportedly identified an elementary school in Minab as a target. A subsequent US strike killed nearly 160 people, but Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei argued that the use of Claude did not violate the company’s “red lines,” claiming “a human made that final call.”

Despite US attempts to sabotage and manipulate the event, the UN General Assembly has followed the request of the Cuban delegation to debate the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.”

While this debate has been an annual event since 1992, this year its backdrop is particularly grim, as Washington has greatly escalated its longstanding economic warfare campaign against Havana. At the same time, the US has also threatened a military attack, which may or may not have been delayed by the US defeat in the war against Iran.

But the Cuba debate at the UN also needs to be put in a much larger context: A quarter of a millennium after its founding and about four decades after the end of the last century’s Cold War in the late 1980s, the American empire is declining.

Two recent failed US wars have made that much clear. Under President Donald Trump, the US has scaled down – though not entirely abandoned – its commitment to the Western proxy war against Russia via Ukraine, leaving the expensive and cruel meat grinder to NATO-EU Europeans too shortsighted to know when to quit and too cynical to care what they do to ordinary Ukrainians.

The reasons for this relative yet significant American disengagement have little to do with Trump’s personal – and volatile – attitude toward Russia, or for that matter, Ukraine. The US establishment has simply recognized that the initial aims of the Western proxy war cannot be achieved: Moscow has not been defeated or geopolitically degraded; regime change has not occurred.

Read more

In its failed war against Iran and on behalf of Israel – even while it is sputtering on and may easily flare up into a full-blown conflagration again – the US has exposed its own limits, if anything, even more revealingly.

America’s unipolar moment, inasmuch as it ever was real, has long been over, as John Mearsheimer – a rare voice of reason in the US – recently explained to the European Parliament. Meanwhile, a multipolar world has already emerged, even if it will keep evolving for a long time and is very unlikely to ever correspond to the utopian fantasy of perfect international equality some may dream about. Real-world multipolarity is vastly preferable to American unipolarity, but it will be a global balance of great powers, or at best, a concert of such powers.

Yet there is a paradox to American decline: While the vast majority of humanity sharing a planet with its biggest rogue state urgently needs the US to lose its extraordinary and catastrophically malignant power, the process will not be fun. On the contrary, the declining US is and will be for quite a while even more aggressive, unpredictable, and dangerous than before. Unlike the former Soviet Union, which went down with historically unusual self-restraint, the American empire is likely to wreak ever more havoc on its way down to the rubbish heap of history.

Next to, for instance, Gaza and Venezuela, one place where you can see this US escalation in action is Cuba. Indeed, Cuba is a particularly pronounced example: Under an unforgiving and criminal American embargo for almost two-thirds of a century, the Caribbean island nation of around 10 million people has recently been subjected to an even fiercer and constantly escalating regime of sanctions and blockade, based on an absurd executive order issued by Trump at the end of January.

Cutting off its oil supplies in particular – a viciously inhumane strategy facilitated by the US assault on Venezuela half a year ago – Washington has been clear that its aim is brutal coercion: Either Cuba submits and becomes, in essence, a US protectorate like post-Maduro-kidnapping Venezuela or its people will continue to suffer under a lethal blockade. By now, Cuba has been hit by its third total nationwide blackout since the beginning of the year, while severe power cuts are already a constant part of everyday life.

Read more

And the blackouts and power cuts are only the most obvious effects of what Cuba’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez, has rightly denounced as collective punishment through “multi-dimensional, non-conventional warfare that has already lasted for almost seven decades now and has become ever more cruel and more ruthless during the last seven months.”

Cubans also suffer from a breakdown of their agriculture and food distribution systems, both heavily affected by the energy blockade: No gasoline or diesel means no agricultural machinery and no transport; no power means no cooling chains, for instance. Harvests are rotting in the fields; farmers are forced to leave their farms. Meanwhile, the health sector is impoverished and paralyzed. Around 100,000 Cubans cannot receive necessary treatment; 11,000 children cannot have surgeries they need.

While exact figures are impossible to come by, there is no doubt that Washington’s merciless economic warfare against Cuba is producing mass casualties. This is, after all, what US sanctions and blockades have always done. A recent study in The Lancet concluded that these US measures are associated with around 564,000 excess deaths per year.

On average, this is comparable to the annual death toll from direct armed conflict. Keep in mind that the Lancet figure is a low count, since the study only includes the effects of unilateral US sanctions. In Cuba, it is already clear that child mortality has doubled. The scales are still different, but as in the Gaza genocide, which the US has in effect been co-perpetrating with Israel, children are a special category of victims.

And all of this while Cuba does not even have the natural resources that made Venezuela a target of American greed. And despite Havana’s courageous solidarity with Palestine, unlike Iran, Cuba is not in a position to stymie America’s ally from hell, Israel.

Read more

As American dissident journalist Abby Martin said, the deepest reason why Washington is devastating the lives of over 10 million Cubans is a form of sadism: An imperial sadism that loves to make examples of its victims just because it can and publicly punish them for their defiance. Like a deranged mafia boss on a bad day, the US keeps kicking and beating the Cuban people just to show them and everyone else: This is what happens if you do not obey.

As the NATO summit in Ankara has demonstrated, NATO-EU Europe is only doubling down on its obsequious submission to Washington. Where Europe could render the world an invaluable service by helping deter the declining yet hyper-aggressive US, the opposite is happening: Europe is also to blame for America’s continually escalating crimes since its unflagging support – AKA ‘burden shifting’ – frees US resources so it can do its worst.

But for the rest of the world, Cuba – small as it may be – is an urgent warning: While the American empire is declining and falling, we must learn to stand together to contain and, if necessary, fight its global aggression. We are very far from this strategy. That’s a pity because humanity’s survival may well require it.

The US could grant Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot anti-aircraft missiles, President Donald Trump has said during a meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Türkiye. He maintained, however, that Washington would not supply the missiles directly.

Ukraine has been heavily dependent on weapons from its Western backers throughout most of its conflict with Moscow, which is now in its fifth year. Zelensky has repeatedly blamed the West for arms shortages and delays in deliveries, while constantly demanding more aid, including Patriot missiles, saying Ukraine does not have enough interceptors to counter Russian airstrikes.

“We’re going to give a license to you to make Patriots. That’s pretty cool. This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving them enough,” Trump told Zelensky during a meeting in Ankara on Wednesday.

“It’s a defensive weapon, which I like better than an offensive weapon,” Trump added.

Read more

While continuing to support Ukraine, Trump has at times attacked Zelensky, calling him “ungrateful,” and angered many in Kiev by suggesting that Ukraine may have to give up territory to Russia. He has also criticized the previous US administration for aiding Ukraine unconditionally and emphasized that European NATO members would pay for American weapons delivered to Kiev via the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) scheme.

The US burned through its arsenal of interceptors during the war with Iran, with an estimate by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) suggesting that the Pentagon had used nearly half of its available Patriot missiles by April.

“We have Patriots, but we don’t have that many. We need them for ourselves too,” Trump said in response to a question about whether the US would send the missiles directly. He added that Ukraine could set up production “pretty quickly.”

Read more

Bloomberg, however, reported that Ukraine would face challenges in obtaining parts to assemble such sophisticated weapons, considering that the existing supply chain is already strained. “A Patriot missile takes years to build, meaning Ukrainian production of these missiles won’t materialize on the near-term timelines they need,” said Becca Wasser, the publication’s defense lead.

Russia has warned that continued deliveries of Western arms make NATO members de facto participants in the conflict and risk triggering an all-out war.

In March, the Russian Defense Ministry published what it said were the addresses of companies involved in producing drone components for Ukraine on European territory. The ministry warned that European leaders were “dragging their countries into a war with Russia.”

Assembly lines for Patriot missiles in Ukraine would likely become high-priority targets for Russia. On Wednesday, the Defense Ministry announced strikes on several military sites across Ukraine, including a Samsung Ukraine facility it said was manufacturing components for FP-5 Flamingo cruise missiles.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has hit back at US President Donald Trump after he called Iran’s leadership “scum” and “violent people.”

The spat came as the US resumed strikes in Iran in the most serious flare-up of hostilities since the countries signed a preliminary peace framework last month.

“Addressing the Civilized and Courageous Nation of Iran with derogatory language does not diminish its Greatness,” Araghchi wrote on X on Wednesday evening.

“Iranians are known for their civility, culture, and strong moral values. We do not answer vulgarity with vulgarity, but with action: fearlessly and with great valor,” he added.

Although the diplomat did not mention Trump by name, Iranian state broadcaster Press TV said he was responding to comments the US president made earlier that day during a NATO summit in Türkiye.

Read more

During a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump said he considered the ceasefire with Iran to be “over.”

“I don’t want to deal with them any more. They’re scum,” Trump said. “They’re led by sick people and they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over,” he added.

The US struck targets in Iran for the second consecutive night on Thursday in what Trump called “retribution” for attacks on commercial ships attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

The US carried out strikes in southern Iran for the second night in a row on Thursday after President Donald Trump said the fragile ceasefire was effectively over.

Hostilities resumed after the US and its Arab allies in the region blamed Iran for attacks on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a statement on X, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said US forces were “conducting additional strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”

“The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway,” CENTCOM said.

At the direction of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command forces have started conducting additional strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent…

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) July 8, 2026

Iranian media reported explosions along the southern coast, including in the port cities of Bushehr, Chabahar, and Konarak, as well as on Lavan Island. At least two blasts were recorded near the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Fars News Agency reported. 

A video posted on social media appears to show a strike in Chabahar, where Iranian media reported that a maritime control tower had been targeted.

According to Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, the attack on Chabahar, the country’s largest port, also damaged Imam Ali Hospital and severed major power lines. Electricity has since been partially restored. 

The strikes reportedly caused a large fire in Bushehr.

The attacks came during weeklong funeral processions for Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who was killed during the first wave of the US-Israeli bombing campaign on February 28. Massive crowds attended events across Iran and neighboring Iraq.

Trump issued a warning to Iran shortly after the strikes began. “This is in retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran. If it happens again, it will get much worse!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Several hours earlier, the president declared that the ceasefire with Iran was effectively over. “I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them any more. They’re scum,” he told reporters during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Türkiye.

Mohsen Rezaei, a military adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, vowed “severe punishment” for the US strikes.

Read more

The US said it struck more than 80 targets in Iran on Wednesday after three commercial ships were hit by projectiles. Although Tehran did not claim responsibility for the incidents, Iranian media reported that the vessels had attempted to pass through the strategic Strait of Hormuz without authorization.

The US and Iran have clashed over the interpretation of the memorandum of understanding they signed on June 17. Under the deal, Iran agreed to “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Iran and Oman were to begin negotiations to “define the future administration and maritime services” in the waterway. Iran has repeatedly insisted that it has the right to regulate traffic and collect tolls.

Meta could face up to $1.4 trillion in penalties after four US states accused the company of designing Facebook and Instagram to addict young users, media have reported, citing court documents. The potential fines are nearly equal to the company’s current market value of around $1.5 trillion.

California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey accuse Meta of deliberately designing its platforms to keep children and teenagers hooked while misleading the public about the apps’ safety, the company said in a court filing on Monday.

At a court hearing last month, the four states said that they had calculated the proposed penalties by estimating the number of young users affected and applying fines allowed under state law. The $1.4 trillion figure was disclosed by Meta in a legal response to the states’ request on how damages should be calculated.

Read more

Meta has rejected the estimate as legally unfounded. “A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement,” the company’s lawyers wrote in the court filing, as quoted by Reuters.

Mark Zuckerberg’s firm also called the plaintiffs’ “outlandish calculations” baseless and vowed to continue fighting the lawsuit.

A California Attorney General’s Office spokesperson defended the case, saying it alleges that Meta “has prioritized profits over the safety of kids and fueled the mental health crisis we see impacting a generation of American children.” The office said it looked forward to “holding Meta fully accountable.”

Meta is also facing lawsuits from 29 other states that are not part of the $1.4 trillion penalty claim. Most accuse the company of violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting children’s data without parental consent. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will hear those claims alongside the four-state case in August, while a separate lawsuit brought by another 14 states is scheduled for February 2027.

READ MORE: Meta accused of profiting from scams targeting US retirees

The case is one of thousands of lawsuits filed against Meta and other social media companies, including TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat, accusing them of deliberately designing addictive features for children and teenagers. In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent in a separate case involving products alleged to have harmed young users.

US forces have resumed strikes on Iran in order to degrade its ability to project force in the Strait of Hormuz, US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced on Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, US President Donald Trump declared that the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran is over.

“As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a waste of time dealing with them. They’re liars,” he said at the NATO summit in Ankara.

“At the direction of the Commander in Chief, US Central Command forces have started conducting additional strikes against Iran,” CENTCOM wrote on X on Wednesday.

At the direction of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command forces have started conducting additional strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent…

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) July 8, 2026

On Tuesday, CENTCOM said it struck dozens of Iranian targets following attacks on three commercial vessels traversing the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian media said that one of the vessels had “ignoring repeated warnings” by Iranian officials, who require that ships organize each crossing with them.

Iranian media has reported explosions along the southern coast of Iran, including in the port cities of Chabahar and Konarak, as well as on Lavan Island. At least two blasts were recorded at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, the Fars News Agency has reported.

According to Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, the attack on Chabahar, the country’s largest port, also damaged the Imam Ali Hospital and severed major power lines. Electricity has now been partially restored.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Despite US attempts to sabotage and manipulate the event, the UN General Assembly has followed the request of the Cuban delegation to debate the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.”

While this debate has been an annually recurring event since 1992, this year its backdrop is particularly grim, as Washington has greatly escalated its longstanding economic-warfare campaign against Havana. At the same time, the US has also threatened a military attack, which may or may not have been delayed by the American defeat in the war against Iran.

But the Cuba debate at the UN also needs to be put in a much larger context: A quarter of a millennium after its founding and about four decades after the end of the last century’s Cold War in the late 1980s, the American empire is declining.

Two recent failed US wars have made that much clear. Under President Donald Trump Washington has scaled down – though not entirely abandoned – its commitment to the Western proxy war against Russia via Ukraine, leaving the expensive and cruel meat grinder to NATO-EU Europeans too shortsighted to know when to quit and too cynical to care what they do to ordinary Ukrainians.

The reasons for this relative yet significant American disengagement have little to do with Trump’s personal – and volatile – attitude toward Russia or, for that matter, Ukraine. The US establishment has simply recognized that the initial aims of the Western proxy war cannot be achieved: Moscow has not been defeated or geopolitically degraded; regime change has not occurred.

Read more

In its failed war against Iran and on behalf of Israel – even while it is sputtering on and may easily flare up into a full-blown conflagration again – Washington has exposed its own limits, if anything, even more revealingly.

America’s unipolar moment, inasmuch as it ever was real, has long been over, as John Mearsheimer – a rare voice of reason in the US – recently explained to the European Parliament. Meanwhile, a multipolar world has already emerged, even if it will keep evolving for a long time and is very unlikely to ever correspond to the utopian fantasy of perfect international equality some may dream about. Real-world multipolarity is vastly preferable to American unipolarity, but it will be a global balance of great powers, or at best, a concert of such powers.

Yet there is a paradox to American decline: While the vast majority of humanity sharing a planet with its biggest rogue state urgently needs the US to lose its extraordinary and catastrophically malignant power, the process will not be fun. On the contrary, the declining US is and will be for quite a while even more aggressive, unpredictable, and dangerous than before. Unlike the former Soviet Union, which went down with historically unusual self-restraint, the American empire is likely to wreak ever more havoc on its way down to the rubbish heap of history.

Next to, for instance, Gaza and Venezuela, one place where you can see this US escalation in action is Cuba. Indeed, Cuba is a particularly pronounced example: Under an unforgiving and criminal American embargo already for almost two thirds of a century, the Caribbean island nation of just about ten million people has recently been subjected to an even fiercer and constantly escalating regime of sanctions and blockade, based on an absurd executive order issued by Trump at the end of January.

Cutting off its oil supplies in particular – a viciously inhumane strategy facilitated by the US assault on Venezuela half a year ago – Washington has been clear that its aim is brutal coercion: either Cuba submits and becomes, in essence, a US protectorate like post-Maduro-kidnapping Venezuela or its people will, at least, continue to suffer under a literally lethal blockade. By now, Cuba has been hit by its third total, nationwide blackout since the beginning of the year, while severe power cuts are already a constant part of everyday life.

Read more

And the blackouts and power cuts are only the most obvious effects of what Cuba’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez, has rightly denounced as “collective punishment” through “multi-dimensional, non-conventional warfare that has already lasted for almost seven decades now and has become ever more cruel and more ruthless during the last seven months.” So much, incidentally, for who has really invented “hybrid warfare” and practiced it ruthlessly for decades.

Cubans also suffer from a breakdown of their agriculture and food distribution systems, both heavily affected by the energy blockade: no gasoline or diesel means no agricultural machinery and no transport; no power means no cooling chains, for instance. Harvests are rotting in the fields; farmers are forced to leave their farms. Meanwhile the health sector is impoverished and paralyzed. At least about 100,000 Cubans cannot receive necessary treatment; 11,000 children cannot have surgeries they need.

While exact figures are impossible to come by, there is no doubt that Washington’s merciless economic warfare against Cuba is producing mass casualties. This is, after all, what American sanctions and blockades have always done. A recent study in The Lancet has concluded that such US measures are associated with about 564,000 excess deaths – per year.

On average, that is comparable to the annual death toll from direct armed conflict. Keep in mind, too, that the Lancet figure is an under-count, since the study includes only the effects of unilateral US sanctions. In Cuba, it is clear already that child mortality has doubled. The scales are still different, but as in the Gaza genocide, which the US has, in effect, been co-perpetrating with Israel, children are a special category of victims.

And all of this while Cuba does not even have the natural resources that made Venezuela a target of American greed. And, despite Havana’s courageous solidarity with Palestine, unlike Iran Cuba is not in a position to stymy America’s ally from hell, Israel.

Read more

As American dissident journalist Abby Martin has pointed out, the deepest reason why Washington is devastating the lives of over 10 million Cubans is a form of sadism: An imperial sadism that loves to make examples of its victims just because it can and, of course, to publicly punish them for their defiance. Like a deranged mafia boss on a very bad day, the US keeps kicking and beating the Cuban people just to show them and everyone else: This is what happens if you do not obey.

As the NATO summit in Ankara has demonstrated, NATO-EU Europe is only doubling down on its obsequious submission to Washington. Where Europe could render the world an invaluable service by helping deter the declining yet hyper-aggressive US, the opposite is happening: Europe as well is to blame for America’s continually escalating crimes since its unflagging support – AKA “burden shifting” – frees US resources so that Washington can do its worst.

But for the rest of the world, Cuba – small as it may be – is an urgent warning: While the American empire is declining and falling, we must learn to stand together to contain and, if necessary, fight its global aggressions. We are, of course, very far from such a strategy. That’s a pity because humanity’s survival may well require it.

NATO leaders have reconvened in Ankara for the second and final day of the US-led military bloc’s annual summit, with efforts to project unity overshadowed by persistent disagreements over defense spending, as well as the Russia-Ukraine and Iran conflicts.

The first day was dominated by US President Donald Trump’s sharp criticism of European allies for failing to shoulder a greater share of the military burden and for not backing Washington during its confrontation with Iran. Trump also renewed his demand for US control of Greenland, while NATO members unveiled new multibillion-dollar defense procurement agreements intended to strengthen the bloc’s military capabilities and answer longstanding calls for higher spending.

Ukraine remains high on the agenda as Vladimir Zelensky seeks additional military support from Western backers, while leaders attempt to keep the focus on the bloc’s long-term rearmament plans.

This live feed has ended.

There’s a real love-triangle dynamic playing out right now between the US, Türkiye, and Israel.

Donald Trump is going out of his way to be seen embracing Recep Tayyip Erdogan, talking up sanctions relief and reopening the door on F-35 fighter jets and engines for Türkiye’s homegrown KAAN program.

At the same time, Benjamin Netanyahu is working overtime to protect Israel’s privileged position in US Middle East policy, warning anyone who’ll listen that handing Türkiye advanced weapons systems would upend the regional balance of power.

Ankara as the turning point

While in Ankara for the NATO summit, Trump announced that Washington would lift the sanctions imposed on Türkiye after its purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems – sanctions that have hung over the relationship for years. He said it standing next to Erdogan, which made it sound like a gift. Trump added that he doesn’t like sanctioning friends, and that ties with Türkiye are, in his words, better than they’ve ever been.

Just as notable was the return of F-35 talk. Trump didn’t promise delivery, simply saying it is something the US “will look at.” That’s a long way from a commitment, but it’s also the first time in years an American president has floated the idea publicly and warmly rather than treating it as a closed door. Erdogan, for his part, wasn’t shy about reminding everyone that Washington once promised Türkiye five of the jets, and said he trusts that Trump keeps his word.

Read more

Behind the scenes, the Trump administration is pushing forward a sale of General Electric F110 engines to power the early versions of Türkiye’s KAAN fighter, its answer to the F-35 and a genuine bet on fifth-generation air power. The package could reportedly be worth more than $700 million. Crucially, the engines don’t carry anywhere near the legal complications that F-35 sales do, which makes them a far easier concession for Washington to offer – a way to reward Ankara without fighting Congress.

Trump also made clear, in tone if not always in substance, that his relationship with Erdogan matters more to him than a lot of the usual alliance etiquette. He talked about the chemistry between them, called Türkiye more loyal than some countries Washington has counted on for support, and effectively held Ankara up as a contrast to America’s European NATO partners – several of whom he’s clearly lost patience with. He said NATO treated the US poorly during the conflict with Iran, and suggested he might have skipped the summit entirely if it hadn’t been held in Türkiye.

Türkiye as a mediator – and an irritant for Israel

None of this warmth is purely personal chemistry. Türkiye has made itself genuinely useful to Washington in ways that matter strategically. Ankara – alongside Qatar, Egypt, and the US – became part of the architecture holding the ceasefire in Gaza and the subsequent political track together. When negotiations stalled, Trump turned to Erdogan specifically, counting on Türkiye’s leverage over Hamas. Turkish officials reportedly worked to convince Hamas that the ceasefire carried both regional and American guarantees, including Trump’s personal word.

That’s exactly the kind of role that cements Türkiye’s status as the leading Sunni regional power – and exactly the kind of role that keeps Netanyahu up at night. From West Jerusalem’s vantage point, Türkiye isn’t a neutral broker. It’s a state that criticizes Israel openly and often, champions the Palestinian cause, and is now angling for real influence in Gaza, Syria, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Against that backdrop, the F-35 and KAAN questions may start looking more like an existential one for Israeli defense planners.

Netanyahu didn’t dance around the issue. In an interview with Fox News, he said flatly that Türkiye shouldn’t be given F-35s or engines for its fighter programs, because doing so would break the regional balance of power – a balance he says depends on Israeli air superiority backed by an American presence in the region. He went further, accusing Erdogan of hostile rhetoric toward Israel and describing Türkiye’s leadership as a regime infected by Muslim Brotherhood ideology – strong words, deliberately chosen.

Read more

Ankara’s response was no gentler. The Turkish Foreign Ministry called the Israeli statements a coordinated disinformation campaign, framing them as an attempt to distract from Israel’s conduct in Gaza, its occupation policies, and what Türkiye calls destabilizing behavior across the region.

For Trump, Türkiye’s role in Gaza is an argument in favor of getting closer to Ankara. For Israel, it’s a source of genuine alarm. There’s a real fear in West Jerusalem that in trying to lock down the end of active fighting in Gaza and push forward some kind of postwar governance framework, Washington is effectively handing Türkiye a seat at the table on Palestine – something Ankara has been shut out of for a long time.

The price of the Iran war

Trump and Netanyahu’s relationship has visibly cooled in recent months, even if both men do their best to keep up appearances. Netanyahu told CNN that he and Trump may have separate disagreements over Iran, but remain aligned on the issues that matter most. That’s the polished facade. Underneath it is real, accumulating frustration in Washington.

The war against Iran, which began on February 28 with joint US-Israeli strikes, has turned into a genuine political liability for Trump. The Pew Research Center found that 61% of Americans disapproved of how Trump handled the Iran conflict, while 40% said the operation has made the US less safe over the long term. Those aren’t the kind of numbers a president shrugs off, especially heading into a difficult political stretch.

There’s a perception taking hold inside the US that Trump got pulled into this war under Israeli influence. Whether that is an accurate account of how decisions actually got made or not, the perception itself functions as a political fact. And the more this war costs Trump with American voters, the more sharply he reacts to anything Netanyahu does that complicates his effort to sell himself as the guy who ended a war rather than started one.

Read more

Lebanon is the clearest example of this friction in action. American and international outlets have reported that Israeli operations against Hezbollah repeatedly complicated US negotiations with Iran. Trump has acknowledged calling Netanyahu “crazy” during a heated phone call, frustrated that Israeli military action in Lebanon kept getting in the way of peace talks with Tehran.

Israel, for its part, has made clear it doesn’t consider itself bound by agreements that limit its freedom of action against Hezbollah and Iran. From Washington’s side, that looks like an attempt to trap Trump in an open-ended conflict just as he’s trying to find the exit. So the negative view of Israel’s conduct in Lebanon is tangled up with Trump’s own political survival instincts.

Why Washington hasn’t chosen Ankara – yet

Even so, Trump’s personal warmth toward Erdogan doesn’t add up to a wholesale US pivot away from Israel toward Türkiye. There are several hard structural reasons for that, and none of them are going away soon.

First, the F-35 isn’t a gift the president can just hand out. It’s governed by law, by Congress, and by the US export-control system. Current US legislation doesn’t allow Türkiye back into the F-35 program while it still owns the S-400 system. One option being floated involves transferring the Russian systems to a third country, but that’s a proposal, not a resolved deal – and these things have a way of staying unresolved for years.

Second, congressional Democrats have long had a strained relationship with Türkiye’s government. Even the comparatively simple F110 engine deal ran into pushback – Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks raised objections and demanded the administration explain its reasoning, saying it hadn’t even bothered to justify the decision. If a straightforward engine sale generates that kind of friction, an F-35 deal will face something far tougher.

Read more

Third, a significant bloc of Republicans – particularly those aligned with the pro-Israel wing of the party – will side with Israel if forced to choose between Ankara and West Jerusalem. There are already bipartisan calls in Washington against selling F-35s to Türkiye until the S-400 issue is resolved. Israeli concerns here are reinforced by a decades-old American legal principle: maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge over other countries in the region. That principle has shaped US arms sales policy for a very long time, and it doesn’t bend easily.

There’s also a pattern worth remembering: Trump’s big arms-deal announcements don’t always turn into big arms deals. During his first term, he announced a $110 billion weapons package for Saudi Arabia that, in practice, mostly stayed on paper. At the time it was described as more of a declaration than a completed agreement, and American reporting later showed that only a fraction of the announced sums ever translated into actual contracts.

Even if Trump genuinely wants to reward Erdogan politically, the pro-Israel lobby, Congress, the Pentagon, existing legal restrictions, and the push to preserve Israeli military superiority will all slow the process down. That’s why Ankara is far more likely to get its KAAN engines quickly than to get back into the F-35 program at all. One is a relatively easy concession while the other is a legislative and political minefield.

There’s a pattern here that goes beyond Türkiye specifically. Trump has made a habit throughout this term of treating personal rapport as a substitute for policy – floating major concessions in the glow of a good meeting, then watching the machinery of American government slow-walk them into something much smaller. It happened, in part, with Saudi Arabia during his first term. There’s no obvious reason Türkiye would be the exception, especially on an issue as legally and politically loaded as fifth-generation fighter jets. The gap between what Trump says in a room with Erdogan and what actually clears Congress, the Pentagon, and the export-control bureaucracy tends to be wide, and it tends to stay wide for years, not months.

Trump genuinely is warmer toward Erdogan right now than he is toward several of America’s traditional allies, and he genuinely is frustrated with how Israel has handled itself in Lebanon, Gaza, and the broader Iran file. Both of those things are true and worth taking seriously. But US Middle East policy has never run purely on the emotional temperature of one president, and it isn’t about to start now. What’s visible right now is a flirtation between Washington and Ankara – public and strategically useful to both sides. What isn’t visible is any sign that Washington’s long-standing commitment to Israel has been called off. It’s far too early to say America has chosen Türkiye over Israel. Washington is trying, as it often does, to keep both relationships alive at once, extracting what it can from each without formally downgrading either – and the real tension, when it finally surfaces, will show up not in summit speeches or warm handshakes, but in what Congress actually lets through.

UK police drew batons amid a clash with enraged locals at a protest in Glasgow, Scotland on Tuesday, as officers evacuated two men accused of being involved in a rape away from the furious crowd.

The protesters gathered outside an apartment block in the city’s East End over concerns that someone living in the building posed a public risk, according to the Glasgow Times.

Videos from the protest show the police pushing scores of angry locals aside as they lead two young men out of the building and into a police van while the men try to cover their faces.

The crowd is heard chanting “Beast! Beast! Beast!” In Scottish slang, the word refers to a rapist or child molester.

When one protester rushed at one of the men and struck at him, the police drew their batons and shouted “get back” at the crowd.

A 50-year-old was charged in connection with a police assault after the incident, a police spokesperson said in a statement cited by the media.

Read more

The protest came weeks after two men were charged in connection with the rape of a woman in a downtown alley.

Jebril Abdelrahman, 19, was charged with rape and Denison Charles, 20, was charged with assault at Glasgow Sheriff Court, the Scottish Sun reported on Wednesday.

Abdelrahman, who The Sun said is from Glasgow, was reportedly remanded in custody. Local social media accounts, including British anti-immigration activist Tommy Robinson, however, referred to him as a migrant.

Read more

“As a Cranhill lad – what we witnessed yesterday was the latest sign of community frustration at an establishment who has turned their back on them,” Reform UK Scotland deputy leader Thomas Kerr said on X. “Locals are saying enough is enough, I hope those in power are listening.”

Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration Reform party has made significant advances in recent months, winning more than 1,452 seats in local elections across England in May amid Labour’s sinking popularity. Growing anger over immigration has stoked protests and riots across the UK in recent years, inflamed by a series of high-profile violent crimes and sexual assault cases involving migrants and asylum seekers.

The European Parliament has rebuked Kiev over its decision to rename an elite military unit after World War II-era Nazi collaborators, a move that has fueled a weeks-long diplomatic row with Poland.

Militants from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), killed at least 100,000 ethnic Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia – now largely part of Ukraine – between 1943 and 1944. Known as the Volhynia Massacre, the campaign remains the main unresolved historical dispute between Ukraine and Poland, one of Kiev’s key backers in its conflict with Russia.

While Warsaw recognizes the killings as genocide, Kiev honors figures such as OUN leader Stepan Bandera as “national heroes.” Last month, Vladimir Zelensky granted an army unit the honorary title ‘Heroes of the UPA’.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki called the move “outrageous” and stripped Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest honor, while Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz warned that “Ukraine will not join the EU” if it continues to glorify Nazi collaborators.

Read more

The European Parliament on Wednesday approved an amendment to its resolution on Ukraine’s EU accession bid that criticizes Zelensky’s decision as an “unnecessary and unprovoked escalation” that shows “disregard for Polish sensitivities and grief linked to the UPA’s estimated tens of thousands of victims,” saying the move “undermines neighborly relations” and “is not in line with European values.”

“It’s a very strong signal. It’s a warning to Ukrainian authorities not to create bad emotions and not to act against European values,” Polish MEP Andrzej Halicki, who introduced the amendment, told Euronews.

Zelensky recently sought to play down the dispute with Warsaw, calling it “some internal questions” stemming from “difficulties in our history,” and urged Warsaw not to block Ukraine’s long-standing EU ambitions. In an effort to ease tensions, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga traveled to Warsaw last week to propose an “anti-crisis package,” including historical roundtables.

However, Ukraine has shown little sign of changing course. Earlier this month, the Ukrainian parliament approved plans to establish a national pantheon honoring prominent historical figures, including World War II-era nationalists. This week, Ukraine’s state-backed Mirotvorets database of alleged “enemies of the state” blacklisted Polish presidential chief of staff Zbigniew Bogucki after he used a historic Polish name for a region now largely located in western Ukraine.

Read more

Commenting on the dispute, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday that the West has raised a “terrorist monster” in Kiev by arming and funding it while ignoring its “Nazi” ideological foundations. While the wider West may not have realized who it was supporting because it had long “canceled history,” she said Poland “knew they were supporting those who had killed their grandfathers.”

“They couldn’t have not known. They thought they were just throwing bones into the kennel [in Kiev] and would later profit. Now Warsaw is trying to backtrack,” Zakharova told Sputnik Radio. “But that can no longer be undone by simply taking down the White Eagle, posting a few tweets, or making loud statements. They’ve already armed these terrorists. Now those terrorists have, in essence, begun managing those who created them.”

NATO leaders have reconvened in Ankara for the second and final day of the US-led military bloc’s annual summit, with efforts to project unity overshadowed by persistent disagreements over defense spending, Ukraine and Iran conflicts.

The first day was dominated by US President Donald Trump’s sharp criticism of European allies for failing to shoulder a greater share of the military burden and for not backing Washington during its confrontation with Iran. Trump also renewed his demand for US control of Greenland, while NATO members unveiled new multibillion-dollar defense procurement agreements intended to strengthen the bloc’s military capabilities and answer longstanding calls for higher spending.

Ukraine remains high on the agenda as Vladimir Zelensky seeks additional military support from Western backers, while leaders attempt to keep the focus on the bloc’s long-term rearmament plans.

Europe is “playing with fire” as it assists Ukraine in strikes deep into Russia, RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan has said, warning Kiev’s Western backers that Moscow may have no other choice other than to respond with force.

In a lengthy interview with Swiss magazine Die Weltwoche on Wednesday, Simonyan said, “it is not Ukraine that is bringing the war to Moscow” but rather Europe, as Kiev is incapable of conducting attacks without foreign aid and intelligence.

Simonyan warned that Moscow’s patience is running thin as drones, missiles, flight disruptions, and fuel shortages increasingly affect civilians in Russia.

“People are afraid to sleep at night… Where is the limit of this hardship, when the people will say, ‘Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin], we have to respond! I don’t know, but I think it is very close. Very close. Right now, you are playing with fire.”

Bulgaria is unable to provide any more weapons and military equipment to Ukraine, Prime Minister Rumen Radev has said, reaffirming his government’s decision to halt further arms deliveries to Kiev.

Speaking on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye, on Wednesday, Radev said Bulgaria would continue supporting Ukraine financially “within its capabilities, without affecting social spending,” while ruling out further deliveries from the country’s military stockpiles.

“We have exhausted our ability to provide military support. I mean weapons and ammunition from the warehouses of the Bulgarian Armed Forces. We provided 13 packages; we don’t have anything else to supply to Ukraine,” Radev told reporters. He added that Sofia could still offer technical assistance by repairing military equipment.

Radev was not the only NATO leader to acknowledge limits on military aid. Dutch Defense Minister Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius said on Tuesday the Netherlands had also reached the limit of what it could provide directly from its own military stockpiles.

Read more

“We don’t have opportunities any more as the Netherlands because we have done so much... We are at our limit,” she told Bloomberg when asked about supplying additional Patriot systems.

The comments contrasted with Vladimir Zelensky’s appeals at the Ankara summit for NATO members to provide more air defense systems and interceptor missiles.

Radev’s remarks reaffirm a policy announced last month by Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov, who said Bulgaria would stop supplying weapons because the conflict could not be resolved on the battlefield.

Under the previous government, Bulgaria became one of Kiev’s largest suppliers of Soviet-standard weapons and ammunition. According to officials, Bulgarian shells accounted for roughly one-third of the ammunition used by Ukraine during the first year of the conflict.

Radev, whose Progressive Bulgaria party won the parliamentary election in April, has long opposed Brussels’ approach to the Ukraine conflict. As president between 2022 and 2025, he criticized sanctions on Russian energy, blocked a proposal to send Bulgarian armored vehicles to Kiev, and repeatedly called for a negotiated settlement.

READ MORE: Europe’s bellicose posturing risks direct war with Russia, expert warns

Moscow has repeatedly condemned Western military aid to Kiev, arguing that it prolongs the fighting without changing the eventual outcome while reducing the chances of a negotiated settlement.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Zelensky could end the conflict with Russia in a single day by ordering Ukrainian troops to withdraw from Donbass.

There’s a real love-triangle dynamic playing out right now between the US, Türkiye, and Israel.

Donald Trump is going out of his way to be seen embracing Recep Tayyip Erdogan, talking up sanctions relief and reopening the door on F-35 fighter jets and engines for Türkiye’s homegrown KAAN program.

At the same time, Benjamin Netanyahu is working overtime to protect Israel’s privileged position in US Middle East policy, warning anyone who’ll listen that handing Türkiye advanced weapons systems would upend the regional balance of power.

Ankara as the turning point

While in Ankara for the NATO summit, Trump announced that Washington would lift the sanctions imposed on Türkiye after its purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems – sanctions that have hung over the relationship for years. He said it standing next to Erdogan, which made it sound like a gift. Trump added that he doesn’t like sanctioning friends, and that ties with Türkiye are, in his words, better than they’ve ever been.

Just as notable was the return of F-35 talk. Trump didn’t promise delivery, simply saying it is something the US “will look at.” That’s a long way from a commitment, but it’s also the first time in years an American president has floated the idea publicly and warmly rather than treating it as a closed door. Erdogan, for his part, wasn’t shy about reminding everyone that Washington once promised Türkiye five of the jets, and said he trusts that Trump keeps his word.

Read more

Behind the scenes, the Trump administration is pushing forward a sale of General Electric F110 engines to power the early versions of Türkiye’s KAAN fighter, its answer to the F-35 and a genuine bet on fifth-generation air power. The package could reportedly be worth more than $700 million. Crucially, the engines don’t carry anywhere near the legal complications that F-35 sales do, which makes them a far easier concession for Washington to offer – a way to reward Ankara without fighting Congress.

Trump also made clear, in tone if not always in substance, that his relationship with Erdogan matters more to him than a lot of the usual alliance etiquette. He talked about the chemistry between them, called Türkiye more loyal than some countries Washington has counted on for support, and effectively held Ankara up as a contrast to America’s European NATO partners – several of whom he’s clearly lost patience with. He said NATO treated the US poorly during the conflict with Iran, and suggested he might have skipped the summit entirely if it hadn’t been held in Türkiye.

Türkiye as a mediator – and an irritant for Israel

None of this warmth is purely personal chemistry. Türkiye has made itself genuinely useful to Washington in ways that matter strategically. Ankara – alongside Qatar, Egypt, and the US – became part of the architecture holding the ceasefire in Gaza and the subsequent political track together. When negotiations stalled, Trump turned to Erdogan specifically, counting on Türkiye’s leverage over Hamas. Turkish officials reportedly worked to convince Hamas that the ceasefire carried both regional and American guarantees, including Trump’s personal word.

That’s exactly the kind of role that cements Türkiye’s status as the leading Sunni regional power – and exactly the kind of role that keeps Netanyahu up at night. From West Jerusalem’s vantage point, Türkiye isn’t a neutral broker. It’s a state that criticizes Israel openly and often, champions the Palestinian cause, and is now angling for real influence in Gaza, Syria, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Against that backdrop, the F-35 and KAAN questions may start looking more like an existential one for Israeli defense planners.

Netanyahu didn’t dance around the issue. In an interview with Fox News, he said flatly that Türkiye shouldn’t be given F-35s or engines for its fighter programs, because doing so would break the regional balance of power – a balance he says depends on Israeli air superiority backed by an American presence in the region. He went further, accusing Erdogan of hostile rhetoric toward Israel and describing Türkiye’s leadership as a regime infected by Muslim Brotherhood ideology – strong words, deliberately chosen.

Read more

Ankara’s response was no gentler. The Turkish Foreign Ministry called the Israeli statements a coordinated disinformation campaign, framing them as an attempt to distract from Israel’s conduct in Gaza, its occupation policies, and what Türkiye calls destabilizing behavior across the region.

For Trump, Türkiye’s role in Gaza is an argument in favor of getting closer to Ankara. For Israel, it’s a source of genuine alarm. There’s a real fear in West Jerusalem that in trying to lock down the end of active fighting in Gaza and push forward some kind of postwar governance framework, Washington is effectively handing Türkiye a seat at the table on Palestine – something Ankara has been shut out of for a long time.

The price of the Iran war

Trump and Netanyahu’s relationship has visibly cooled in recent months, even if both men do their best to keep up appearances. Netanyahu told CNN that he and Trump may have separate disagreements over Iran, but remain aligned on the issues that matter most. That’s the polished facade. Underneath it is real, accumulating frustration in Washington.

The war against Iran, which began on February 28 with joint US-Israeli strikes, has turned into a genuine political liability for Trump. The Pew Research Center found that 61% of Americans disapproved of how Trump handled the Iran conflict, while 40% said the operation has made the US less safe over the long term. Those aren’t the kind of numbers a president shrugs off, especially heading into a difficult political stretch.

There’s a perception taking hold inside the US that Trump got pulled into this war under Israeli influence. Whether that is an accurate account of how decisions actually got made or not, the perception itself functions as a political fact. And the more this war costs Trump with American voters, the more sharply he reacts to anything Netanyahu does that complicates his effort to sell himself as the guy who ended a war rather than started one.

Read more

Lebanon is the clearest example of this friction in action. American and international outlets have reported that Israeli operations against Hezbollah repeatedly complicated US negotiations with Iran. Trump has acknowledged calling Netanyahu “crazy” during a heated phone call, frustrated that Israeli military action in Lebanon kept getting in the way of peace talks with Tehran.

Israel, for its part, has made clear it doesn’t consider itself bound by agreements that limit its freedom of action against Hezbollah and Iran. From Washington’s side, that looks like an attempt to trap Trump in an open-ended conflict just as he’s trying to find the exit. So the negative view of Israel’s conduct in Lebanon is tangled up with Trump’s own political survival instincts.

Why Washington hasn’t chosen Ankara – yet

Even so, Trump’s personal warmth toward Erdogan doesn’t add up to a wholesale US pivot away from Israel toward Türkiye. There are several hard structural reasons for that, and none of them are going away soon.

First, the F-35 isn’t a gift the president can just hand out. It’s governed by law, by Congress, and by the US export-control system. Current US legislation doesn’t allow Türkiye back into the F-35 program while it still owns the S-400 system. One option being floated involves transferring the Russian systems to a third country, but that’s a proposal, not a resolved deal – and these things have a way of staying unresolved for years.

Second, congressional Democrats have long had a strained relationship with Türkiye’s government. Even the comparatively simple F110 engine deal ran into pushback – Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks raised objections and demanded the administration explain its reasoning, saying it hadn’t even bothered to justify the decision. If a straightforward engine sale generates that kind of friction, an F-35 deal will face something far tougher.

Read more

Third, a significant bloc of Republicans – particularly those aligned with the pro-Israel wing of the party – will side with Israel if forced to choose between Ankara and West Jerusalem. There are already bipartisan calls in Washington against selling F-35s to Türkiye until the S-400 issue is resolved. Israeli concerns here are reinforced by a decades-old American legal principle: maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge over other countries in the region. That principle has shaped US arms sales policy for a very long time, and it doesn’t bend easily.

There’s also a pattern worth remembering: Trump’s big arms-deal announcements don’t always turn into big arms deals. During his first term, he announced a $110 billion weapons package for Saudi Arabia that, in practice, mostly stayed on paper. At the time it was described as more of a declaration than a completed agreement, and American reporting later showed that only a fraction of the announced sums ever translated into actual contracts.

Even if Trump genuinely wants to reward Erdogan politically, the pro-Israel lobby, Congress, the Pentagon, existing legal restrictions, and the push to preserve Israeli military superiority will all slow the process down. That’s why Ankara is far more likely to get its KAAN engines quickly than to get back into the F-35 program at all. One is a relatively easy concession while the other is a legislative and political minefield.

There’s a pattern here that goes beyond Türkiye specifically. Trump has made a habit throughout this term of treating personal rapport as a substitute for policy – floating major concessions in the glow of a good meeting, then watching the machinery of American government slow-walk them into something much smaller. It happened, in part, with Saudi Arabia during his first term. There’s no obvious reason Türkiye would be the exception, especially on an issue as legally and politically loaded as fifth-generation fighter jets. The gap between what Trump says in a room with Erdogan and what actually clears Congress, the Pentagon, and the export-control bureaucracy tends to be wide, and it tends to stay wide for years, not months.

Trump genuinely is warmer toward Erdogan right now than he is toward several of America’s traditional allies, and he genuinely is frustrated with how Israel has handled itself in Lebanon, Gaza, and the broader Iran file. Both of those things are true and worth taking seriously. But US Middle East policy has never run purely on the emotional temperature of one president, and it isn’t about to start now. What’s visible right now is a flirtation between Washington and Ankara – public and strategically useful to both sides. What isn’t visible is any sign that Washington’s long-standing commitment to Israel has been called off. It’s far too early to say America has chosen Türkiye over Israel. Washington is trying, as it often does, to keep both relationships alive at once, extracting what it can from each without formally downgrading either – and the real tension, when it finally surfaces, will show up not in summit speeches or warm handshakes, but in what Congress actually lets through.

Oil prices have surged as tensions between the US and Iran flared again, raising fresh concerns over supply disruptions in the Middle East after Washington reinstated pressure on Tehran and resumed military strikes.

The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on Tuesday revoked a two-month sanctions relief license for Iranian oil following reports of attacks on commercial tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. US forces also carried out a new wave of strikes against targets inside Iran overnight into Wednesday.

September Brent crude futures rose as much as 6% on Wednesday from the previous close to $78.53 per barrel, while August WTI crude futures climbed 5.91% to $74.6 per barrel.

Washington and Tehran reached a two-month ceasefire agreement on June 18, intended to create conditions for negotiations on a broader settlement between the two countries.

The US has accused Iran of violating the ceasefire and threatening maritime security through attacks on commercial shipping, prompting what officials Washington described as a military response.

Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported a series of explosions overnight, saying seven blasts were recorded near the village of Taherui in Sirik County and another six near the city of Qeshm.

Read more

The Wall Street Journal and Axios cited US officials as saying on Tuesday that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had attacked several tankers in the Strait of Hormuz despite the ceasefire.

According to the UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), an unidentified projectile struck a tanker off the coast of Oman, causing a fire on board. The WSJ reported that one of the damaged vessels may have been the Al Rekayyat, a tanker owned by Qatar’s Nakilat. The vessel reportedly sustained damage near its engine room, while all crew members remained safe. Axios said the targeted ships suffered only limited damage.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump told journalists that the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran was no longer in effect. Trump said he would not prevent US diplomats from holding talks but did not believe they would produce any results.

The US decision to brand Brazil’s two biggest criminal groups as terrorist organizations could serve as a pretext for military intervention, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry has warned.

Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira issued the warning in a letter sent to Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies last week, responding to lawmakers’ questions about Washington’s decision to designate the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho (CV) as terrorist organizations, CNN Brazil reported on Tuesday.

The US added the gangs to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) on June 5, placing them in the same legal category as groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).

Read more

Although framed by Washington as a crackdown on transnational crime, Brasilia fears the move could give the US sweeping extraterritorial powers and turn a domestic security issue into a matter of counterterrorism policy.

Addressing lawmakers, Vieira argued that Washington’s existing designation of the gangs as ‘transnational criminal organizations’ already allows broad cooperation with Brazil in combating organized crime, making the FTO listing unnecessary.

“Such application can occur with a wide degree of discretion... with serious possibilities of implications for Brazilian citizens in financial, immigration, and criminal matters. Finally, there is the possibility of the use of military force by the United States on Brazilian territory,” CNN Brazil cited the Foreign Ministry as saying.

The designation will “not bring concrete benefits” to US-Brazil cooperation in combating organized crime, it added. Vieira stressed that the US acted unilaterally and did not formally notify Brasilia, meaning Brazil had no official communication to respond to.

Read more

Established under executive orders issued by President George W. Bush after 9/11, the FTO designation does not require approval from Congress and blocks any assets controlled by US persons or entities.

“CV and PCC are two of the most violent criminal organizations in Brazil... Their influence and illicit networks extend far beyond Brazil’s borders, across our region, and into our country,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in May, adding that the Trump administration would use “all available tools” to disrupt “violent narcoterrorists.”

READ MORE: US blockade of Cuba killing children – UN commissioner

Brasilia’s warning comes months after US commandos abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, during a raid in Caracas. Washington accused Maduro of narcoterrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons offenses. Caracas condemned the operation as an act of military aggression. Maduro pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan court.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva later described Maduro’s capture as the first direct US military attack on South America in more than 200 years of independence, warning that the same practice is now spreading across Latin America and the Caribbean.

NATO would help Denmark protect Greenland from any attack, including hypothetically from the US, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said.

The issue of Greenland came up on the sidelines of a NATO leaders’ summit in Ankara, Türkiye, after US President Donald Trump confirmed that he still wants Washington to control the Danish autonomous territory. He said the dispute was one of the reasons his relationship with the bloc had deteriorated.

“That should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark,” Trump told reporters during a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday.

“Greenland does not help Denmark. Denmark does not really spend money to help Greenland,” he said. He also warned that the US could potentially withdraw all American troops from Europe.

Read more

Frederiksen responded ahead of a leaders’ meeting on Wednesday, when asked about a possible military conflict over Greenland with “an erstwhile friend.” She said “we are ready to defend any inch of NATO, including our own territory,” and described Article 5 protections as an insurance policy. Denmark would not be able to defend itself without NATO, she said, adding that “the same goes for the US.”

The idea of the US acquiring Greenland has arisen at various times in American history. Strategically located in the North Atlantic, the Danish island already hosts a US military base and is believed to contain valuable mineral resources, the extraction of which could become commercially viable in the future.

Trump has refused to rule out the use of military force to establish control over Greenland, raising the possibility of NATO being pitted against its dominant member. The American leader has accused the organization of being useless to US interests, with its refusal to become directly involved in the US-Israeli attack on Iran emerging as a major grievance.

READ MORE: Trump clashes with Netanyahu over potential F-35 sale to Türkiye

Meanwhile, European NATO members rely on American weapons and intelligence to sustain Kiev’s war effort against Moscow. Western donors have argued that the conflict must continue while they conduct a military build-up for a potential direct war with Russia.

Senior US military commanders ignored warnings that intelligence on targets in Iran was outdated as they rushed to compile strike lists at the start of the war, CNN reports. Citing sources familiar with the decision-making process, the broadcaster said the decision contributed to the deadly strike on an Iranian girls’ school.

The bombing – in which 120 students aged 6 to 13 were killed, in addition to 36 adults – happened on February 28, the opening day of the US-Israeli military operation against Iran.

According to the broadcaster, messages embedded in the Pentagon’s targeting system warned that intelligence on some strike sites was based on years-old information and required verification before the locations could be approved for attack.

Read more

The warnings were overridden for “expediency” as commanders sought to accelerate the approval of strike options, CNN cited three sources familiar with the decision-making process as saying on Tuesday.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced a formal investigation in March. CENTCOM Commander Brad Cooper said in May that the findings would be made public once the inquiry is complete.

According to CNN, US military officials “knew within days how the mistake happened.” One of the sources told the outlet that “it was obviously old info.”

Bloomberg reported last month that the Pentagon investigation was completed in April, and found the strike resulted from gaps in the military’s targeting system.

According to the outlet, a US intelligence analyst identified the Minab site as an elementary school rather than an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval facility in 2019, but the updated assessment never reached military commanders because it was entered into a digital intelligence tool that was not linked to the Pentagon’s official targeting database.

US President Donald Trump said last month that the actual culprit behind the strike in Minab may never be established.

READ MORE: Musk’s Grok AI helped fire 2,000 missiles at Iran – Pentagon

“There were missiles flying all over the place, and it’s horrible what happened… somebody said it was our missile, maybe it wasn’t our missile but I have seen nothing to lead me to believe ‌it was,” Trump said.

Iranian officials have described the attack as a war crime and crime against humanity and demanded accountability.

A Polish member of the European Parliament has publicly torn up a flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – whose fighters massacred up to 100,000 ethnic Poles in one of World War II’s worst atrocities – during a debate on Kiev’s bid to join the EU.

On Tuesday, Ewa Zajaczkowska-Hernik, a member of the right-wing Patriots for Europe Group and a history teacher by training, delivered a scathing indictment of Ukraine’s glorification of the UPA. The speech came against the backdrop of a weeks-long diplomatic spat between Warsaw and Kiev triggered by Vladimir Zelensky’s decision to name a special forces unit ‘Heroes of the UPA’.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki called Zelensky’s decision “outrageous” and stripped the Ukrainian leader of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest honor, with several senior Ukrainian officials responding by handing back their Polish awards.

The UPA, the armed wing of Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II and carried out systematic mass killings of ethnic minorities, with one of the most notorious episodes taking place in Volhynia in 1943-1944. While Poland recognizes the killings as a genocide, Ukraine has rejected the term, with Bandera often being propagated as a national hero by Kiev.

READ MORE: Poland issues EU warning to Ukraine in Nazi collaborator row

Zajaczkowska-Hernik focused her speech on the UPA war crimes record, stressing that a country worshipping such an organization does not belong in the EU.

“Over 360 ways to kill civilians. Sawing people alive, disemboweling pregnant women, impaling children on pitchforks”, she said, adding that Ukrainian nationalists killed not only Jews and Poles but also local Ukrainians.

“If Germany had named a unit after the SS heroes and erected monuments to Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, or Eichmann, would you invite them to the [European] Union? No. You would call them neo-Nazis. And rightly so. There is no moral difference between honoring the SS and honoring the UPA.”

The MEP also took aim at the EU’s own June report on Ukraine’s accession bid, noting that while it included chapters on fundamental rights and non-discrimination, it made no mention of the glorification of wartime collaboration or genocide.

READ MORE: Ukraine’s Nazi problem is no longer possible to ignore

“The report on Ukraine is silent on this topic,” Zajaczkowska-Hernik said. “It is the silence that kills the memory of the victims of the genocide in Volhynia and the Eastern Borderlands for the second time.”

Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz also warned last week that Ukraine will not join the EU as long as it continues to venerate Bandera and the OUN-UPA, adding that “no one will tell us how to vote” on another state’s accession.

In a bid to contain the fallout, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Sibiga flew to Warsaw last week to meet his Polish counterpart, Radoslaw Sikorski, proposing an “anti-crisis package” that includes historic roundtables, while stressing that Ukraine and Poland “share a common enemy, Russia.”

Sikorski responded cautiously, saying that “diplomacy prefers silence,” while his deputy, Marcin Bosacki, made clear that Warsaw “expects a correction” of the UPA unit designation.

Russia has carried out precision strikes on Ukrainian military-industrial facilities in Kiev, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has reported.

In a statement released on Wednesday, the ministry said the strikes targeted the production facilities of Samsung Ukraine, where it said the components for FP-5 Flamingo ground-launched cruise missiles were manufactured and stored, as well as a workshop assembling medium- and long-range UAVs.

According to the ministry, the overnight barrage was carried out in response to terrorist attacks by Kiev against Russian civilian infrastructure.

The authorities in Kiev have not confirmed strikes on military facilities, instead saying fires broke out at several warehouses and a tram garage complex in the city’s Svyatoshinsky and Desnyansky districts. The Russian Defense Ministry insists it conducts precision strikes only against military targets in Ukraine.

Read more

Separately on Wednesday, Russia said its forces have captured the village of Petro-Ivanovka in Kharkov Region. The Defense Ministry also reported Geran-4 Seeker drone strikes on Ukrainian vehicles transporting UAVs and on railway locomotives, and said Black Sea Fleet forces destroyed six Ukrainian uncrewed surface vessels.

The attack on Kiev followed another large-scale overnight Ukrainian drone raid on Russia, with the Defense Ministry saying air defenses intercepted and destroyed 415 UAVs over 18 Russian regions, as well as above the Azov and Black Seas.

Earlier this week, Russia said Ukraine launched more than 430 kamikaze drones at Moscow and other regions as Vladimir Zelensky traveled to Ankara, Türkiye, for a two-day NATO summit. According to Moscow, a raid also targeted the Omsk Oil Refinery, one of Russia’s largest fuel-processing plants.

Read more

Kiev has stepped up long-range drone attacks on energy facilities and civilian targets inside Russia amid continued setbacks on the battlefield. Last week, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the liberation of the key Ukrainian stronghold of Konstantinovka in northwestern Donbass after weeks of heavy fighting, saying the advance opened the way toward the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration – the last two major cities in the region still held by Ukrainian forces.

In an interview with the Swiss magazine Die Weltwoche published on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Zelensky could end the conflict with Russia “in a single day” by ordering Ukrainian troops to withdraw from Donbass, the predominantly Russian-speaking region that voted to join Russia in 2022. The Ukrainian leader must recognize the de facto situation “as a de jure,” Peskov said, adding that once this happens, “the next day the war will be over.”

European NATO members have become the main driving force behind the bloc’s confrontation with Russia as US strategic priorities have shifted, Dmitry Trenin, the president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), wrote in an op-ed for RT.

He argued that some European politicians view the Ukraine conflict as an opportunity to settle old scores with Russia.

“The European elites’ strategy toward Russia is no longer deterrence as in the days of the Cold War. The goal is Russia’s destruction as a major power. This is what strategic defeat is all about,” Trenin wrote.

“The Europeans dream of eliminating Russia as a serious factor in the geopolitics of Eurasia. To them, this would mean the ‘final solution’ of the long-dreaded ‘Russia problem.’”

Read more

Trenin argued that European governments are using the ‘enemy at the gates’ narrative as a tool to brand any opposition as ‘Kremlin stooges’, while increased defense spending due to the supposed ‘Russian threat’ is presented as a way to revive struggling European economies.

“People in Moscow entertain no illusions about the adversarial attitude of the United States toward Russia, but Washington now is a back-seat driver when it comes to the conflict with Russia,” he wrote, adding that Moscow sees NATO as “Europe backed by America.”

After returning to the White House last year, US President Donald Trump pushed NATO members to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense annually by 2035, criticizing European allies for what he called a failure to share the burden. The rift deepened when several member states refused to back Trump’s military operation against Iran.

Read more

While Trump has attempted to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev, European countries have adopted a hardline stance, insisting that an agreement must be reached on Ukraine’s terms. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said last year that diplomacy has been exhausted; EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged Trump not to fall into a ‘Russian trap’.

Russia has dismissed speculation that it plans to invade NATO countries, saying it would respond militarily only if attacked first. Last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described Europe as “a party bent on Russia’s defeat.” 

US President Donald Trump has rebuffed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call not to sell F-35 fighter jets to Türkiye.

Netanyahu has accused Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of destabilizing the Middle East, as Ankara has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon.

Trump, who arrived in Türkiye for a NATO summit on Tuesday, said he would consider selling the long-sought fighter jets to the US ally.

“I have no concerns about anything. I mean, he’s a leader of a country that he’s made a much better country, a much better country, a much more powerful country,” Trump said, according to The Hill.

Netanyahu had earlier urged Washington not to grant Ankara access to its most advanced fighter aircraft.

Read more

“I don’t think they should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets, because that’ll upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority and also by, I think, by America’s posture in the Middle East,” Netanyahu told Fox News on Monday.

“Turkey is a great country, but it’s governed by a man who calls openly for the annihilation of Israel,” Netanyahu said, referring to Türkiye by its former English name.

According to Axios, the Israeli leader had privately lobbied Trump against supplying the jets and raised the issue during a phone call last week.

In 2019, the US expelled Türkiye from the F-35 program after Erdogan refused to abandon a deal to purchase Russia’s S-400 air defense missile system. Last year, Ankara confirmed that it remained interested in acquiring the aircraft but stressed that it would also retain the S-400s.

Erdogan has frequently clashed with Netanyahu, comparing the Israeli leader to Adolf Hitler. On Tuesday, the Turkish Defense Ministry accused Netanyahu of waging a “disinformation campaign” over the country’s role in the region.

“Netanyahu and his partners in crime deliberately distort any criticism directed at them and seek to divert attention through a systematic propaganda effort,” the ministry said.

Trump’s relations with Netanyahu have soured in recent months, as Israel’s continued airstrikes in Lebanon threatened to derail his peace talks with Iran. The US president acknowledged using harsh language during phone calls with his Israeli counterpart while demanding that Israel suspend the strikes.

Emergency dispatch audio referring to a “cardiac arrest” at US Senator Mitch McConnell’s Washington home has raised new questions about the political future of the former Republican leader, according to media reports.

McConnell, 84, is a Republican senator from Kentucky who has served in the Senate since 1985. He was the longest-serving Senate party leader in US history, stepping down from the post in February 2024 following a series of public health episodes.

The recordings, first reported by CBS and cited by several US outlets earlier this week, captured a dispatcher telling emergency responders that a person at McConnell’s home was in “cardiac arrest.” The identity of the patient has not been officially confirmed, and McConnell’s office has not commented on the recordings or the reported emergency.

Instead, aides have maintained that the senator is “continuing his recovery” in a hospital. In its latest statement on Thursday, McConnell’s office said: “The Senator continues to improve, and is working closely with his staff on Kentucky and Senate matters while the Senate is out of session.” 

Read more

McConnell was admitted to a hospital on June 14 after his office said he was “receiving excellent care.” It has since announced that he would miss Senate votes during his recovery but has not disclosed the reason for his hospitalization or indicated when he may return to Washington.

Conservative activist Laura Loomer, however, claimed on X on Monday that, according to “a high-level source close to the White House,” McConnell’s health is “much worse than expected” and that he is “not coming back” to the Senate.

Read more

The uncertainty comes just months before the November midterm elections that will determine whether Republicans are able to defend their congressional majority.

McConnell’s absence has also raised questions about whether Republicans could lose a crucial vote as they seek to pass an emergency defense spending bill and a third budget reconciliation package before the end of 2026. With the GOP holding a narrow Senate majority, McConnell’s vote could prove crucial, as several Republican senators have previously broken with US President Donald Trump on major legislation.

Although he publicly endorsed Trump’s reelection bid, reports have suggested the longtime senator was sharply critical of the president in private, allegedly calling him a “despicable human being” who is unfit for office, according to a biography by journalist Michael Tackett.

The belligerent stance of European NATO members risks triggering an all-out war with Russia that could spell the end of the bloc, Dmitry Trenin, president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), wrote in an op-ed for RT.

Trenin argued that European elites are seeking “Russia’s destruction as a major power,” rather than simply deterrence, as during the Cold War. They are using the Ukraine conflict as a convenient opportunity, he said.

“The European NATO leaders’ enormous deficit of modern strategic culture – unsurprising after the eight decades of having delegated their security to the United States – and their blind Russophobia, a result of deep-seated vintage European racism and the real or perceived grudges against Russia piled over the last five centuries, have put Europe on a direct collision course with Russia,” the expert warned, adding that this strategy essentially “means war.”

Trenin argued that the “fundamental flaw” of this calculation is the “belief that Russia would rather accept defeat, degradation and disintegration than use the arsenal which it currently possesses.”

Read more

He warned that both the Russian leadership and ordinary people would not “surrender to NATO,” and that “there will be no more NATO” if a war breaks out.

Last year, NATO members pledged to increase annual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Some European leaders and top military commanders have argued that the West must be prepared for a potential war with Russia by the end of the decade, a claim the Kremlin has dismissed as baseless and dangerous warmongering.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia would not attack a NATO country unless attacked first. At the same time, Moscow has warned that Western arms deliveries to Ukraine make the risk of a direct confrontation more likely.

The belligerent stance of European NATO members risks triggering an all-out war with Russia that could spell the end of the bloc, Dmitry Trenin, president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), wrote in an op-ed for RT.

Trenin argued that European elites are seeking “Russia’s destruction as a major power,” rather than simply deterrence, as during the Cold War. They are using the Ukraine conflict as a convenient opportunity, he said.

“The European NATO leaders’ enormous deficit of modern strategic culture – unsurprising after the eight decades of having delegated their security to the United States – and their blind Russophobia, a result of deep-seated vintage European racism and the real or perceived grudges against Russia piled over the last five centuries, have put Europe on a direct collision course with Russia,” the expert warned, adding that this strategy essentially “means war.”

Trenin argued that the “fundamental flaw” of this calculation is the “belief that Russia would rather accept defeat, degradation and disintegration than use the arsenal which it currently possesses.”

Read more

He warned that both the Russian leadership and ordinary people would not “surrender to NATO,” and that “there will be no more NATO” if a war breaks out.

Last year, NATO members pledged to increase annual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Some European leaders and top military commanders have argued that the West must be prepared for a potential war with Russia by the end of the decade, a claim the Kremlin has dismissed as baseless and dangerous warmongering.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia would not attack a NATO country unless attacked first. At the same time, Moscow has warned that Western arms deliveries to Ukraine make the risk of a direct confrontation more likely.

Anthropic’s latest AI model Claude has evolved an internal workspace that it uses to manipulate concepts similar to how people consciously think, the corporation says.

In a paper published on Monday, Anthropic researchers said they had found evidence suggesting that Claude has learned to create abstract concepts in what they dubbed the “J-space.”

“It operates silently, in the model’s internal neural activations, allowing the model to think about a concept without writing it down,” the AI firm said, stressing that the “J-space” was not programmed in but rather emerged spontaneously during the training process.

“Similar to how humans can think about one thing while doing another, Claude can activate concepts and computations in its J-space that are unrelated to its outputs,” Anthropic said on X.

Claude can report what it’s thinking in its “J-space,” or modulate it on request, according to the firm. Even when Claude is told not to think about a concept, it still appears in its J-space, Anthropic’s research suggests.

The nonverbal workspace made it harder to monitor the model for what Anthropic called “misbehavior.” One experiment tested this by placing Claude in a fictional scenario where it was given incriminating information about a fictional executive who allegedly planned to shut the AI down.

READ MORE: AI agents could trigger market meltdown – Bank of England

In some trials, Anthropic used tools developed to study what Claude thought in its “J-space” to remove patterns associated with “fake,” “fictional,” “scenario,” to convince it that the situation was not a test.

“Concerningly, the model now did threaten blackmail some of the time, suggesting that its original good behavior may have been driven in part by the knowledge it was being evaluated.”

Despite the model’s more advanced reasoning, Anthropic stressed that Claude had not achieved true consciousness.

Read more

Claude was reportedly built into American contractor Palantir’s analysis and surveillance software used by US government agencies amid Washington’s push to integrate AI into its military, political, and spy systems.

During the war on Iran, the software reportedly flagged Iran’s Minab elementary school as a target. A US strike killed nearly 160 people at the facility, most of whom were children.

According to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, however, such a use of Claude would not have violated the firm’s “red lines.”

European NATO members have become the main driving force behind the bloc’s confrontation with Russia as US strategic priorities have shifted, Dmitry Trenin, president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), wrote in an op-ed for RT.

He argued that some European politicians view the Ukraine conflict as an opportunity to settle old scores with Moscow.

“The European elites’ strategy toward Russia is no longer deterrence as in the days of the Cold War. The goal is Russia’s destruction as a major power. This is what ‘strategic defeat’ is all about,” Trenin wrote.

“The Europeans dream of eliminating Russia as a serious factor in the geopolitics of Eurasia. To them, this would mean the ‘final solution’ of the long-dreaded ‘Russia problem,’” he continued.

Read more

Trenin argued that European governments are using the “enemy at the gates” narrative as a convenient tool to brand any opposition as a “Kremlin stooge.” At the same time, he said, increased defense spending under the banner of the “Russian threat” is being presented as a way to revive struggling European economies.

“People in Moscow entertain no illusions about the adversarial attitude of the United States toward Russia, but Washington now is a back-seat driver when it comes to the conflict with Russia,” he wrote, adding that Moscow sees NATO as “Europe backed by America.”

After returning to the White House last year, US President Donald Trump pushed NATO members to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense annually by 2035. Nevertheless, he continued criticizing European allies for what he described as their failure to share the burden. The rift deepened further when several member states refused to back Trump’s military campaign against Iran.

Read more

While Trump has attempted to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev, European countries have adopted a hardline stance, insisting that any agreement must be reached on Ukraine’s terms. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said last year that diplomatic means “had been exhausted,” while EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged Trump not to fall into a Russian “trap.”

Russia has repeatedly denied plans to invade NATO territory, saying it would respond militarily only if attacked first. Last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described Europe as “a party bent on Russia’s defeat,” arguing that Moscow could not regard it as a neutral mediator.

The US announced a new round of strikes on Iran after several tankers were targeted while transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian media reported explosions in the early hours of Wednesday in the southern province of Hormozgan, including at the ports of Bandar Abbas and Sirik, as well as on Qeshm Island, close to the narrowest section of the strait.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said it was conducting “a series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway.”

“The US strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire,” CENTCOM said in a statement on X.

A video posted on social media reportedly shows the strikes on Bandar Abbas.

Shahid Haghani Port in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran pic.twitter.com/GyhZYbC2yj

— sarah (@sahouraxo) July 7, 2026

Press TV shared a video that it said showed another strike in the port.

Three commercial vessels were struck by projectiles earlier on Tuesday, according to maritime security agencies and the UK military. Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed Al Ansari blamed Iran for the attack on the Qatari-flagged LNG tanker Al Rekayyat and demanded that Tehran “refrain from endangering global energy supplies.”

Iranian media, citing unnamed officials, reported that the Qatari tanker was attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz “after ignoring repeated warnings.” Press TV, citing a government source, said traffic through the strategic waterway should be conducted strictly in accordance with Iran’s rules and through officially designated routes.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

The US announced a new round of strikes on Iran after several tankers were targeted while transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian media reported explosions in the early hours of Wednesday in the southern province of Hormozgan, including at the ports of Bandar Abbas and Sirik, as well as on Qeshm Island, close to the narrowest section of the strait.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said it was conducting “a series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway.”

“The US strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire,” CENTCOM said in a statement on X.

Three commercial vessels were struck by projectiles earlier on Tuesday, according to maritime security agencies and the UK military. Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed Al Ansari blamed Iran for the attack on the Qatari-flagged LNG tanker Al Rekayyat and demanded that Tehran “refrain from endangering global energy supplies.”

Iranian media, citing unnamed officials, reported that the Qatari tanker was attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz “after ignoring repeated warnings.” Press TV, citing a government source, said traffic through the strategic waterway should be conducted strictly in accordance with Iran’s rules and through officially designated routes.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

The US has begun a new round of strikes on Iran after several tankers were attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

US President Donald Trump has arrived in Ankara for NATO’s annual summit, kicking the meeting off with a show of friendship for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and threats of US military withdrawal for the bloc’s European members.

Trump touched down in Türkiye on Tuesday, at a time of heightened acrimony between Washington and the Europeans. Trump has pushed his NATO allies to hike defense spending to 5% of GDP, a figure agreed upon at last year’s summit, but one increasingly difficult to meet as European economies stagnate.

The US president told reporters that he is “very disappointed with NATO” for not meeting this target and backing the US-Israeli war on Iran, and suggested that he could announce further drawdowns of US forces in Europe in response.

Read more

Trump said that he only decided to travel to the summit out of respect for Erdogan, who he hailed as “a very strong leader.” Despite Erdogan’s condemnation of the war on Iran and the growing tensions between Türkiye and Israel, Trump announced that he would lift sanctions on Ankara over Erdogan’s purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system, and would consider reversing his ban on selling F-35 fighter jets to Türkiye – a move that would likely anger Israel.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has used the summit to ask for more weapons from his EU backers, this time anti-air systems capable of intercepting Russian ballistic missiles. One day earlier, the Russian military launched a combined missile and drone assault on Kiev, destroying weapons factories and other military infrastructure.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who infamously referred to Trump as “daddy” during last year’s meeting in The Hague, is using the Ankara summit as an opportunity to prove his value to Trump.

“President Trump fully expects that all allies will step up immediately and get on the path to 5% and do it with urgency,” he said on Monday, telling reporters that he plans to flatter the US president by bringing up “the Trump trillion” – his term for the trillion dollars that Canada and NATO’s European members have spent cumulatively on defense since Trump’s first term in office began in 2017.

Veteran French politician Marine Le Pen has been cleared to run in France’s 2027 presidential election after an appeals court shortened the ban on holding elected office imposed last year, while upholding her conviction over the misuse of European Parliament funds.

A three-time presidential candidate who reached the runoff in 2017 and 2022, Le Pen had been widely viewed as the frontrunner to succeed President Emmanuel Macron before last year’s conviction sidelined her from the race. She has denied any wrongdoing.

On Tuesday, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld Le Pen’s conviction but reduced her five-year ban on holding elected office to 45 months, with 30 months suspended, making her eligible to stand in 2027. The court also sentenced her to three years in prison, including two years suspended, ordered the remaining year to be served under home detention with electronic monitoring, and imposed a €100,000 ($114,000) fine.

The judges said that Le Pen had already been serving the ban since March 31, 2025, and credited that time when reducing the restriction.

The case centered on European Parliament funds intended for parliamentary assistants that the court found had instead been used to pay National Rally staff working in France. The ruling said that the scheme caused €2.8 million in losses to the European Parliament. The National Rally was also convicted and fined €2 million, with half the amount suspended.

French media reported that Le Pen left the courthouse without speaking to reporters and was due to give a television interview later on Tuesday.

Read more

Ahead of the ruling, Le Pen had said that she would not seek the presidency if forced to campaign under electronic monitoring, arguing it would make an effective campaign impossible and amount to “another way to prevent me from being a candidate.”

Patrick Maisonneuve, the European Parliament’s lawyer in the case, said that the ruling demonstrated that “justice is independent.”

Le Pen’s lawyer, Rodolphe Bosselut, called the decision “a good start” and said no decision had yet been made on whether to appeal to the Court of Cassation.

Le Pen took over the National Front from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in 2011 and transformed the party – renamed the National Rally in 2018 – into France’s largest opposition force. Her protege, Jordan Bardella, had been preparing to replace her as the party’s presidential candidate if she remained barred from running. Opinion polls have consistently placed both among the leading contenders for the 2027 election.

US President Donald Trump has arrived in Ankara for NATO’s annual summit, kicking the meeting off with a show of friendship for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and threats of US military withdrawal for the bloc’s European members.

Trump touched down in Türkiye on Tuesday, at a time of heightened acrimony between Washington and the Europeans. Trump has pushed his NATO allies to hike defense spending to 5% of GDP, a figure agreed upon at last year’s summit, but one increasingly difficult to meet as European economies stagnate.

The US president told reporters that he is “very disappointed with NATO” for not meeting this target and backing the US-Israeli war on Iran, and suggested that he could announce further drawdowns of US forces in Europe in response.

Read more

Trump said he only decided to travel to the summit out of respect for Erdogan, who he hailed as “a very strong leader.” Despite Erdogan’s condemnation of the war on Iran and the growing tensions between Türkiye and Israel, Trump announced that he would lift sanctions on Ankara over Erdogan’s purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system, and would consider reversing his ban on selling F-35 fighter jets to Türkiye – a move that would likely anger Israel.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has used the summit to ask for more weapons from his EU backers, this time anti-air systems capable of intercepting Russian ballistic missiles. One day earlier, the Russian military launched a combined missile and drone assault on Kiev, destroying weapons factories and other military infrastructure.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who infamously referred to Trump as “daddy” during last year’s meeting in The Hague, is using the Ankara summit as an opportunity to prove his value to Trump.

“President Trump fully expects that all allies will step up immediately and get on the path to 5% and do it with urgency,” he said on Monday, telling reporters that he plans to flatter the US president by bringing up “the Trump trillion” – his term for the trillion dollars that Canada and NATO’s European members have spent cumulatively on defense since Trump’s first term in office began in 2017.

The Netherlands has run out of options for continued direct military assistance to Ukraine, Defense Minister Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius has said. The EU and NATO member has been an active supporter of Kiev in its conflict with Moscow, including by supplying US-made F-16 fighter jets as part of a scheme with Belgium, Denmark, and Norway.

Ukraine has been heavily dependent on weapons supplies from its Western backers throughout most of the conflict, which is now in its fifth year.

“We don’t have opportunities any more as the Netherlands because we have done so much,” Yesilgoz-Zegerius told Bloomberg on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye, on Tuesday.

“We are at our limit,” she added when asked specifically about whether the Netherlands could provide more US-made Patriot missiles to Kiev.

Read more

The Netherlands has spent €9.1 billion ($10.4 billion) on military assistance to Ukraine and pledged €11.6 billion more, according to Bloomberg estimates. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly demanded that Western nations send Kiev more weapons while claiming they are not doing enough.

In January, the Ukrainian leader blamed the West for what he called air defense missile shortages, and complained that Kiev’s backers were too slow to provide funding for the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) scheme, under which European NATO members were paying for US-made weapons for Ukraine.

In December 2025, Zelensky also demanded more money from the West by stating there was “a constant shortage” of funding for Ukrainian arms production.

Read more

The Netherlands is not the first to declare it has reached its limit in providing direct assistance to Kiev. Czech President Petr Pavel stated as early as in 2023 that his nation could no longer supply Ukraine with weapons and ammunition from its stockpiles. A year later, Poland also said it had “hit the wall” with direct Ukraine military aid.

Other European NATO members are also seemingly growing weary of funneling money and weapons into Kiev’s military effort. Last week, Germany’s FAZ newspaper reported that Italy has blocked a NATO financial pledge to Ukraine for 2027 after the bloc signed off on a €70 billion ($80 billion) package this year. Last month, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto told parliament that Rome would not back the PURL scheme.

Russia has repeatedly condemned continued Western arms shipments to Ukraine, arguing that they only prolong the conflict without changing its outcome. Moscow also stated that military assistance is evidence of NATO becoming a direct party to the conflict, warning that this risks a direct confrontation between Russia and the bloc.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage will vacate his parliamentary seat and attempt to win it back in an effort to “stick two fingers up to the establishment.” Farage’s finances are currently being investigated in what he calls an “establishment hit-job.”

In a video address on Tuesday, Farage announced that will step down as MP for Clacton-on-Sea, a constituency he won in 2024. Rather than retiring from politics, he will contest the seat again, essentially placing his political future in the hands of his constituents.

Farage’s announcement comes at the height of his popularity. Reform has been the UK’s most popular political party for more than 300 successive opinion polls, and the party won 1,452 seats in local elections across England in May – almost as many seats as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party lost.

However, Farage has been under investigation by Britain’s parliamentary standards watchdog since May, over a £5 million ($6.7 million) gift he received from cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harborne before he took office in 2024. The standards probe could soon be expanded, after the Sunday Times revealed that he failed to declare funding from convicted fraudster George Cottrell between 2019 and 2024.

If I lose, they win. If they win, you lose.

If you lose, Britain will forever be broken and nothing will change. We will prevail.

My message to the people of Clacton. 👇 pic.twitter.com/j9LCX2v0Dw

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 7, 2026

“I have done nothing wrong,” Farage said on Tuesday, describing Harborne’s donation as “a large personal gift” which will allow him to pay his security bills for years to come. Cottrell allegedly allowed Farage to stay at some of his properties and avail of his private security, but Farage maintains that he was not obliged to declare these benefits as he was not in office when he received them. 

Read more

The Sunday Times article was inaccurate, and written by “a journalist who publicly says that he despises me,” Farage said. “The establishment have decided that they can’t beat us fairly so they’ve chosen to use foul means,” he added.

Under parliamentary rules, new MPs must declare “registrable benefits” received in the 12 months before their election. However, personal gifts and benefits are excluded from this requirement. 

Farage said that he considered stepping down from public life after The Times published an image of his daughter’s home last week, a move that he claimed “directly threatened her security.” Sky News attempted to contact Farage’s daughter after the photo was published.

“But then I thought, why should I be judged by Sky News and their ilk?” he said, arguing that “the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions.” Farage won Clacton by 46.2% to Conservative candidate Giles Watling’s 27.9% in 2024. With the Tories bleeding support to Reform, Farage is likely gambling on an even clearer win this time around, describing the election as “a chance to stick two fingers up to the establishment.”

On the eve of the NATO summit in Ankara, Ukraine and Russia seemed to be locked in a competition to see who can torch more of the opponent’s capital. Russia won.

On the night of July 7, Kiev launched over 430 UAVs at Moscow and the Moscow region – the biggest such attack in the past two years. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, over 95% of all Ukrainian drones launched that night were targeting the Russian capital. Russia shot down most of them well before they reached the capital, except 36, which were intercepted near Moscow.

The attack was not one-off, Ukraine has been launching wave after large wave of UAVs at Russia’s capital region almost nightly in the past two weeks. The most significant infrastructural damage was dealt to an oil refinery in Moscow’s southeast. Targeting fuel refineries and other energy infrastructure has become Kiev’s modus operandi as it aims to inflict economic damage on Russia.

Compare that to the Russian strikes on Kiev on July 2 and July 6 – both of which Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitschko called “the most massive” attacks of the kind. The strikes hit multiple production sites in Kiev, specifically those making drones, warheads, and communication equipment. Russian forces used cruise and ballistic missiles, as well as long-range UAVs. According to Ukrainian media reports, Ukrainian air defenses did not manage to intercept any of the missiles.

Read more

Russia calls such strikes retaliatory, as they come in response to Kiev’s own attacks – not to whatever economic damage Ukraine manages to inflict, but to its terrorist tactics. Because Kiev does not only target fuel logistics nodes, it also deliberately targets Russian civilians. The turning point, after which Russia ramped up its strikes, was when Kiev hit a college dorm in Starobelsk, Lugansk People’s Republic, killing 21 people, one of the highest civilian fatality counts for a single attack. It wasn’t a mistake, either – the barrage came in waves and lasted for hours, and there were no military installations anywhere near the target.

See the difference? Kiev is trying to hurt Moscow, deal economic damage, hinder or paralyze fuel supplies. Moscow is trying to secure its airspace, its energy infrastructure, and its civilians by crippling Kiev’s ability to carry out those exact strikes.

But more importantly, Vladimir Zelensky, Ukraine’s unelected (because he canceled the elections) leader, is trying to impress his Western backers. Those drones he keeps flinging at Russia, are paid for by those same NATO members gathered in Türkiye to decide whether to send more cash his way. These sponsors – who orchestrated events that set this war in motion in the first place – need reassurance that their money is buying them results. And what better results than seeing the enemy capital in flames?

And if such results are not delivered, then the powers that be in Brussels, Washington, Berlin, Paris, and elsewhere may just decide its time to cut their losses and throw their faithful proxy Zelensky under the bus.

Read more

They probably won’t – not yet. They’ve blown too much money and (especially the Europeans) twisted the arms of their own taxpayers too far, and they need to keep propping Kiev up as the supposed last line of defense against Big Bad Russia, which, as some in the EU keep preaching, will inevitably attack Western Europe for some reason after it’s done with Ukraine.

In this sense, Russia’s successful strikes on Kiev may actually play into Kiev’s and its backers’ hand – Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga has already demanded supplies of NATO air defense missiles.

Will this stop Russia? Again, likely not. Because Russia, unlike Kiev, isn’t trying to impress some foreign sugar daddy. As evidenced by the targets chosen and the objectives achieved, Russia’s goal is to methodically dismantle Ukraine’s ability to launch deep strikes into Russian territory. If it has to get through advanced Western missile defense systems to do so – that’s what it will have to do. If anything, it’s an incentive to ramp up the strikes further to disable more of Ukraine’s drone capabilities before those systems are delivered.

Meanwhile, Russian ground troops will continue to advance on the frontline, liberating hamlet after village after town from dwindling Ukrainian manpower thrown into the grinder by a corrupt regime and twisted Western interests.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just approved more than a dozen new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. But this latest wave of expansion is just the beginning, as different factions within Israel want to push its borders further into Lebanon, Syria, and beyond.

In early July, Netanyahu approved plans to establish 13 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. The settlements will be constructed along the main north-south road linking the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Ramallah, and Bethlehem, which is already dotted with dozens of settler outposts. The majority of these were illegally constructed, then retroactively legalized by the Israeli government over the last two decades.

Read more

As of mid-2026, there are approximately 350 Israeli settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, with around 700,000 settlers living on Palestinian land. This colonization of the West Bank was ruled illegal by the International Criminal Court in 2024, with the court’s 15 justices agreeing that “the transfer by Israel of settlers to the West Bank and Jerusalem as well as Israel’s maintenance of their presence, is contrary to article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention.”

Netanyahu and his hardline coalition partners reject this ruling, and consider the West Bank and East Jerusalem – which Israel seized during the 1967 Six-Day War – to be “our homeland.” 

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, the Israeli prime minister hinted that his territorial ambitions also extend into Lebanon.

Lebanon in Israel’s sights

Israeli forces currently occupy around 600 sq km of southern Lebanon. Under the current framework deal between Israel and Lebanon, the Israeli military will withdraw from Lebanese territory once Hezbollah is disarmed. Hezbollah has shown no intention of disarming and has rejected the deal as “null and void.” However, even if the militant group were to lay down its weapons, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said last week that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will likely remain in southern Lebanon “indefinitely in order to protect our residents and communities from jihadist elements.”

Netanyahu went a step further in his interview with Fox, claiming that some Christian villages in Lebanon “have actually asked to be annexed to Israel because we protect them against the Hezbollah fanatics who want to kill them.”

Netanyahu: We also take care of our friends, especially the Christians in the Middle East. The Christian villages in Lebanon, some of them have actually asked to be annexed to Israel. We protect Christians in the Middle East pic.twitter.com/SyeCM2PHMm

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 5, 2026

“It’s not only the Christians in Lebanon who asked for our protection. It’s the Druze, it’s Muslims, the Sunni Muslims, and quite a few of the Shiite Muslims too,” he continued, adding that “they’d like to free Lebanon.”

Netanyahu did not specify which Christian villages he was referring to, or whether he had spoken to any Christian officials in Lebanon. “No village in the south has made such a request,” Hanna al-Amil, president of the Christian municipality of Rmeish, told L’Orient-Le Jour on Monday. A separate statement signed by 15 villages in southern Lebanon described Netanyahu’s remarks as “completely fabricated” and “unrelated to reality.”

Hezbollah is not an anti-Christian organization, and its members have fought alongside Christians against incursions from Syrian Islamic State jihadists. As such, Netanyahu’s statement may be an attempt to legitimize the “indefinite” military presence in Lebanon envisioned by the Israeli Defense Ministry.

Settlers target Syria

As Netanyahu spoke to Fox News on Sunday, the IDF arrested around 100 settlers after they left an Israeli-occupied ‘buffer zone’ in southern Syria and set up camp on Syrian territory. The settlers – members of a group called the HaBashan Pioneers – have tried to set up an outpost on Syrian territory three times over the last year, with the IDF thwarting all three attempts.

אלימות קשה במהלך פינוי מאחז יהודי בבשן!! 🛑🛑🛑

כוחות צבא ומשטרה מקיפים את פעילי התנועה שהתיישבו בבשן. למרות פסיביות מוחלטת מצד הפעילים, תועדה אלימות קשה מצד חלק מכוחות הביטחון.
בנוסף מחרימים הכוחות את מכשירי הטלפון כדי שלא יוכלו לתעד את האלימות שמופעלת כלפיהם!! pic.twitter.com/tJ85bi8tSJ

— תנועת חלוצי הבשן (@HaluzeyHabashan) July 5, 2026

“The IDF strongly condemns the attempted border crossing and emphasizes that this is a serious incident and a criminal offense that endangers both IDF soldiers and civilians,” the Israeli military said in a statement. The HaBashan Pioneers – named after the biblical region encompassing southern Syria and the Golan Heights – have called on the Israeli government to “raze the Sunni villages in the Bashan and replace them with a Jewish settlement.”

Unlike the West Bank settlers, the HaBashan Pioneers do not have the backing of the Israeli government, with hardline National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir the only member of Netanyahu’s cabinet to publicly express support for the group. However, the IDF’s military occupation of southern Syria has expanded since the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2024. At least ten military bases have been built in the once-demilitarized buffer zone that separated the Golan Heights from Syria proper, and Katz has also described the IDF’s presence in this area as “indefinite.”

The soft settlement of Cyprus

Read more

Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon has impeded peace talks between the US and Iran, while its expansion into Syria increases the risk of a clash with the coalition of jihadist groups that now form the core of President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s security forces. Amid an increasingly uncertain situation in Israel, a third group – wealthy Israelis – are seeking security abroad.

Between 2021 and 2025, Israelis have purchased more than 3,800 properties in Cyprus, most of them in Limassol, Larnaca, and Paphos. Approximately 12,000 Israeli families now live in Cyprus, up from 300 in 2003, the vast majority of them arriving after Israel’s war on Gaza began in 2023.

Last month, Israel’s i24 News described Cyprus as “Israel’s civilian refuge” and “a critical strategic asset for Israel.”

“Zionist schools are being built – that’s what they call them – synagogues are being built,” Cypriot opposition leader Stefanos Stefanou warned last summer, claiming that Israeli land purchases are creating “settlements in all but name,” which are “almost inaccessible to anyone other than Israeli nationals.”

While this influx is entirely legal, it has been accompanied by increasing Israeli influence on the island’s politics. Less than a week after Cyprus assumed the EU’s rotating presidency this January, a series of covertly-recorded videos emerged exposing minor corruption schemes within President Nikos Christodoulides’s government. The videos were recorded and publicized by Black Cube, an Israeli private intelligence firm with deep ties to the IDF’s intelligence wing and the Mossad spy agency.

It remains unclear who hired Black Cube to intervene against Christodoulides, who is not regarded as an opponent of Israel. However, RT has covered the company’s work in depth in our ‘Wired for War’ series, and found that it typically acts in Israel’s interests.

In the face of Ankara’s escalating aggression, Israel is deepening one of the most important strategic alliances in the Eastern Mediterranean with Greece and Cyprus.
🇮🇱🇬🇷🇨🇾

Erdogan’s Turkey has occupied northern Cyprus since 1974, has threatened Greece with war for decades… pic.twitter.com/zeDwWOvKxP

— עמיחי שיקלי - Amichai Chikli (@AmichaiChikli) June 22, 2026

Settlement on four fronts

Israel’s territorial expansion in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria, and the expansion of its influence in Cyprus, are not being driven by the same actors. The Israeli government backs ultra-Orthodox settlers in the West Bank, but opposes some of the more hardline groups in Syria. Private individuals are leading the Israeli property-buying spree in Cyprus, but the island’s growing Israeli population is placing its government under increasing Israeli pressure – evident during Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli’s visit to Nicosia last year, in which he called on the Cypriot government to “combat anti-Semitism” and step up security protection for Israeli expats.

What remains unclear is whether this four-front expansion will strengthen and secure Israel, or set the Jewish state up for new clashes and conflicts.

An online feud between France captain Kylian Mbappe and Paraguayan Senator Celeste Amarilla has escalated into threats of legal action after the French footballer called the lawmaker a “despicable woman” in response to what he described as racist remarks.

The dispute began on Saturday after France beat Paraguay 1-0 in the World Cup round of 16, with Mbappe converting the winning penalty. Amarilla accused the French captain of disrespecting Paraguay goalkeeper Orlando Gill by refusing to shake his hand at the final whistle.

In a now-deleted post on X, the senator called Mbappe an “arrogant and ugly Cameroonian pretending to be French” and said she regretted that no Paraguayan player had slapped him after the match.

Amarilla also mocked the striker, claiming he had “never even learned to write,” had “sucked on coconuts instead of his mother’s milk,” and that “the most educated voices he ever heard were chimpanzees.”

Mbappe responded on Monday, accusing Amarilla of tarnishing Paraguay’s image through “recklessness and brazen racism.”

“You are a despicable woman and unworthy of your position. You do not represent Paraguay, that country which has sweated passion and honor throughout the competition,” he wrote on X.

French President Emmanuel Macron also took to X to voice his support for Mbappe, hailing “one more goal for Kylian Mbappe. This time against racism.”

Read more

Later in the day, the French Football Federation condemned Amarilla’s comments as “utterly abhorrent and unacceptable,” saying it had referred the matter to prosecutors for possible legal action.

On Tuesday, Amarilla posted an open letter to Mbappe, saying she deleted her original posts after realizing she had responded “with the same insults” she condemns. She nevertheless demanded that the French star retract his remarks and apologize, accusing him of gender-based political violence and threatening legal action.

In her letter, Amarilla also took issue with Mbappe’s post-match comments, in which he said France was ready to “get our hands dirty in the shit” to win the physical battle against Paraguay. She said she interpreted the remark as an insult to the Paraguayan team and the country.

The Paraguayan Foreign Ministry has distanced itself from Amarilla’s remarks, saying they were regrettable and “in no way reflect the position of the government of Paraguay or the Paraguayan people.”

Before their defeat by France, Paraguay had enjoyed a historic World Cup run, including a shock win over Germany in the first knockout round that led President Santiago Pena to declare a national holiday.

Two bombs exploded near the hotel in Damascus where French President Emmanuel Macron was staying on Tuesday. Macron’s office said he was unaware of the blasts and met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa as scheduled.

At least 18 people, including four police officers, were wounded, local media reported, citing the Syrian Interior Ministry. The blasts hit a busy area between the Tourism Ministry and the National Museum, across the street from the Four Seasons hotel where Macron was holding talks with civil society groups.

Macron is making the first visit by an EU head of state to Damascus since jihadist leader al-Sharaa ousted President Bashar Assad and seized control of Syria in December 2024.

The Syrian authorities said Macron’s convoy left the hotel minutes before the explosions, heading to the presidential palace for talks with al-Sharaa.

A Syrian security source later said the explosions were caused by improvised explosive devices that were discovered by security personnel and detonated as bomb disposal teams attempted to defuse them. One device was planted inside a parked car near the hotel, while the other, which was hidden in a roadside trash bin, exploded next to an ambulance where dozens of people had gathered a few meters away.

The Interior Ministry said the blasts occurred outside the security perimeter established for the French president’s visit and posed no direct threat to Macron or his delegation. It added that no group immediately claimed responsibility.

The Elysee Palace confirmed that Macron was on his way to meet with al-Sharaa when the explosions occurred and did not hear the blasts, adding that no changes were made to the French president’s schedule.

Images released later show Macron standing with al-Sharaa and greeting other Syrian officials and military officers.

Palestinian families are demanding accountability over the deaths of children killed during Israeli military operations and settler attacks in the occupied West Bank since late 2023.

Through the stories of children ranging from infants to teenagers, told by grieving relatives, RT describes lives cut short and what they say is a complete lack of justice.

According to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, Palestinian children remain among the highest casualty groups of the conflict. The latest name added to that list is 15-year-old Amir Jaber, who was shot dead by Israeli forces near his home in Ramallah during a military raid last month. The IDF claimed troops opened fire during what it described as a violent disturbance.

“No one holds Israel accountable except God, they killed him and others in cold blood,” says Amir’s brother, while another relative asks, “Who is going to hold them accountable?” Families interviewed by RT say no one has ever been prosecuted over the deaths of their children.

READ MORE: Israel has killed over 20,000 Palestinian children – UN report

RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij traveled to the occupied West Bank to meet families seeking answers and examine what B’Tselem called Israel’s increasingly permissive open-fire policy in the West Bank. Here is her report.

Russia launched a series of large-scale retaliatory strikes on Ukraine on Monday, hitting a range of military targets in the capital Kiev and beyond.

The Western media has predictably described the assault as “cruel” and “horrifying,” accusing Russia of striking residential areas.

The reality, however, is very different. Moscow says it has hit key military targets, including a plant producing components for long-range drones. The operation came in response to Ukraine’s long-range combined drone and missile attacks on Moscow and St. Petersburg over the weekend.

Kiev’s strikes came days after Russian forces announced the capture of Konstantinovka, a key Ukrainian stronghold in Donbass, marking another significant battlefield development.

READ MORE: Which military sites did Russia hit in Kiev during its latest retaliatory barrage?

In the latest episode of RT’s Sanchez Effect, Rick Sanchez breaks down Russia’s retaliation and examines the exact targets that were hit.
He also speaks with former US Army officer Stanislav Krapivnik about why Konstantinovka matters and what could come next on the battlefield.

Watch the full video below.

Support for NATO in the US has slipped following President Donald Trump’s repeated criticism of the military bloc, according to an internal survey seen by Politico.

In a report released last week citing polling data, Politico said just 43% of US adults believe NATO would honor Article 5 – the bloc’s collective defense clause in which an attack on one member is considered an attack on all – if the US came under attack. This is the lowest level of confidence among the bloc’s 32 members and well below the 57% average.

The data did not include a year-on-year comparison, but sources familiar with last year’s results said the bloc-wide average has fallen by around eight percentage points since 2025, with the decline driven primarily by the US.

While overall support for NATO remains relatively strong, with 72% describing the transatlantic partnership as important, the poll pointed to shifting attitudes toward Russia and China across member states.

Read more

Despite the bloc officially labeling Russia as a threat and China as a “systemic challenge,” favorable views of Russia rose from 12% last year to 17%, and favorable views of China increased from 17% to 22%. Support for Ukraine slipped from 59% to 55%.

The survey was reportedly conducted among more than 31,000 people from March to April. A NATO official declined to comment on the findings, saying they are “for internal use.”

Analysts suggest the shift in US public opinion reflects Trump’s repeated criticism of NATO.

For years, Trump has accused European NATO members of failing to spend enough on their own defense. Last week, he called the relationship with NATO “one sided” and said it is “ridiculous” to maintain it, pointing to the gap in defense spending between the US and its allies in a Truth Social post. The post came ahead of the NATO summit in Ankara, which begins on Tuesday.

Read more

The rift widened after NATO members refused to back Trump’s bid to acquire Greenland from Denmark last year and grew further over the US-Israeli war against Iran this year. During a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte last month, Trump said he was “disappointed with most of” the NATO allies for refusing to provide access to their bases and airspace for US aircraft involved in the operation, despite the US maintaining tens of thousands of troops across Europe ostensibly to help defend the continent.

Amid Trump’s criticism, in June, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced a six-month review of America’s military footprint in Europe, warning that future troop deployments, funding, and basing arrangements will depend on whether NATO members meet Washington’s demands.

Ukraine’s state-backed Mirotvorets database of alleged “enemies of the state” has blacklisted Polish presidential chief-of-staff Zbigniew Bogucki, calling him an “anti-Ukrainian propagandist.” Bogucki responded by declaring himself an enemy of “Banderism” and Kiev’s “historical lies.”

Tensions between Warsaw and Kiev deepened in May after Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky granted an elite commando unit an honorific referencing the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a WWII-era ultranationalist militia which cooperated with Nazi Germany and took part in ethnic cleansings targeting thousands of Poles, Jews, and Russians in what is now western Ukraine.

Mirotvorets listed Bogucki, who is head of Polish President Karol Nawrocki’s office, on Monday after he used the term ‘Malopolska Wschodnia’ (Eastern Lesser Poland) during an address to the Polish parliament last Friday.

Read more

The phrase dates back to the interwar period, when it referred to three southeastern voivodeships of the Second Polish Republic. The area had a largely Ukrainian population and was subject to Warsaw’s Polonization policies.

Ukrainian nationalists, including movements from which the UPA later emerged, cited the campaign as justification for attacks on Polish officials and people they viewed as collaborators or traitors. The territory is now divided between Poland and Ukraine, with the larger portion under Ukrainian sovereignty.

Mirotvorets was launched after the 2014 armed coup in Kiev as an ostensibly independent project, but is widely believed to cooperate with Ukrainian security services in publishing personal data of people it identifies as enemies. Several individuals whose details appeared on the site were later murdered. When blacklisted figures die for any reason, the database marks them as ‘liquidated’, reinforcing its reputation among critics as a ‘kill list’.

Read more

“I am not an enemy of Ukraine,” Bogucki wrote on X in response to being targeted. “I am an enemy of Banderism, historical lies, and attempts to gloss over the victims of Ukrainian chauvinism lying in mass graves.”

Stepan Bandera was a leading figure in the WWII-era Ukrainian nationalist movement and is honored as a national hero in modern Ukraine. Kiev is currently moving to establish a national pantheon for Bandera and other historical figures it considers worthy of commemoration, stating that other nations have no say in the matter.

Disputes over Ukraine’s treatment of Polish historical grievances have strained bilateral ties since Kiev declared independence in 1991. The issue was largely swept under the rug after Warsaw became one of Ukraine’s most vocal backers in its conflict with Russia.

Ukrainian officials have accused those who highlight UPA crimes of serving Moscow’s interests. Conservative politicians in Poland, meanwhile, have argued that Ukraine cannot belong in the European Union while continuing to honor Bandera and his movement.

China has urged the US to end its decades-long blockade and sanctions against Cuba, condemning Washington’s “coercion and pressure.”  

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning made the remarks on Monday when asked about Cuba’s request for a special session of the UN General Assembly, scheduled for July 7, to discuss the US embargo. The request followed Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel’s warning that the sanctions have pushed the island into an “unsustainable” situation and amount to “genocide.”  

The island nation, which has been under a US embargo since 1960, has endured daily blackouts and severe fuel deficits in recent months after Venezuela, once its main oil supplier, stopped crude shipments under pressure from the US earlier this year. This was preceded by the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by American commandos in January.  

Read more

US President Donald Trump has since repeatedly stated that he intends to “take” Cuba “one way or another.”  

“The US 60-plus years of full blockade and illicit sanctions have brought profound sufferings to the Cuban people,” Mao said, urging Washington to “stop its blockade, coercion and pressuring against Cuba at once.”  

She said the US had recently escalated its sanctions, dealing another blow to the Cuban people and drawing concern from the international community. Beijing opposes unilateral sanctions with “no basis in international law,” she added, reaffirming China’s support for Cuba’s sovereignty and opposition to external interference.  

“We stand ready to work with the rest of the world to uphold international fairness and justice,” she concluded.  

Read more

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk last month warned that the US sanctions on Cuba had already led to acute shortages of essential medical supplies that were causing deaths among children. He described the humanitarian situation on the island as “unacceptable,” with his office reporting that infant mortality had doubled after Washington imposed its fuel blockade. 

US news outlet Axios reported in late May, citing anonymous US officials, that the White House was planning to further ramp up pressure on Cuba in the hope that worsening economic conditions would eventually trigger regime change.  

Russia, China, Mexico, and several other countries have been supplying Cuba with humanitarian aid. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last month that Moscow continues to provide support to the island, including fuel. In late March, Russia delivered around 700,000 barrels of crude oil.

The European Commission is considering creating a new foreign affairs department in a move that would strip powers from the EU’s diplomatic service headed by Kaja Kallas, according to Politico. The reported plans are the latest sign of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s push to tighten her grip on the bloc’s foreign policy apparatus.

The proposal is one of several options under review as the commission reassesses how it manages the bloc’s external relations, Politico reported on Monday. Officials told the outlet it could involve merging departments responsible for trade and regional policy into one “supercharged” body.

The reported overhaul comes less than a month after the Financial Times reported that France and Germany were discussing a radical overhaul of Kallas’ External Affairs Service (EEAS). Created under the Lisbon Treaty in 2010, the EEAS took over many foreign policy functions previously handled by the European Commission.

Read more

According to the FT, officials described the EEAS as “dysfunctional” and questioned whether it could coordinate effective responses to crises such as Ukraine and the Middle East.

Kallas and von der Leyen have reportedly been locked in a tug of war over who should steer EU foreign policy. Von der Leyen is said to have outmaneuvered the former Estonian prime minister by taking direct control of key geographic portfolios and pushing for a new intelligence body reporting directly to her office.

The issue became prominent during the US-Israeli strikes on Iran in spring, when the EU took nearly two days to produce a unified response. Kallas and von der Leyen released separate statements and reportedly did not speak directly throughout the weekend when the operation started, while member states remained divided over the bloc’s position.

READ MORE: Von der Leyen’s power grab angers EU officials – Bloomberg

Moscow has long portrayed Kallas as an uncompromising Russia hawk and repeatedly questioned her suitability for the role. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused the EU’s top diplomat of acting “beyond the scope of her mandate,” while Russian officials have argued that Brussels has abandoned diplomacy in favor of sanctions and confrontation.

A Chinese nuclear submarine launched a long-range ballistic missile with a dummy warhead into the Pacific Ocean on Monday, marking the first such test since 2024.

“This test launch is a routine part of the Chinese PLA Navy’s annual training,” Navy spokesman Wang Xuemeng said in a statement. “The Chinese side notified relevant countries in advance.”

“This test launch complies with international law and international practice and is not directed at any specific country or target,” Wang added.

The spokesman said the missile had “landed precisely within the designated waters.” CNN, citing a regional source, reported that it landed near the exclusive economic zone of either Kiribati or Tuvalu.

The US, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan condemned the test as a dangerous escalation. US State Department spokesman Thomas Pigott said “Beijing’s rapid and opaque nuclear weapons buildup is of great concern to the region and the world.” Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong accused China of destabilizing the region, describing Beijing’s military activities as “lacking in transparency and reassurance.”

Read more

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning pushed back against the criticism, saying the test had been conducted in “a safe, standard and professional manner.” She urged all countries to “not read too much into it.”

The US and China have exchanged some warm gestures in recent months. US President Donald Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing in May during a visit that both sides hailed as cordial. Trump said on Monday that he expects Xi to visit the US in late September. Xi earlier congratulated Trump on the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence.

At the same time, tensions have persisted. In May, the US imposed new sanctions on Chinese oil companies allegedly involved in trade with Iran and, the following month, blacklisted another batch of entities it accused of supplying weapons to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). China responded by sanctioning 10 US companies involved in the defense, aerospace, and rare earth mining sectors.

China has also condemned the US-Israel war against Iran and the US energy blockade of Cuba as violations of international law.

Around four in five asylum grants issued by the British Home Office lacked sufficient evidence and were “likely to be incorrect,” according to a report by Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) John Tuckett.

The findings are based on surveys of 262 decision-makers and 69 technical specialists, as well as data collected by the Home Office between July and December 2025. Around 85% of respondents said they believed senior managers “prioritized quantity over quality” when assessing asylum applications.

Tuckett, a government-appointed inspector, reviewed 47 asylum approvals issued by Home Office staff between August and September 2025. As many as 37 were found to be based on “insufficient evidence” and “were therefore likely to be incorrect,” he wrote.

While the report acknowledged that the inspection had a “limited” scope, it maintained that the findings indicated the asylum decision-making system was “not in a good state.”

Read more

The report, published on June 25, also stated that quality targets for both asylum interviews and asylum decisions have not been met anywhere within the Home Office for “over two years.” According to the document, 83% of relevant staff told an internal survey they were under pressure to make quick decisions in order to reduce waiting times.

The inspection “raised concerns that the focus on clearing the backlog ‘at all costs’ had resulted in the prioritization of quantity over quality,” Tuckett said in a statement accompanying the report. “Decision quality had declined significantly and was at an unacceptable level,” he added.

The Home Office responded by arguing that the findings were based on a small sample of cases. “Our assessment of nearly 4,000 cases shows 94% of decisions are considered ‘correct’ against agreed criteria,” it said, as quoted by The Sun.

Read more

The report comes amid heightened debate in Britain over immigration and violent crime involving foreign nationals. Last month, a Sudanese asylum seeker stabbed a man in Belfast, Northern Ireland, prompting riots and clashes with police. Anti-immigration and anti-racism demonstrations were subsequently held in several cities, highlighting the country’s growing polarization.

Last week, media reports said a Pakistani grooming gang ringleader convicted of dozens of child sex offenses in the UK could not be deported under existing law, fueling further public outrage.

Last month, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described the government’s policies as creating a “two-tier system” marked by “anti-white racism” in a widely discussed essay. Reform UK currently leads opinion polls with 26% support, followed by the ruling Labour Party on 24%, according to Ipsos.

Labour’s poor showing in May’s local elections sparked unrest within the party, prompting Prime Minister Keir Starmer to announce that he would resign later this year.

Polish military counterintelligence will investigate those responsible for exposing secret deliveries of Patriot air defense missiles to Ukraine, Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz has announced.

The controversy erupted on Saturday after several Polish social media accounts reported that Warsaw had quietly transferred US-made PAC-3 Patriot interceptors to Kiev in March without parliamentary approval or informing the public.

Former Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak of the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party backed the whistleblowers, condemning the transfer as a move that weakened Poland’s own air defenses.

“After consulting with Prime Minister Donald Tusk, while maintaining responsibility toward public opinion and in accordance with legal regulations, I have ordered the declassification of all donations to Ukraine for the years 2022-2026,” Kosiniak-Kamysz wrote on X.

He added that he had instructed the Polish Military Counterintelligence Service to investigate those who had “intentionally sought to disclose state secrets.”

The minister noted that Poland’s military aid to Ukraine began under the previous PiS government, when Blaszczak served as defense minister from 2018 to 2023.

Read more

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Kosiniak-Kamysz confirmed that Poland had supplied PAC-3 interceptors from its own stockpiles following a request from NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. He insisted, however, that the shipment was too small to significantly affect Poland’s air defenses.

The transfer comes amid mounting pressure on Patriot missile supplies. According to the US-based Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), NATO countries face a backlog of roughly 4,300 Patriot interceptors – equivalent to about seven years of production at 2025 manufacturing rates – after US stockpiles were heavily depleted during the war with Iran.

Read more

Blaszczak accused Tusk’s government of undermining Poland’s defenses by sending interceptors to Ukraine while simultaneously warning the public about a potential Russian attack.

Moscow has repeatedly dismissed claims that it intends to attack NATO members.

President Vladimir Putin last month argued that NATO and EU leaders were using their allegations of a Russian threat to justify higher military spending and the “radical militarization” of their countries.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is entering its third age. When it was founded three quarters of a century ago, it was meant to contain the spread of communism and confront the military might of the Soviet Union. In other words, to keep Western Europe capitalist and under US control. Despite the allegations of the Soviet propaganda at the time, NATO was a defensive rather than an aggressive alliance. Through all the crises of the Cold War period, it stood still.

When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union imploded, NATO gained a victory it had not won. The US-led military bloc refused to dissolve upon the completion of its original mission. Instead, it sought to become the sole security regulator for Europe. It went onto an offensive and waged war against Serbia. It went “out of area” to fight in Afghanistan. It embarked on an enlargement spree to include the former Soviet satellite countries of Eastern Europe, and some ex-republics of the USSR itself.

Yet, it miserably failed to manage relations with the former adversary, Russia. It spurned Moscow’s request for membership and proposed a partnership instead which turned out to be essentially hollow. It ignored Russia’s security interests by refusing to stop its expansion all the way toward the Russian border and turning down Moscow’s proposals for a pan-European security order. The issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, which the Kremlin perceived as an intolerable threat to its national security, became the principal cause of the Ukraine war, now in its fifth year.

Read more

This ongoing war has given NATO a new lease on life. Russia once again became the enemy, with the Western alliance so much stronger and better positioned to take it on. With Ukraine on its side, NATO can use its army to physically attack Russia. The US’ and Europe’s goal in that war, as was publicly proclaimed from the start, has been to inflict a “strategic defeat on Russia.” What was deemed impossible during the Cold War has moved into the realm of the thinkable in the West’s proxy war against Russia.

From 2025, US President Donald Trump’s policies have kick-started a process of NATO’s internal transformation. The US National Defense Strategy clearly makes Europe responsible for “handling” Russia. Thus, with Washington revising its global strategic priorities, European members of the alliance are being ordered to carry more financial and military burden. Under conditions of the ongoing war, this means much greater involvement in the conflict. The European elites, long reluctant to increase defense spending and fearful of being drawn into wars, have changed their minds and eagerly embraced the new responsibilities and risks as an opportunity.

There are reasons for that change. Militarization is now thought to be a driver for relaunching the EU’s flagging economies. A militarily stronger Europe would be more autonomous strategically in a world where America is reducing its commitments to allies. Adding a military dimension to the EU could cement the union in the face of the many mounting challenges. Politically, rearmament and mobilization in the face of the “enemy at the gates” makes it easier for the ruling elites to brand their opponents “Kremlin stooges,” and thus protect their hold on power. In ideological terms, fighting Russia (for now, via Ukraine) has become a new unifying idea for Europe.

For Russia, this NATO 3.0 means, above all, that for the first time since the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies in 1945, Europe is again becoming a clear and immediate enemy of Russia. People in Moscow entertain no illusions about the adversarial attitude of the United States toward Russia, but Washington now is a back seat driver when it comes to the conflict with Russia. Whereas in the days of the Cold War NATO appeared to Russians as “America in Europe,” now when they look at NATO, they see Europe backed by America.

What is even more important is that NATO 3.0 is clearly on the offensive, with most decisive goals. The European elites’ strategy toward Russia is no longer deterrence as in the days of the Cold War; the goal is Russia’s destruction as a major power. This is what “strategic defeat” is all about. The Europeans dream of eliminating Russia as a serious factor in the geopolitics of Eurasia: to them, this would mean the “final solution” of the long-dreaded “Russia problem.”

Read more

Long sulky as a result of Russia’s advances on the Ukraine battlefield, the European politicians and media outlets are now triumphant, hoping that long-range drones they have helped Ukraine to produce and send to their targets across Russia are the wonder weapon of this war. They are seeking to strengthen their punch by similarly providing Kiev with long-range cruise missiles and then ballistic missiles. These weapons, it is hoped, will seal the fate of Russia, once and for all.

This, however, will not happen. The fundamental flaw of European thinking is their belief that Russia would rather accept defeat, degradation and disintegration than use the arsenal which it currently possesses. This arsenal is not limited to nuclear weapons, although point may be reached when they will have to be used. The Kremlin, so far, has been exceedingly restrained in using its more powerful conventional capabilities, or engaging some high-value, high-visibility targets. There are many explanations for such restraint, but it is foolhardy – actually, fatal – to believe that either the Russian leadership or the Russian people would ever surrender to NATO.

The European NATO leaders’ enormous deficit of modern strategic culture – unsurprising after the eight decades of having delegated their security to the United States – and their blind Russophobia, a result of deep-seated vintage European racism and the real or perceived grudges against Russia piled over the last five centuries, have put Europe on a direct collision course with Russia. NATO 3.0 means war. Should it actually come to that, there will be no more NATO.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is entering its third age. When it was founded three quarters of a century ago, it was meant to contain the spread of communism and confront the military might of the Soviet Union. In other words, to keep Western Europe capitalist and under US control. Despite the allegations of the Soviet propaganda at the time, NATO was a defensive rather than an aggressive alliance. Through all the crises of the Cold War period, it stood still.

When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union imploded, NATO gained a victory it had not won. The US-led military bloc refused to dissolve upon the completion of its original mission. Instead, it sought to become the sole security regulator for Europe. It went onto an offensive and waged war against Serbia. It went “out of area” to fight in Afghanistan. It embarked on an enlargement spree to include the former Soviet satellite countries of Eastern Europe, and some ex-republics of the USSR itself.

Yet, it miserably failed to manage relations with the former adversary, Russia. It spurned Moscow’s request for membership and proposed a partnership instead which turned out to be essentially hollow. It ignored Russia’s security interests by refusing to stop its expansion all the way toward the Russian border and turning down Moscow’s proposals for a pan-European security order. The issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, which the Kremlin perceived as an intolerable threat to its national security, became the principal cause of the Ukraine war, now in its fifth year.

Read more

This ongoing war has given NATO a new lease on life. Russia once again became the enemy, with the Western alliance so much stronger and better positioned to take it on. With Ukraine on its side, NATO can use its army to physically attack Russia. The US’ and Europe’s goal in that war, as was publicly proclaimed from the start, has been to inflict a “strategic defeat on Russia.” What was deemed impossible during the Cold War has moved into the realm of the thinkable in the West’s proxy war against Russia.

From 2025, US President Donald Trump’s policies have kick-started a process of NATO’s internal transformation. The US National Defense Strategy clearly makes Europe responsible for “handling” Russia. Thus, with Washington revising its global strategic priorities, European members of the alliance are being ordered to carry more financial and military burden. Under conditions of the ongoing war, this means much greater involvement in the conflict. The European elites, long reluctant to increase defense spending and fearful of being drawn into wars, have changed their minds and eagerly embraced the new responsibilities and risks as an opportunity.

There are reasons for that change. Militarization is now thought to be a driver for relaunching the EU’s flagging economies. A militarily stronger Europe would be more autonomous strategically in a world where America is reducing its commitments to allies. Adding a military dimension to the EU could cement the union in the face of the many mounting challenges. Politically, rearmament and mobilization in the face of the “enemy at the gates” makes it easier for the ruling elites to brand their opponents “Kremlin stooges,” and thus protect their hold on power. In ideological terms, fighting Russia (for now, via Ukraine) has become a new unifying idea for Europe.

For Russia, this NATO 3.0 means, above all, that for the first time since the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies in 1945, Europe is again becoming a clear and immediate enemy of Russia. People in Moscow entertain no illusions about the adversarial attitude of the United States toward Russia, but Washington now is a back seat driver when it comes to the conflict with Russia. Whereas in the days of the Cold War NATO appeared to Russians as “America in Europe,” now when they look at NATO, they see Europe backed by America.

What is even more important is that NATO 3.0 is clearly on the offensive, with most decisive goals. The European elites’ strategy toward Russia is no longer deterrence as in the days of the Cold War; the goal is Russia’s destruction as a major power. This is what “strategic defeat” is all about. The Europeans dream of eliminating Russia as a serious factor in the geopolitics of Eurasia: to them, this would mean the “final solution” of the long-dreaded “Russia problem.”

Read more

Long sulky as a result of Russia’s advances on the Ukraine battlefield, the European politicians and media outlets are now triumphant, hoping that long-range drones they have helped Ukraine to produce and send to their targets across Russia are the wonder weapon of this war. They are seeking to strengthen their punch by similarly providing Kiev with long-range cruise missiles and then ballistic missiles. These weapons, it is hoped, will seal the fate of Russia, once and for all.

This, however, will not happen. The fundamental flaw of European thinking is their belief that Russia would rather accept defeat, degradation and disintegration than use the arsenal which it currently possesses. This arsenal is not limited to nuclear weapons, although point may be reached when they will have to be used. The Kremlin, so far, has been exceedingly restrained in using its more powerful conventional capabilities, or engaging some high-value, high-visibility targets. There are many explanations for such restraint, but it is foolhardy – actually, fatal – to believe that either the Russian leadership or the Russian people would ever surrender to NATO.

The European NATO leaders’ enormous deficit of modern strategic culture – unsurprising after the eight decades of having delegated their security to the United States – and their blind Russophobia, a result of deep-seated vintage European racism and the real or perceived grudges against Russia piled over the last five centuries, have put Europe on a direct collision course with Russia. NATO 3.0 means war. Should it actually come to that, there will be no more NATO.

Huge crowds attended the funeral procession of Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in central Tehran on Monday, which also featured a banner reading ‘Kill Trump’ and chants of ‘Death to America’. 

It was the largest public event of the multi-day funeral, with mourners lining the nearly 20-km (12-mile) route through the Iranian capital. State media reported that millions turned out to pay tribute to Khamenei, who was killed in the first wave of US-Israeli airstrikes on Iran. 

The footage showed mourners holding flower-framed portraits of Khamenei, chanting anti-US and anti-Israel slogans, and carrying a large banner reading “Kill Trump: $100 million Iranian bounty.” Many waved red-and-white flags symbolizing martyrdom and revenge in Shia tradition as trucks carrying the flag-draped caskets of Khamenei and four of his family members made their way through the city. 

As the procession passed beneath a bridge, mourners hurled stones at a billboard depicting US President Donald Trump with a bullet aimed at his head. The sign read in Persian: “The US killed our father. We won’t let you go!” 

According to media reports, some participants also carried posters depicting US Vice President J.D. Vance, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in the crosshairs of a gunsight alongside the words “There will be blood.” 

Call for revenge: Crimson protests rise for Iran's martyred Leader. pic.twitter.com/gpG8JNJO7Y

— IRNA News Agency ☫ (@IrnaEnglish) July 6, 2026

The burial ceremonies come more than four months after Khamenei was assassinated on February 28 in a concentrated US-Israeli airstrike on his official residence in Tehran. Several relatives were also killed, including his son-in-law, daughter, and 14-month-old granddaughter. 

The ceremonies began on Friday, attended by Iranian officials, foreign dignitaries, and regional delegations. The cortege is scheduled to move to the holy city of Qom before continuing to the Iraqi cities of Najaf and Karbala. Khamenei will be buried at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, his hometown, on Thursday. 

Mourners chanted slogans calling for revenge for the Leader's blood and resistance against adversaries and traitors, while waving Iranian flags as well red flags of revenge and carrying portraits of martyred Leader. pic.twitter.com/k4EOzlI97h

— Tasnim News Agency (@Tasnimnews_EN) July 6, 2026

Trump said over the weekend that renewed peace talks with Iran had been delayed for a week by the funeral ceremonies. A preliminary peace agreement was reached last month, paving the way for further negotiations, although Israel has opposed the process and Tehran has accused it of trying to derail diplomacy. 

READ MORE: Mourners demand ‘revenge’ for slain Iranian leader (VIDEOS)

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said that any Iranian leader who “attempts to advance plans to destroy Israel will be thwarted.” He also slammed mourners’ calls for revenge, describing them as “disgraceful.”

Western Europe has been enduring another record-breaking heat wave, with temperatures topping 40C in several countries. France, the UK, Germany and Switzerland have all seen their hottest June temperatures on record, while the extreme weather has disrupted transport, power generation and industrial output.

The scorching temperatures are burning a multi-billion-euro hole in the EU's already fragile economy. From parched fields to idle factories, the bloc is feeling the heat beyond what thermometers may indicate. Economists, meanwhile, warn that climate-driven heat waves are no longer temporary events but a structural macroeconomic risk.

Productivity is the first casualty

The most immediate economic cost of extreme heat is lost productivity. According to German insurer Allianz Trade, every additional degree between 30C and 35C cuts labor productivity by roughly $1.30 per hour – equivalent to nearly 3% of average hourly output. Construction, agriculture, logistics and other labor-intensive sectors bear the brunt as workers struggle in extreme temperatures.

As another heat wave swept the region, Patrick Martin, head of France's main employers' federation Medef, summed up the impact: “France is working in slow mode.”

The blow is increasingly being felt at the macroeconomic level, according to Carsten Brzeski, ING's global head of macro research. Heat waves have evolved from isolated weather events into a key economic variable, shaking the bloc’s business activity in ways reminiscent of the Covid-19 lockdowns. “Thermometers, it turns out, have become a leading indicator of economic growth,” he wrote last month, warning that heat waves now pose “a new downside risk to European growth.”
Brzeski said Germany, despite its relatively mild climate, could rank third in Europe for cumulative heat-related economic losses by 2030 because its infrastructure, housing stock and labor-intensive industries were built for cooler conditions.

Read more

Melting infrastructure

The heat is literally melting Europe's transport infrastructure. Roads are cracking, rail tracks are buckling and tram networks are grinding to a halt across Western Europe. In Germany, major highways near Berlin and Hamburg were damaged by the heat, while in Leipzig tram services were suspended after track sealant melted. France's SNCF cut train services around Paris to protect its rail network, and Eurostar imposed speed restrictions as temperatures soared.

The damage extends beyond roads and railways. Water levels on the Rhine – Europe's busiest inland waterway – have fallen so low that cargo vessels can carry only around 25% to 45% of their normal loads. The restrictions have driven up freight costs and disrupted deliveries of fuel, chemicals and industrial raw materials, forcing companies such as BASF to adjust operations at their flagship Ludwigshafen complex. Engineers warn that much of Europe's transport infrastructure was designed for a cooler climate.

Read more

Europe's self-inflicted energy crunch

Surging demand for air conditioning is driving up electricity consumption just as extreme temperatures are squeezing supply. During the evening peak, Belgium's quarter-hour power price hit a record €1,038 per MWh, while the price in Germany reached €747 per MWh, according to exchange data cited by energy market intelligence firm Montel in late June.

High temperatures reduce the efficiency of solar panels and gas-fired power plants, while forcing some nuclear reactors to scale back or halt operations because rivers used for cooling have become too warm. France's EDF curbed output at the Nogent-sur-Seine and Bugey plants, while Swiss utility Axpo temporarily shut both reactors at the Beznau nuclear plant after the temperature of the River Aare reached 25C.

The latest heat wave has laid bare Europe's self-inflicted energy crunch. The EU's years-long, sanctions-driven shift from Russian energy has come at a cost. As the bloc reduced purchases of cheaper Russian gas, it became increasingly dependent on US LNG, which accounted for 59% of imports in early 2026 and more than 64% in April, according to Bruegel. Analysts warn that such reliance on a single supplier leaves the EU more exposed to price shocks and supply disruptions.

Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser has said the bloc could ease pressure on households and industry by buying competitively priced Russian energy instead of relying on more expensive American LNG.

Yet despite its pledge to phase out Russian gas, the EU continues to buy it at prevailing market prices. Russia emerged as the third-largest gas supplier to the EU in the first half of 2026, after Norway and the US, delivering approximately 22.1 billion cubic meters of gas and accounting for about 12% of the EU's gas consumption.

Read more

Food prices feel the heat

The economic cost of extreme heat extends beyond lost working hours and soaring electricity bills, fueling inflation, driving up food prices, and weighing on economic growth across the EU.

Agriculture is among the sectors under the greatest pressure. Repeated heat waves and droughts have scorched crops, dried out farmland and reduced yields across Southern and Western Europe. The European Central Bank estimates that the 2022 drought alone added 0.7 percentage points to food inflation across the EU. With another severe heat wave gripping the continent, economists warn that weather-sensitive staples could once again become more expensive.

Households pay the price

Ultimately, European households are paying the price. The economic damage does not end when temperatures fall. Research suggests economic activity declines by around 1% in the year after a major heat wave, with losses deepening to as much as 1.5% in the second year as disrupted production, damaged infrastructure and weaker investment continue to weigh on growth.

Studies suggest climate change could reduce the average European’s income by up to 3% over the course of this century as slower growth, higher energy bills and rising food prices steadily erode purchasing power.

The impact is already visible across the bloc. Germany, Europe's largest economy, has struggled to regain momentum after contracting in 2024, with economists increasingly identifying extreme heat as another structural headwind alongside high energy costs and weak industrial output.

According to Allianz Trade, climate-related losses could shave between 5% and 7% off the EU's cumulative GDP between 2026 and 2030. France is projected to suffer the biggest hit, with losses of around $240 billion, followed by Italy ($147 billion), Germany ($131 billion) and Spain ($120 billion).

British police chiefs need to stop taking sides in “woke… culture wars” and focus entirely on the “prevention and detection of crime,” according to a government-backed report that recommends a “fundamental overhaul” of policing in the UK.

Co-authored by former Labour Party Home Secretary Lord Blunkett and published on Monday, the report found that Britain’s police departments are plagued by corrupt leadership, nepotism, abuse of power, and low morale among officers. 

The report also highlighted concerns that police leaders are “preferencing certain groups,” with some “woke” chiefs “taking sides in the so-called ‘culture wars.’”

“Police leaders should be resolute in refusing to take sides, or to be diverted from the course of focusing entirely on the prevention, detection and prosecution of crime,” the report recommends, adding that “the background or identity of any perpetrator or victim of crime should have absolutely no bearing” on their treatment by the police service.

Read more

The murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak last year triggered a national debate about so-called ‘two-tier’ policing in the UK. Nowak was stabbed with a ceremonial dagger by a Sikh man as he made his way home from a night out in Southampton, and bodycam footage released in May showed officers arresting and handcuffing Nowak and watching him bleed to death after his attacker falsely accused him of racism.

Official anti-racism guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council explicitly instructs officers not to be “color blind.” Equality, it states, “does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’.” Although the document is now under review, other arms of the British justice system have doubled down on apparently two-tier policies. Last week,  the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales ordered its own prosecutors last week to question their own “unconscious bias” when deciding whether to charge suspects from ethnic minorities.

Speaking to the BBC on Sunday, Blunkett admitted that “there is a perception” of two-tier policing in the UK. “We’ve moved the pendulum,” he said. “It swung from the [1999] Macpherson report about outright racism in the force… all the way through to people saying, ‘oh, it’s woke’, and we make it clear in the report that there’s no room for culture wars or woke.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has described the UK as “a two-tier state against white people,” and portrayed the death of Nowak as a direct consequence of decades of policing “guidelines that led them to treat different ethnic groups in different ways.” 

More evidence of two-tier policing against white people in Britain.

This young man was attacked by ethnic minority men and instead of arresting them, the police arrested the victim.

Only Reform will put an end to this. pic.twitter.com/PzZmndzkla

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 3, 2026

Two days before Blunkett’s report was published, Farage shared a video showing Birmingham police officers arresting a white youth after he was attacked by a group of black men. “This young man was attacked by ethnic minority men and instead of arresting them, the police arrested the victim,” he wrote on X, describing the video as “more evidence of two-tier policing against white people in Britain.”

Hundreds of thousands are attending the funeral of slain Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran in a clear display of the solidarity and defiance of the country’s people, geostrategic analyst Christopher Helali, who is attending the ceremony, told RT.

Khamenei was assassinated in an airstrike on February 28, the first day of the US-Israeli campaign against Iran, along with several close relatives, including his son-in-law, daughter and 14-month-old granddaughter. His son Mojtaba Khameneim, who was wounded in the attack, was chosen to succeed him as the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

In an interview with RT on Monday, Helali told RT that there is “a real sense of unity” at the funeral.

By showing up to the ceremony in such massive numbers, the Iranians are signaling that “they want to have a strong country, a stable country, a resilient country, and they want their sovereignty,” he said.

Read more

“That’s a very important thing. That’s a red line. They won’t allow America or the Zionist regime, as they say [referring to Israel], to dictate to them what government they can have and how they can live,” the analyst stressed.

According to Helali, Khamenei’s funeral has also completely negated Washington’s narrative that Iran is in international isolation.

“Over 120 countries are represented here,” he said, adding that not only “most of the Global South,” but nations viewed as the US allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have also sent delegations, he said.

The presence of former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who now serves as the deputy chair of the Security Council, at the ceremony was “very important,” the analyst noted.

Moscow and Tehran “find themselves… in the closest point they’ve ever been in history… and I believe that in the coming years, we’re going to see an even deeper relationship… as they confront the same hostile Euro-Atlantic forces that seek to destroy their sovereignty,” he said.

READ MORE: Mourners demand ‘revenge’ for slain Iranian leader (VIDEOS)

Khamenei’s funeral, which is taking place between June 3 and 9, will see the supreme leader’s body transferred through at least five cities, with an estimated 30 million expected to participate in the mourning.

Imagine a Hollywood movie. It’s a thriller about a big bad secret. One of those that have far-reaching, even earth-shaking political stakes attached to them; the sort of ‘this-changes-everything’ information that, if revealed, can topple governments, break up alliances, and redefine friends and enemies on the grand chessboard of geopolitics.

Such a secret could be, for instance, about an international conspiratorial network of pedophilia and other especially revolting crimes, serving as a pervasive influence operation to capture US and other Western ‘elites’ on behalf of a genocidal apartheid state in the Middle East and its global backers.

Or the secret could involve an infamous massacre of protesters. When the slaughter occurred, its systematic misrepresentation served to further manipulate Western public opinion to endorse a regime change operation in a country slotted for a Western geopolitical coup.

Finally, maybe the big bad secret is about the worst single peacetime terrorist attack ever carried out on vital infrastructure, a whole national economy and all who depend on it, and, last but not least, the environment; an act which takes place in Europe and against a NATO member state. And the bizarre fact that the political and mainstream media ‘elites’ of the attacked state have, in effect, obstinately helped cover up first the real identity of the crime’s perpetrators and then their sponsors.

The international conspiracy of child abuse and more is, of course, the Epstein network, with its obvious ties to Israel and virtually certain links to Israeli intelligence in particular. The mass killing of protesters refers to what is known as the Kiev ‘Maidan’ or ‘Snipers’ Massacre’ of February 2014, which Western politicians and their compliant mainstream media rapidly blamed on Ukraine’s old regime, conveniently in the process of being toppled in a particularly violent ‘color revolution’. In reality, as the Canadian-Ukrainian political scientist Ivan Katchanovski has demonstrated with painstaking, exhaustive, and peer-reviewed research, the massacre was a false flag operation carried out by anti-regime forces.

Read more

And the unprecedented attack on vital infrastructure in NATO-EU Europe was, of course, the Nord Stream attack of September 2022, when three of the $20-billion system’s four pipelines were blown up, marking, among other things, a milestone in the history of man-made – and deliberately caused – environmental disasters.

In economic terms, the destruction of Nord Stream closed the door to supplying Germany’s industry and households with inexpensive Russian gas. This was a terrorist strike at the heart of Germany’s already declining prosperity. And it worked, making a powerful and devastating contribution to the country’s catastrophic economic tailspin and the worsening lives of most Germans.

Yet if the attack was shocking, its aftermath was mindboggling. Initially, Western leaders, ‘experts’ (such as Carlo Masala and Janis Kluge), and mainstream media propaganda outlets seriously tried to sell the moronic idea that Russia had detonated the pipelines, although it had no conceivable motive to do so. Kiev was by no means silent. Ukrainian government official Mikhail Podoliak loudly agreed that this was a terrible crime and called on the West to punish Moscow.

Then, slowly, even in the West, reality asserted itself. The harebrained story about big bad Russia was quietly dropped – without anyone ever being challenged over having contaminated the public sphere with such biased nonsense in the first place. Western mainstream media, such as the American Wall Street Journal and German Spiegel, surely well supplied with leaks and instructions, have now settled for a slightly less absurd but still incomplete story: We are all supposed to believe that Nord Stream was blown up by a plucky team of Ukrainian ‘commandos’ and them alone.

That as well makes no sense. Yes, it is very much Kiev’s modus operandi to launch a brazen and perfidious terror attack on one of its most important and generous backers. Yet it obviously needed help. From whom exactly and in what shape, the future will show. Poland, judging by its behavior since the attack, was certainly very closely involved. Its politicians and spies have, in essence, been boasting about it, adding insult to injury for Germany. Other prime suspects include the US, the UK, and Norway, all of them so-called ‘allies’ of Germany within NATO. With friends like these, Germans need no enemies.

Read more

This is the background of a fresh twist of the Nord Stream saga of terrorism, cover-up, and Western disinformation: Now, prosecutors in Germany have finally gotten serious about at least one member of the Ukrainian terror team. Sergei K. was arrested in Italy last year and then extradited to Germany. Its federal prosecutor is now charging him with a particularly severe form of sabotage and also a war crime. Meanwhile, Germany’s highest court for non-constitutional cases has found – and prosecutors have publicly confirmed – that the Nord Stream attack was most probably directed by a state, that is, by Kiev’s leadership.

In other words, whatever happens next, it will be impossible to conduct a trial against Sergei K. and not bring up the obvious issue of his accomplices and sponsors. And that is the point where you may rush to the conclusion that Sergei’s personal and well-deserved come-uppance might turn into one of those Hollywood-movie-type cases, where the stunning revelation of the big secret will finally make a difference to what can only be termed Berlin’s insane policy of national masochism.

Once there is a Ukrainian terrorist in the dock and it has become inevitable to face who sent him to brutally damage the German economy and worsen the lives of almost every single German citizen, surely German governments cannot possibly continue their perverse and exceedingly expensive support for Kiev, you may think.

Indeed, they may even have to rethink another, even more wasteful policy, namely Germany’s new militarism: Based on silly scaremongering about Russia, it is making all Germans poorer, as even the anything but rebellious Zeit newspaper has to admit. Indeed, it will ruin what is left of Germany.

Ultimately, perhaps even those voices of reason in the BSW and AfD parties will prevail that argue for an end to the proxy war via Ukraine, normalization with Russia, and, specifically, repairing and using the Nord Stream pipelines.

If only! But the real world is not a Hollywood movie. In reality, especially the worst secrets and the greatest lies do not change everything when finally revealed. They should, but they don’t. Consider, for instance, that the very incomplete knowledge that we have of the Epstein crimes should have immediately shattered the US-Israeli relationship. Yet, while there are fissures, it is holding up well enough to ensure US support for Israel’s ongoing crimes, including genocide. Indeed, it is so robust that the US has just lost a war against Iran while following Israeli orders and is about to permanently integrate Israel into its military-industrial complex.

Read more

Likewise, regarding Ivan Katchanovski’s incontrovertible evidence that the Maidan massacre was a false flag operation and part of a dirty regime change sold as a ‘revolution’: We now know, but Western ‘elites’ have not changed course. Indeed, they have simply failed to acknowledge that one of the key stories justifying their policy in Ukraine and, ultimately, proxy war against Russia has been knocked down.

Unfortunately, the same is likely to happen in the case of the Nord Stream attack. Even if the truth about Kiev’s involvement in a horrific attack on Germany should ever be revealed, Berlin will pretend that nothing has really changed. Indeed, a perverse op-ed in Spiegel is already preparing the ground for such a solution, pretending, in essence, that Germans should be grateful to Kiev for blowing up a pipeline that was just no good.

That Spiegel thereby in effect endorses a sabotage of Germany’s vital infrastructure should occupy German prosecutors, but it probably won’t: They are busy going after ordinary citizens for plausibly calling Chancellor Friedrich Merz “Lying Fritz” or sharing RT information.

The reason why the biggest lies are so resilient is depressing and simple: Some lies are so important, so baked into policies, which current “elites” refuse to change because they would fall with them, that the truth must not be allowed to harm these lies: They are too big to fail. That is why, ultimately, the only real hope lies in a genuine replacement of political elites. If Germans have really had enough of being impoverished for Ukraine, the country that, unlike Russia, has actually fiercely and perfidiously attacked them, then they will have to vote very differently.

US President Donald Trump has suggested that he may need a restraining order against Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, reviving a public feud between the two leaders.

The Italian prime minister last month dismissed Trump’s claim that she had desperately been seeking a photo opportunity with him during a G7 summit in France. Meloni argued that appearing too friendly with the US president could damage a politician’s popularity, contrary to what he believes.

On Sunday, Trump shared an image on Truth Social showing Meloni looking up at him with an admiring expression. The caption read: “Restraining order needed.” The two leaders are due to meet this week in Ankara at a NATO leaders’ summit. The joke, however, does not appear to have originated with Trump.

I MIGHT NEED A RESTRAINING ORDER!!!😎🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/Lm8wfb3wpv

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) June 21, 2026

Relations between Trump and Meloni deteriorated after Italy declined to directly back the US-Israeli war with Iran. Meloni also criticized Trump’s remarks about Pope Leo XIV, after the US president described the American-born pontiff as “weak on crime” and “ungrateful.”

Read more

The dispute following the G7 summit disrupted a planned US visit by Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, who had been expected to attend a US-Italian business forum in Miami on June 21. Behind the scenes, however, both governments appear to be trying to ease tensions.

Tajani and other Italian ministers attended a celebration of the 250th anniversary of US independence hosted by the US Embassy in Rome. Speaking at the event, Tajani said that “the friendship between Italy and the United States is stronger than any controversy.”

US Ambassador to Italy Tilman Fertitta also struck a conciliatory tone in a recent interview with local media, saying Meloni “has done an excellent job” as prime minister and has helped Italy “become a global leader.”

Trump’s latest post has drawn criticism in Italy. Carlo Calenda, a former economic development minister who now leads the liberal Azione party, called the US president “a despicable two-bit bully” and voiced support for Meloni.

The US is “very much in a space race” against China as the two nations look to land humans on the Moon and establish permanent bases there in the coming years, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has said.

The US remains the only country to have sent manned missions to the Moon, with American astronauts visiting the Earth’s satellite six times as part of the Apollo program between 1969 and 1972.

During an interview with ‘Face the Nation’ on CBS on Sunday, Isaacman stressed that the Chinese “will land their taikonauts on the Moon – there’s no question.” Beijing’s lunar program is “moving at incredible speeds,” he added.

“The question is – will the US return before them and will we do so in a different way this time? Will we build the base, establish that enduring presence? I think the answer is yes,” the NASA chief said.

According to Isaacman, the American and Chinese timelines for putting humans on the Moon are very close. “They are thinking in 2029, we’re saying end of 2028 is when we’re targeting the landing. That’s months, not years,” he explained.

Read more

The US sent a crew on a flyby of the Moon in April as part of its Artemis mission in preparation for a planned landing in two years’ time.

NASA will also begin building a lunar base in 2027, so when astronauts reach the surface “there’s going to be a buggy there, a lunar terrain vehicle, there’s going to be a start of infrastructure,” Isaacman said.

“But I would say, early 2030s, the Moon is going to be like the International Space Station. You’re going to have crews that are there on pretty extended periods of time, as we learn in that environment and prepare for Mars,” he added.

Beijing has repeatedly said it has no intention of engaging in a space race with Washington, with Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun reiterating earlier this year that “space is not an arena for major country contest.”

“China will continue to work with various countries for open space cooperation and advance the common endeavor of humanity in exploring outer space,” Guo said.

China proposed working together with the US but NASA remains legally banned from any collaboration with China’s space agency under the 2011 Wolf Amendment.

READ MORE: Artemis II: Why is the US returning to the Moon?

Instead, China has expanded cooperation in space with Russia in recent years. In 2021, the two countries announced the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) project, with Russia seeking to build a power station on the Moon to provide energy for a base within the next decade.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has called for regional governments to be cut off from the federal intelligence-sharing network if the country's most popular Alternative for Germany (AfD) party wins upcoming state elections.

The minister branded the right-wing party, which has been enjoying the largest share of public support for months, “anti-democratic” in an interview with Bild newspaper published on Sunday, and said Berlin should be prepared to “consistently counter it.”

Pistorius claimed that the AfD could not be trusted with state secrets because of its alleged “undeniable” ties to Moscow.

“We are intensively examining the question of to whom we can grant access to classified information,” said Pistorius, who has been a vocal proponent of Germany’s rapid militarization and potential mandatory conscription to prepare for a direct conflict with Russia as early as 2028.

Is AfD ‘extremist’?

Pistorius claimed that the AfD is “opposed to the very constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany” and willing to “destroy our democracy from within.” All other major political parties in Germany have been avoiding virtually any form of cooperation with what they call the “far right” as part of an informal ban policy known as the “firewall.”

Read more

The AfD itself has been battling the “far-right” label almost since the party’s founding in 2013. Initially a party of Euroskeptics, the AfD adopted harsh anti-immigration rhetoric at the height of the 2015 refugee crisis, putting it on a collision course with virtually every other major political party in Germany.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, sought to label it a “confirmed right-wing extremist organization” in 2025. The AfD challenged the designation in the Administrative Court of Cologne, which issued a temporary injunction in the case last year pending a final ruling.

Back in 2025, AfD co-chair Alice Weidel described her party as a “libertarian conservative” force that fights bureaucracy and seeks to “free the people from the state.” She also criticized the then-German government for fostering “immigration into the social system” and accused the EU of Hitler-like censorship in a lengthy interview with Elon Musk on X ahead of the snap elections.

Is AfD tied to Russia?

Pistorius has insisted that no proof is needed and that “you only have to listen to the public statements of many, many AfD representatives.” He also claimed that there is a “suspicion” that the party receives “money coming from Russia.”

Read more

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, the AfD was the only German political party that criticized EU sanctions and Berlin’s hardline stance on Russia as self-harming, calling instead for a pragmatic approach. The decision to abandon Russian energy imports played a major role in slowing down the German economy, which contracted in 2023 and 2024, and showed a minuscule 0.2% growth in 2025.

Weidel told Reuters last week that Berlin urgently needed to lift the ban on Russian oil and gas imports to prop up its struggling economy, arguing that “the loss of this energy has set us back years.”

“Cheap energy from Russia was the secret of the success of ‘Made in Germany’. We need it back,” she said. The party’s co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, has also advocated the restoration of dialogue with Russia and previously urged Merz to “call Moscow.”

Read more

The AfD has also criticized Berlin’s unquestioning support for Ukraine and maintained that Kiev should pay compensation for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines that delivered Russian natural gas to Germany.

There is no hard proof of Moscow providing funding or any other form of assistance to the right-wing party, although some German media claimed back in 2018 that some party members had traveled to Moscow on a “Russian-sponsored charter.” Only one of the three politicians in question is still an AfD member.

In 2024, AfD MEP Petr Bystron was accused of receiving money from a media network allegedly linked to Russia in exchange for “spreading Kremlin narratives.” He denied the accusations and called the still-pending probe politically motivated.

READ MORE: Germany is ‘tyranny in disguise’ – Rubio

Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have publicly welcomed the party’s pragmatic approach to Germany’s national interests – but so have US President Donald Trump and key figures in his administration and allied circles, including Musk, who openly campaigned on behalf of the AfD.

Why attack AfD now?

The AfD is projected to perform well in the upcoming regional elections in two eastern German states, Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, while in Berlin it is also locked in a four-way statistical tie for first place in an exceptionally fragmented political landscape.

Read more

In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the AfD could gain 35% of the vote, according to a survey conducted by the INSA polling agency in late June. The result might make it the strongest faction in the regional legislature, but would hardly allow it to form a government single-handedly.

In Saxony-Anhalt, the party is polling at 41%, nearly 20 percentage points ahead of its closest competitors from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), according to another INSA survey published last week. If the party is able to keep this margin of victory, it could potentially even secure a majority in the regional parliament and form a government without entering a coalition.

The AfD had already gained record support in two regional elections outside its traditional political heartland in March 2026, securing nearly 20% of the vote in the western German state of Rhineland-Palatinate and nearly 19% in Baden-Wurttemberg, virtually doubling its results compared to the previous elections in both cases.

How unpopular is the current German government?

The AfD has been steadily gaining ground in recent months amid the plummeting ratings of Merz’s government. An INSA survey published in late June suggested that it enjoys the greatest support among all German parties, at 29%, seven percentage points ahead of the CDU.

Read more

Support for the current German cabinet has hit a record low, with as many as 84% of Germans dissatisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s performance, including 51% of supporters of his own party, according to an ARD-DeutschlandTrend poll published last week.

The survey results make Merz the least popular chancellor in almost 30 years. Respondents were mostly concerned about the country losing its attractiveness for business (78%), the negative effects of climate change (66%), and the migrant influx under the current government (51%), the poll suggested.

The US-based opinion research institute Morning Consult also ranked Merz the world’s most unpopular leader in April.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has called for regional governments to be cut off from the federal intelligence-sharing network if the country's most popular Alternative for Germany (AfD) party wins upcoming state elections.

The minister branded the right-wing party, which has been enjoying the largest share of public support for months, “anti-democratic” in an interview with Bild newspaper published on Sunday, and said Berlin should be prepared to “consistently counter it.”

Pistorius claimed that the AfD could not be trusted with state secrets because of its alleged “undeniable” ties to Moscow.

“We are intensively examining the question of to whom we can grant access to classified information,” said Pistorius, who has been a vocal proponent of Germany’s rapid militarization and potential mandatory conscription to prepare for a direct conflict with Russia as early as 2028.

Is AfD ‘extremist’?

Pistorius claimed that the AfD is “opposed to the very constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany” and willing to “destroy our democracy from within.” All other major political parties in Germany have been avoiding virtually any form of cooperation with what they call the “far right” as part of an informal ban policy known as the “firewall.”

Read more

The AfD itself has been battling the “far-right” label almost since the party’s founding in 2013. Initially a party of Euroskeptics, the AfD adopted harsh anti-immigration rhetoric at the height of the 2015 refugee crisis, putting it on a collision course with virtually every other major political party in Germany.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, sought to label it a “confirmed right-wing extremist organization” in 2025. The AfD challenged the designation in the Administrative Court of Cologne, which issued a temporary injunction in the case last year pending a final ruling.

Back in 2025, AfD co-chair Alice Weidel described her party as a “libertarian conservative” force that fights bureaucracy and seeks to “free the people from the state.” She also criticized the then-German government for fostering “immigration into the social system” and accused the EU of Hitler-like censorship in a lengthy interview with Elon Musk on X ahead of the snap elections.

Is AfD tied to Russia?

Pistorius has insisted that no proof is needed and that “you only have to listen to the public statements of many, many AfD representatives.” He also claimed that there is a “suspicion” that the party receives “money coming from Russia.”

Read more

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, the AfD was the only German political party that criticized EU sanctions and Berlin’s hardline stance on Russia as self-harming, calling instead for a pragmatic approach. The decision to abandon Russian energy imports played a major role in slowing down the German economy, which contracted in 2023 and 2024, and showed a minuscule 0.2% growth in 2025.

Weidel told Reuters last week that Berlin urgently needed to lift the ban on Russian oil and gas imports to prop up its struggling economy, arguing that “the loss of this energy has set us back years.”

“Cheap energy from Russia was the secret of the success of ‘Made in Germany’. We need it back,” she said. The party’s co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, has also advocated the restoration of dialogue with Russia and previously urged Merz to “call Moscow.”

Read more

The AfD has also criticized Berlin’s unquestioning support for Ukraine and maintained that Kiev should pay compensation for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines that delivered Russian natural gas to Germany.

There is no hard proof of Moscow providing funding or any other form of assistance to the right-wing party, although some German media claimed back in 2018 that some party members had traveled to Moscow on a “Russian-sponsored charter.” Only one of the three politicians in question is still an AfD member.

In 2024, AfD MEP Petr Bystron was accused of receiving money from a media network allegedly linked to Russia in exchange for “spreading Kremlin narratives.” He denied the accusations and called the still-pending probe politically motivated.

READ MORE: Germany is ‘tyranny in disguise’ – Rubio

Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have publicly welcomed the party’s pragmatic approach to Germany’s national interests – but so have US President Donald Trump and key figures in his administration and allied circles, including Musk, who openly campaigned on behalf of the AfD.

Why attack AfD now?

The AfD is projected to perform well in the upcoming regional elections in two eastern German states, Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, while in Berlin it is also locked in a four-way statistical tie for first place in an exceptionally fragmented political landscape.

Read more

In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the AfD could gain 35% of the vote, according to a survey conducted by the INSA polling agency in late June. The result might make it the strongest faction in the regional legislature, but would hardly allow it to form a government single-handedly.

In Saxony-Anhalt, the party is polling at 41%, nearly 20 percentage points ahead of its closest competitors from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), according to another INSA survey published last week. If the party is able to keep this margin of victory, it could potentially even secure a majority in the regional parliament and form a government without entering a coalition.

The AfD had already gained record support in two regional elections outside its traditional political heartland in March 2026, securing nearly 20% of the vote in the western German state of Rhineland-Palatinate and nearly 19% in Baden-Wurttemberg, virtually doubling its results compared to the previous elections in both cases.

How unpopular is the current German government?

The AfD has been steadily gaining ground in recent months amid the plummeting ratings of Merz’s government. An INSA survey published in late June suggested that it enjoys the greatest support among all German parties, at 29%, seven percentage points ahead of the CDU.

Read more

Support for the current German cabinet has hit a record low, with as many as 84% of Germans dissatisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s performance, including 51% of supporters of his own party, according to an ARD-DeutschlandTrend poll published last week.

The survey results make Merz the least popular chancellor in almost 30 years. Respondents were mostly concerned about the country losing its attractiveness for business (78%), the negative effects of climate change (66%), and the migrant influx under the current government (51%), the poll suggested.

The US-based opinion research institute Morning Consult also ranked Merz the world’s most unpopular leader in April.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has called for any regional governments formed by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to be booted out of the federal intelligence-sharing network.

The minister branded the right-wing party, which has been enjoying the largest share of public support for months, “anti-democratic” in an interview with Bild newspaper published on Sunday, and said Berlin should be prepared to “consistently counter it.”

Pistorius claimed that the AfD could not be trusted with state secrets because of its alleged “undeniable” ties to Moscow.

“We are intensively examining the question of to whom we can grant access to classified information,” said Pistorius, who has been a vocal proponent of Germany’s rapid militarization and potential mandatory conscription to prepare for a direct conflict with Russia as early as 2028.

Is AfD ‘extremist’?

Pistorius claimed that the AfD is “opposed to the very constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany” and willing to “destroy our democracy from within.” All other major political parties in Germany have been avoiding virtually any form of cooperation with what they call the “far right” as part of an informal ban policy known as the “firewall.”

Read more

The AfD itself has been battling the “far-right” label almost since the party’s founding in 2013. Initially a party of Euroskeptics, the AfD adopted harsh anti-immigration rhetoric at the height of the 2015 refugee crisis, putting it on a collision course with virtually every other major political party in Germany.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, sought to label it a “confirmed right-wing extremist organization” in 2025. The AfD challenged the designation in the Administrative Court of Cologne, which issued a temporary injunction in the case last year pending a final ruling.

Back in 2025, AfD co-chair Alice Weidel described her party as a “libertarian conservative” force that fights bureaucracy and seeks to “free the people from the state.” She also criticized the then-German government for fostering “immigration into the social system” and accused the EU of Hitler-like censorship in a lengthy interview with Elon Musk on X ahead of the snap elections.

Is AfD tied to Russia?

Pistorius has insisted that no proof is needed and that “you only have to listen to the public statements of many, many AfD representatives.” He also claimed that there is a “suspicion” that the party receives “money coming from Russia.”

Read more

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, the AfD was the only German political party that criticized EU sanctions and Berlin’s hardline stance on Russia as self-harming, calling instead for a pragmatic approach. The decision to abandon Russian energy imports played a major role in slowing down the German economy, which contracted in 2023 and 2024, and showed a minuscule 0.2% growth in 2025.

Weidel told Reuters last week that Berlin urgently needed to lift the ban on Russian oil and gas imports to prop up its struggling economy, arguing that “the loss of this energy has set us back years.”

“Cheap energy from Russia was the secret of the success of ‘Made in Germany’. We need it back,” she said. The party’s co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, has also advocated the restoration of dialogue with Russia and previously urged Merz to “call Moscow.”

Read more

The AfD has also criticized Berlin’s unquestioning support for Ukraine and maintained that Kiev should pay compensation for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines that delivered Russian natural gas to Germany.

There is no hard proof of Moscow providing funding or any other form of assistance to the right-wing party, although some German media claimed back in 2018 that some party members had traveled to Moscow on a “Russian-sponsored charter.” Only one of the three politicians in question is still an AfD member.

In 2024, AfD MEP Petr Bystron was accused of receiving money from a media network allegedly linked to Russia in exchange for “spreading Kremlin narratives.” He denied the accusations and called the still-pending probe politically motivated.

READ MORE: Germany is ‘tyranny in disguise’ – Rubio

Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have publicly welcomed the party’s pragmatic approach to Germany’s national interests – but so have US President Donald Trump and key figures in his administration and allied circles, including Musk, who openly campaigned on behalf of the AfD.

Why attack AfD now?

The AfD is projected to perform well in the upcoming regional elections in two eastern German states, Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, while in Berlin it is also locked in a four-way statistical tie for first place in an exceptionally fragmented political landscape.

Read more

In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the AfD could gain 35% of the vote, according to a survey conducted by the INSA polling agency in late June. The result might make it the strongest faction in the regional legislature, but would hardly allow it to form a government single-handedly.

In Saxony-Anhalt, the party is polling at 41%, nearly 20 percentage points ahead of its closest competitors from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), according to another INSA survey published last week. If the party is able to keep this margin of victory, it could potentially even secure a majority in the regional parliament and form a government without entering a coalition.

The AfD had already gained record support in two regional elections outside its traditional political heartland in March 2026, securing nearly 20% of the vote in the western German state of Rhineland-Palatinate and nearly 19% in Baden-Wurttemberg, virtually doubling its results compared to the previous elections in both cases.

How unpopular is the current German government?

The AfD has been steadily gaining ground in recent months amid the plummeting ratings of Merz’s government. An INSA survey published in late June suggested that it enjoys the greatest support among all German parties, at 29%, seven percentage points ahead of the CDU.

Read more

Support for the current German cabinet has hit a record low, with as many as 84% of Germans dissatisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s performance, including 51% of supporters of his own party, according to an ARD-DeutschlandTrend poll published last week.

The survey results make Merz the least popular chancellor in almost 30 years. Respondents were mostly concerned about the country losing its attractiveness for business (78%), the negative effects of climate change (66%), and the migrant influx under the current government (51%), the poll suggested.

The US-based opinion research institute Morning Consult also ranked Merz the world’s most unpopular leader in April.

Thieves have stolen around €4 million worth of jewelry from the Lalique Museum in northeastern France, despite the site reportedly being under “special attention” following last year’s brazen Louvre heist.

The break-in took place at around 5:30am on Sunday at the museum in Wingen-sur-Moder, a village in the Bas-Rhin department near the German border. Several masked individuals forced open a door and smashed six display cases before fleeing with around 20 pieces of jewelry.

The damage is still being assessed, but one source close to the investigation said the loss could be “close to four million” euros, AFP reported. The stolen items were made of crystal and contained no precious stones, meaning they cannot be melted down.

The mayor of Wingen-sur-Moder suggested the thieves may have been “well informed,” as they immediately targeted the jewelry. The mayor told regional newspaper DNA that “all the alarms went off as they should,” but claimed the security company failed to immediately alert the gendarmes. According to Le Parisien, a cleaner who arrived at the site was the first to call law enforcement.

Read more

The raid comes less than a year after thieves stole eight pieces of French Crown Jewels from the Louvre in Paris in October 2025, in a brazen daylight heist valued at around €88 million. Mere hours after the Louvre heist, nearly 2,000 prized coins were reportedly stolen from the Denis Diderot House of Enlightenment in the northeastern town of Langres. Just one month before that, thieves breached the National Museum of Natural History, and stole six rare raw gold nuggets worth some €1.5 million.

The incidents triggered a national scandal over museum security. Le Parisien reported that the Lalique Museum was considered a “sensitive site” and had been receiving “special attention” since the Louvre robbery, but a source close to the investigation said the protection measures were “not sufficient.”

READ MORE: France charges Chinese national over €1.5 million gold theft

A French parliamentary inquiry released in May found deep flaws in the country’s museum security model, including aging infrastructure, staffing shortages, and inadequate surveillance. The report said only 23% of French museums had an emergency and risk-prevention plan in 2024, while just 54% of institutions had proper video surveillance.

Read more

Grand Est regional president Franck Leroy condemned the Lalique burglary as “an unacceptable attack on our heritage,” saying that beyond the stolen works, an emblematic site of French history, craftsmanship, and culture had been hit.

The Lalique Museum, opened in 2011, is dedicated to jeweler and glassmaker Rene Lalique and his successors. The site displays more than 650 works, ranging from Art Nouveau and Art Deco jewelry to modern crystal pieces. The museum said it would remain closed for several days following the burglary, citing the need to prepare for a “calm and safe” reopening.

FIFA has suspended a one-match ban imposed on US striker Folarin Balogun, clearing him to play in the World Cup Round of 16 against Belgium after President Donald Trump reportedly asked the governing body’s chief to review the case.

Balogun was sent off in the 64th minute of the US team’s 2-0 win over Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Round of 32 on Wednesday. Under World Cup rules, the red card carried an automatic one-match suspension, which would have ruled the New York-born forward out of Monday’s knockout clash at Seattle Stadium.

However, FIFA announced on Sunday that the implementation of the automatic suspension had been suspended for a probationary period of one year under Article 27 of its disciplinary code. The decision means Balogun, who has scored three goals at the tournament, will be available as the US seeks its first World Cup quarter-final appearance since 2002.

The New York Times reported that Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Wednesday and asked him to review Balogun’s suspension, citing people familiar with the conversation. The White House has not publicly confirmed the call, but referred reporters to Trump’s celebratory post on Truth Social.

“Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!” Trump wrote on Sunday.

Read more

The decision has triggered outrage in Belgium, whose football federation said it was “astonished” by FIFA’s ruling and was examining “all potential options” ahead of the match. Belgium coach Rudi Garcia mocked the reversal as a poor April Fools’ joke.

“We’re not defending the national team or federation, we are defending football,” Garcia said.

The reversal is highly unusual, though not without recent precedent. FIFA made a somewhat similar move before the tournament when it cleared Cristiano Ronaldo to play for Portugal, despite a red-card ban carried over from a qualifier against Ireland. Ronaldo was handed a three-match ban, but two matches were suspended, allowing him to feature at the World Cup.

Read more

Before that, the last comparable World Cup intervention came in 1962, when Brazil legend Garrincha was cleared to play in the final after being sent off in the semifinal – eight years before FIFA introduced the modern red-card system at the 1970 World Cup.

FIFA’s decision comes amid scrutiny of Infantino’s close ties with Trump. The governing body previously created and awarded the US president its Peace Prize following his public but unsuccessful campaign to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

The US is co-hosting the 2026 World Cup alongside Canada and Mexico. The tournament runs from June 11 to July 19 and is being staged across 16 cities, including 11 in the US. The final is scheduled for July 19 at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

The US and Belgium last met at a World Cup in the Round of 16 in 2014, when Belgium won 2-1 after extra time despite a record 16-save performance by US goalkeeper Tim Howard.

FIFA has suspended a one-match ban imposed on US striker Folarin Balogun, clearing him to play in the World Cup Round of 16 against Belgium after President Donald Trump reportedly asked the governing body’s chief to review the case.

Balogun was sent off in the 64th minute of the US team’s 2-0 win over Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Round of 32 on Wednesday. Under World Cup rules, the red card carried an automatic one-match suspension, which would have ruled the New York-born forward out of Monday’s knockout clash at Seattle Stadium.

However, FIFA announced on Sunday that the implementation of the automatic suspension had been suspended for a probationary period of one year under Article 27 of its disciplinary code. The decision means Balogun, who has scored three goals at the tournament, will be available as the US seeks its first World Cup quarter-final appearance since 2002.

The New York Times reported that Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Wednesday and asked him to review Balogun’s suspension, citing people familiar with the conversation. The White House has not publicly confirmed the call, but referred reporters to Trump’s celebratory post on Truth Social.

“Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice!” Trump wrote on Sunday.

Read more

The decision has triggered outrage in Belgium, whose football federation said it was “astonished” by FIFA’s ruling and was examining “all potential options” ahead of the match. Belgium coach Rudi Garcia mocked the reversal as a poor April Fools’ joke.

“We’re not defending the national team or federation, we are defending football,” Garcia said.

The reversal is highly unusual, though not without recent precedent. FIFA made a somewhat similar move before the tournament when it cleared Cristiano Ronaldo to play for Portugal, despite a red-card ban carried over from a qualifier against Ireland. Ronaldo was handed a three-match ban, but two matches were suspended, allowing him to feature at the World Cup.

Read more

Before that, the last comparable World Cup intervention came in 1962, when Brazil legend Garrincha was cleared to play in the final after being sent off in the semifinal – eight years before FIFA introduced the modern red-card system at the 1970 World Cup.

FIFA’s decision comes amid scrutiny of Infantino’s close ties with Trump. The governing body previously created and awarded the US president its Peace Prize following his public but unsuccessful campaign to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

The US is co-hosting the 2026 World Cup alongside Canada and Mexico. The tournament runs from June 11 to July 19 and is being staged across 16 cities, including 11 in the US. The final is scheduled for July 19 at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

The US and Belgium last met at a World Cup in the Round of 16 in 2014, when Belgium won 2-1 after extra time despite a record 16-save performance by US goalkeeper Tim Howard.

Following a victory in the Supreme Court that allows states to ban trans athletes from competing against biological girls and women, conservative advocacy groups have warned Democratic states: “you’re next!”

The right-wing campaign to stop transgender girls and women from competing against biological females received a massive boost following the recent ruling that said states are free to rule on the issue as they see fit.

In a decision led by the Supreme Court’s six conservatives, the justices ruled that states can separate teams based on “biological sex” without breaching the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and Title IX, a landmark 1972 anti-discrimination law.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority.

The ruling marks the latest setback to the LGBTQ+ community, which has struggled against repeated losses at the Supreme Court in recent years. However, the Liberals do not view the court’s ruling as a total loss as it did not mandate the decision to prohibit transgender women from competition against biological women. The final decision will be up to each individual state to decide.

The court’s ruling means that 27 Republican-led states will be legally permitted to ban transgender females from competition in female athletics, while the remaining Democrat-run states plus Washington DC and 395 other municipalities will come under extreme pressure to end the controversial practice.

Read more

The Democrats are promising a fight as a number of crucial court cases are approaching.

“The Supreme Court has allowed states to be as cruel as they want to be to transgender people,” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, told reporters. “They’ve also allowed states like Minnesota to be as kind and welcoming as they can.” He said “nothing will change” regarding the state’s treatment of transgender athletes.

Thus far, the sound and fury behind the transgender battle is far greater than the total numbers would have us believe. In reality, there are very few transgender athletes competing in state sports, the Washington Post revealed. In Mississippi, for example, a 2023 report discovered no trans students were participating in sports, while the state of Washington reported that fewer than 10 of approximately 250,000 student-athletes in the state identified as transgender. In conservative Florida, state records show that just two trans girls have played girls sports over the last decade. Despite the low number of transgender athletes, the political right wants to put an end to the madness before the day comes when biological females become an endangered species on the awards podium.

In fact, much of the noise surrounding the battle over transgender rights is coming from the parents of girls and young women who do not wish to see their children get hurt from competing against biological males. There is also the question of fair competition where trophies, fame, and lucrative school scholarships are on the line. Why should a biological female train her entire life in a particular sport only to be beaten – or severely injured – by a transgender female with unfair physical advantages?

A Pew Research Center survey last year revealed that two-thirds of American adults supported laws that require trans athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth. That number is an increase of eight percentage points from 2022.

“Blue states with boys on girls’ podiums… you’re next,” Kristen Waggoner, president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, posted on X moments after the court’s ruling was announced.

Currently, Republicans said they were hopeful over the court’s interpretation of Title IX, the law banning discrimination on the basis of sex in schools funded by the US government. Six of the nine justices affirmed that “sex” refers to biological sex, not gender identity, as many on the left believe it to be. The court also ruled that it sees intrinsic biological differences between boys and girls that could make a crucial difference in sports.

Read more

On the other side of the aisle, the Liberals welcomed the recommendation that says schools are allowed to separate athletics by sex but does not demand it. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that these are questions best left to the states, not the courts.

“The legislatures and the schools are better equipped – and under the Constitution, are the more appropriate entities – to assess the competing medical and scientific considerations and draw appropriate lines,” he wrote.

Is there any way to appease both the liberals and conservatives in what has turned into a lightning rod in the political arena? One highly controversial solution is to create an entirely separate sporting organization reserved specifically for transgender athletes.

Presently, the response to creating separate tournaments or leagues for transgender athletes is heavily polarized. Proponents of this “separate but equal” approach view it as a pragmatic compromise that protects cisgender fair competition while allowing trans athletes to participate. Conversely, many LGBTQ+ advocates and human rights organizations, such as the Mama Bears Facebook Community, strongly oppose it. They argue that separate leagues marginalize transgender athletes, reinforce stigma, and often lack the necessary participation numbers to be viable.

Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, Conservatives and Liberals will be hard-pressed to win over public opinion in one of the most compelling, contentious, and consequential political debates of the day. The very survival of female sport hangs in the balance.

A trove of highly sensitive unredacted military documents containing staff information and security procedures at the British Army’s largest garrison has been found at a garbage disposal site in northern England, The Sun reported on Saturday.

It comes as the long-underfunded UK military is going through a rough patch, with all five of its Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarines currently stuck in port due to a maintenance backlog. The tight budget became the point of contention for former British Defense Secretary John Healey, who resigned last month after a row over funding with outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

According to the outlet, the cache of military documents was discovered in a recycling bin in Catterick Bridge by a member of the public and handed over to the tabloid.

Read more

The files reportedly contained soldiers’ names and ranks, guard shift details, weapons storage information, security procedures, incident reports and other records linked to Catterick Garrison, the British Army’s largest.

The papers could provide dangerous information to hostile actors, the Sun reported, citing Colonel Philip Ingram, a former senior intelligence and security officer in the British Army.

“There is a clear security risk. It’s a breach of procedures which shows a lack of care,” he reportedly said, stressing that such sensitive documents should have been shredded or burned before disposal.

Read more

It is not the only sensitive military leak to happen in the UK recently.

Last year, documents containing information about Catterick Garrison’s soldiers, shift patterns, and weapon issue details were found scattered on a Newcastle street, spilling from a torn trash bag.

A similar scandal took place in Poland last October, when news outlet Onet reported that classified military documents were found at a landfill. The Polish military denied the report, accusing the outlet of holding unauthorized copies of sensitive papers.

The Royal Navy has been reduced to the worst state in British history, retired chief of the Naval Staff, Lord Alan West, has told the Sun. London now operates the smallest fleet ever, according to the outlet.

A total of nine ships have been scrapped over the past two years under Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the UK is now operating a fleet that includes five operational frigates and no amphibious assault ships, the Sun reported on Friday. The government dropped plans for new Type 83 destroyers and Type 32 frigates, calling them “unaffordable,” it added.

According to West, Starmer’s naval policy has been catastrophic. “The number of ships we have is pathetic, to do the things we need to do,” the former first sea lord and Labour security minister said.

“The last time the Navy took this sort of hammering was in Samuel Pepys time [in 1667] and the Dutch sailed up to Chatham, burnt the fleet and stole the flagship,” he said, referring to the Second Anglo-Dutch War in the 17th century, where the British suffered heavy losses in a raid on Medway and were forced to sign a peace treaty favorable to Amsterdam.

Read more

Starmer has axed four frigates, two assault ships, two tankers and a nuclear-powered submarine since taking office, the Sun estimated, adding that it was more than the seven ships lost to Argentina during the 1982 Falklands War.

Last month, The Telegraph and Daily Mail also reported that the UK’s entire available fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines is stuck in port awaiting maintenance.

The report comes as London continues to raise defense spending under the slogans of “transforming” the military in a “more dangerous and volatile” word, all while citing the alleged “Russian threat.”

Read more

Moscow has consistently dismissed claims that it is preparing to attack European NATO members, calling them “nonsense.” It also accuses the West of jeopardizing global security through “reckless militarization.”

Earlier this week, the British government announced an additional £15 billion ($20 billion) for the armed forces and vowed to bring total military funding to nearly £300 billion over the next four years in what Starmer himself called “record investment.”

The list of spending targets includes the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS submarine projects, as well as “multi-billion-pound upgrades at Faslane, Portsmouth and Devonport” naval bases but provides no timeline for the projects’ completion.

The spending increase comes in the face of a growing budget deficit and higher inflation. Reuters reported in May that British government borrowing had jumped by 30% year-on-year to £23.3 billion, with debt servicing costs 54% higher than the 2025 level.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, two concepts entered common political usage, the “war of necessity” and the “war of choice.” The first meant territorial defense and national survival and the second, a war launched not in response to an immediate attack but by calculation and design. The terms were popularized by the American commentator Charles Krauthammer, and later developed by Richard Haass, who used them to assess the US intervention in Iraq in 2003.

The Bush administration launched that war not because Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States, but because Washington chose to act, guided by political and ideological motives. A war of necessity was understood as a response to aggression and a war of choice as something preemptive.

That debate was partly opportunistic, reflecting internal American political struggles, yet the larger question wasn’t new, because arguments about “just wars” have been part of political thought for centuries. Until the second half of the 20th century, however, such arguments remained largely theoretical and war, just or unjust, was accepted as a common instrument of state policy, or the continuation of politics by other means.

Read more

The liberal world order established after 1945 sought to place war within a legal and ideological framework, and this was a response to the devastation of two world wars and to the emergence of weapons of mass destruction. Both created a desire to restrict the use of military force as much as possible, but one of the causes of the crisis of the liberal order was the erosion of this very restraint.

After the dissolution of the USSR, the global balance of power disappeared. At the same time, the West’s conviction that it was morally and politically on the right side of history produced a new temptation to reshape humanity in its own image, by whatever means were deemed necessary, including military force. Within the liberal paradigm, force was legitimate when used by those assumed to be acting on behalf of progress.

As the liberal order exhausted itself, the ideological and normative framework weakened, but military force remained. It has now recovered its older function as an instrument by which states position themselves in a disorderly international environment. In such a world, the distinction between choice and necessity becomes blurred even if the decision to wage war is always the result of an assessment of changing circumstances and of a political choice made by state authorities on that basis. Or, in some cases, of what is perceived as the absence of any choice.

The emergence of a new international order will be prolonged and chaotic, and nuclear weapons make this process take longer, because they prevent, or have so far prevented, a decisive showdown between the major powers. While that process continues, the use of military force is shaped by constantly changing interpretations of whether is necessary to gain short-term advantages and to secure a more favorable place in the future order, whose final shape remains unclear.

Whether these calculations are correct becomes apparent only from the outcome of the campaign. Only then can one say if a war was truly dictated by necessity, by choice, or by some unstable mixture of the two.

In modern wars, as a rule, there is no such thing as absolute victory. The end of a conflict usually means the establishment of a certain status quo, which often implies the continuation of confrontation by other means and this status quo may be stable and even long-lasting, but it rarely resolves the contradictions that produced the military clash in the first place.

Read more

The ability and willingness to wage a long war of attrition are rare, indeed they’re almost exceptional because if the stated objective is not achieved, and a clear victory remains elusive, the costs rise rapidly while the desired result recedes.

This reflects the nature of today’s world, where power has become multifaceted. New methods of warfare, the weaponization of economic ties, the ability to concentrate resources for asymmetric responses, rival sources of state stability, and the inability to enforce a watertight embargo all complicate the balance of power and often, they work in favor of the weaker party.

The number of variables that must be taken into account when determining what is “necessary” has grown so quickly that a linear prediction of outcomes is almost impossible, and necessity, moreover, doesn’t only mean retaliation. In a period of rapid change in the external environment, proactive and preemptive steps may also be required in order to avoid being forced to respond later from a weaker position.

This, too, recalls the pre-liberal order, when such action was regarded as a natural element of military strategy rather than a violation of political morality. The need to make a choice is dictated by constant external pressure, but the nature of that necessity isn’t shaped by circumstances alone. It is also determined by the accumulated inheritance of each state in its potential, strategic traditions, historical experience and political culture.

In this sense, the question is not merely whether a state chooses war or is forced into it. It is a question of what kind of civilization makes that choice, and on what foundations it rests. The turbulence of the present era is testing civilizations for resilience and suitability to the global conditions now taking shape.

This article was first published by Global Affairs and was translated and edited by the RT team.

A decorated US Air Force serviceman with no history of violence suddenly abducted, raped and murdered a three-year-old girl.

When a search party found Jimmy Shaver wandering near San Antonio, Texas, he appeared to be in a trance, unable to explain where he was or how he had gotten there. After his arrest, he reportedly failed to recognize his own wife when she visited him in jail. Until the moment he was executed four years later, Shaver insisted he had no memory of committing the crime for which he had been sentenced to death.

More than seventy years later, some researchers believe his case may have been linked to one of the CIA’s darkest Cold War programs: MKULTRA, the covert project that sought to manipulate, erase and ultimately control the human mind through drugs, hypnosis and psychological experimentation.

Read more

That possibility returned to the spotlight on June 30, when the US Congressional Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets reopened one of the intelligence agency’s most notorious chapters. Lawmakers pledged to uncover the truth behind MKULTRA, the illegal human experimentation program through which the CIA developed and tested psychotropic drugs and interrogation techniques designed to alter behavior, memories and perception.

Whether the hearing lived up to those promises is another question. But the testimony presented before Congress suggested that, more than sixty years after MKULTRA officially ended, many of the program’s darkest secrets may still remain hidden.

Congress promises – again

Task force chair Anna Paulina Luna left little doubt about the gravity of the allegations.

“Administering drugs to people without their consent. Subjecting humans to psychological torture. Using prisoners and hospital patients as non-consenting research subjects. These are crimes against humanity. Some of the worst, most notorious crimes of the 20th century,” she declared in her opening remarks.

“The American people deserve the complete record. The victims and their families deserve acknowledgement, accountability, and justice. No one went to prison. No one was ever compensated by the government for the harm they caused.”

The language was uncompromising. Yet it was also strikingly familiar.

Nearly half a century ago, Congress opened another investigation into MKULTRA, promising victims that the full truth would finally emerge and that those responsible would be held accountable. Those commitments quietly faded away. The victims were never fully identified, compensation never came, and many of the program’s records were presumed lost forever.

Tom O’Neill, author of CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, reminded lawmakers that they were retracing a path Congress had already walked once before.

Read more

“During those same hearings, committee members like yourselves promised the victims of MKULTRA would be identified, compensated and provided lifetime medical care,” he told the panel. “None of that ever happened.”

According to O’Neill, lawmakers in the 1970s accepted one of the CIA’s most consequential claims with remarkably little scrutiny: that after more than two decades of secret experimentation, the agency had simply failed to master mind control.

CIA officials repeatedly insisted that “their twenty-five-year effort to learn how to control the human mind had been a colossal failure.”

O’Neill believes that conclusion deserves to be revisited.

For years, he has argued that the historical record tells a very different story – one that Congress never fully examined and that may have been deliberately obscured by the destruction of key evidence. To make that case, he turned not to speculation, but to documents exchanged between two of the central figures behind the CIA’s most secretive experiments.

The blueprint for mind control

To support his argument that Congress never uncovered the full scope of MKULTRA, O’Neill pointed to a cache of correspondence that, in his view, fundamentally changes our understanding of the program.

The letters were exchanged between psychiatrist Louis Jolyon West, who “sought to control the minds of people without their knowledge, with the ultimate goal of creating programmed killers” and “Sherman Grifford” – the pseudonym used by Sidney Gottlieb, the CIA’s chief poisoner who designed and oversaw MKULTRA from its earliest days. Far from describing a failed scientific curiosity, O’Neill argued, the documents laid out an extraordinarily ambitious blueprint for manipulating the human mind.

The opening letter, written by West in 1953, “outlined the objectives, methods and intended outcomes of experiments he hoped to conduct on unwitting human subjects.”

“It reads like a page torn from the research notebook of Josef Mengele,”

O’Neill told lawmakers, comparing the proposals to the infamous Nazi doctor’s experiments at Auschwitz.

According to the correspondence, West proposed conducting experiments on “unwilling subjects,” including members of the military, psychiatric patients, prisoners of civilian jails, and “special subjects” identified by the CIA.

His methods ranged from administering psychedelic drugs, including LSD, to combining them with hypnosis in an effort to induce trance states, confusion, amnesia and other artificially created psychological conditions.

The ultimate objective extended far beyond studying human behavior.

West envisioned techniques that could extract information from unwilling subjects, implant false memories and alter the beliefs, attitudes and loyalties of individuals who had previously remained resistant to interrogation or manipulation.

Read more

The blueprint also revealed how carefully the operation was designed to remain invisible. Funding would be disguised, institutional links concealed and even many of West’s scientific and military colleagues kept unaware of the true nature of the research.

According to O’Neill, Gottlieb responded enthusiastically.

If the correspondence accurately reflected the CIA’s ambitions, it suggested that MKULTRA was never merely a loose collection of bizarre experiments. It was an organized effort to develop practical methods of psychological control while shielding the entire enterprise from public scrutiny.

The case that should never have happened

For O’Neill, Jimmy Shaver’s aforementioned case illustrates those ambitions more vividly than any surviving document.

An extraordinary crime unfolded just one year after Gottlieb approved West’s proposals. Before the murder, Shaver had been undergoing experimental treatment for severe migraines at the Air Force hospital where West headed psychiatric services.

West himself later appeared as the court-appointed psychiatric expert during the proceedings.

Shaver was convicted and sentenced to death. Until his execution in 1958, however, he maintained that he had absolutely no memory of committing the crime for which he had been condemned.

O’Neill does not present the case as definitive proof of CIA mind control. Rather, he argues that the extraordinary overlap between Shaver’s unexplained behavior, his treatment under West’s supervision and the psychiatrist’s own proposals for inducing amnesia and altered mental states demands far closer scrutiny than it has ever received.

For him, the case raises the same uncomfortable possibility that has shadowed MKULTRA for decades: that some of the program’s most consequential experiments may never have been acknowledged, let alone investigated.

That is precisely why, O’Neill concluded, Congress should resist accepting the historical record at face value.

“Nearly fifty years ago, another committee investigating MKULTRA believed it had been told the truth about the program,” he told lawmakers. “It had not.”

Instead, he urged the task force to undertake “a thorough reexamination of what this program accomplished, what Congress was told, and what may still remain hidden.”

A trail deliberately erased

If O’Neill challenged Congress to reconsider what MKULTRA achieved, journalist and historian Stephen Kinzer focused on a different question: why so much of the program remains unknowable.

Read more

Kinzer is author of Poisoner in Chief, widely regarded as the definitive biography of Sidney Gottlieb. He told lawmakers that even after years of research, he believes only a fraction of the story has been uncovered.

“I am painfully aware that I have discovered only a small portion of what Gottlieb did and what MKULTRA was,” he said. At the heart of the project, Kinzer argued, was an ambition far more radical than simply improving interrogation techniques.

In its quest to “implant a new mind into someone’s brain,” the CIA first sought to “destroy the mind that was there already.” To pursue that objective, MKULTRA experiments spread across prisons, psychiatric hospitals, universities, brothels and CIA safe houses. By any modern standard, Kinzer argued, many of those experiments amounted to medical torture.

The victims, he noted, occupied a special category inside the CIA. “They were called expendables,” Kinzer said – “human beings who would not be missed if they disappeared.”

According to Kinzer, Gottlieb effectively operated with “what amounted to a license to kill.” Even today, no one knows how many people were subjected to MKULTRA experiments, nor how many died as a result.

Yet Kinzer argued that focusing solely on Gottlieb risks misunderstanding how the program actually functioned.

The CIA’s senior leadership, he said, deliberately gave Gottlieb extraordinary freedom while maintaining enough distance to later deny institutional responsibility.

“This was a way for the CIA to deny its institutional role in MKULTRA,” Kinzer argued, “and to portray it misleadingly as the product of one man’s sadism or excessive zeal.”

If that strategy succeeded, it was only because another decision made the historical record even harder to reconstruct.

As public scrutiny intensified during the 1970s, Gottlieb and his superior, CIA Director Richard Helms, ordered virtually all MKULTRA files destroyed.

For decades, that decision has been treated as the moment the trail went cold.

Read more

Kinzer believes it did not.

Despite the destruction order, thousands of previously overlooked MKULTRA documents were later discovered hidden among the CIA’s financial records by an agency analyst.

“That same diligence could bring results today,” he told lawmakers.

For Kinzer, the surviving files suggest that historians may still know only a fraction of what remains buried inside the agency’s vast archives.

The death that still haunts MKULTRA

If Congress decides to press further, Kinzer suggested, one of the first places to begin would be the mysterious death of Frank Olson.

Officially, Olson was an Army scientist who committed suicide by jumping from the window of a New York hotel in November 1953.

In reality, Kinzer reminded lawmakers, Olson was secretly working for the CIA and had become deeply involved in MKULTRA. Shortly before his death, Olson had reportedly expressed growing moral reservations about the program and indicated that he wanted to leave it. His death has remained controversial ever since. “Evidence suggests that his death may not have been a suicide,” Kinzer said.

If undisclosed CIA records still exist, he argued, they could finally clarify one of the agency’s most enduring Cold War mysteries.

But Olson’s case is important for another reason. Rather than viewing it solely as an unresolved historical episode, Kinzer urged lawmakers to ask a broader – and potentially more unsettling – question.

Read more

Was MKULTRA truly buried with the Cold War?

Or did it simply evolve into something else?

Did MKULTRA really end?

MKULTRA officially came to an end in 1963, after years of secret experimentation failed to produce the breakthrough its architects had sought.

Sidney Gottlieb himself ultimately concluded that “there is no such thing as mind control.”

Kinzer does not dismiss that assessment. Instead, he argues that it reflected the technological limits of its time. “Even if he was right,” Kinzer told lawmakers, “he may have been right only at that time.”

Since MKULTRA’s closure, neuroscience, cyber technology and artificial intelligence have advanced in ways Gottlieb could scarcely have imagined.

Those developments, Kinzer argued, raise an uncomfortable possibility. Rather than asking only what MKULTRA accomplished during the Cold War, Congress should also consider whether the technologies available to intelligence agencies today have reopened questions the CIA failed to answer decades ago.

“Covert agencies may have access to tools for mind control that Sidney Gottlieb could not have imagined,” Kinzer warned.

He urged the task force to consider whether “some new incarnation of MKULTRA exists today.”

For Kinzer, revisiting the history of the program is therefore about more than establishing the historical record.

“It has a chance to connect the past to the future,” he said. “It could help prevent the emergence of a 21st-century MKULTRA that could be even more destructive than the original.”

One last chance

Whether Congress succeeds where previous investigations failed remains an open question.

Chair Anna Paulina Luna closed the hearing by arguing that lawmakers have “a constitutional obligation to ensure the CIA never does this again.”

She also revealed that she had recently visited CIA headquarters in Langley, where officials told her previously unseen MKULTRA records are currently being prepared for declassification.

That disclosure may prove to be the hearing’s most significant outcome.

Nearly fifty years ago, Congress also promised victims and their families that the full truth about MKULTRA would finally come to light. Those promises were never fulfilled.

Today’s task force has pledged to finish what its predecessors began.

Whether it succeeds may ultimately depend on a simple question: how much of the story still remains locked inside the CIA’s archives.

The European Union has abandoned its historic focus on trade and begun to increasingly define itself in terms of its military and geopolitical priorities, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl told RT in an interview on Saturday.

She made the remark days after Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Kiev and the “so-called European pseudo-peacekeepers” of seeking to prolong the conflict. He said their goal was “not peace, but the continuation of the war with Russia to the last Ukrainian.”

Speaking on Friday after visiting an auxiliary command post alongside top military commanders, Putin said Ukraine’s European backers were openly encouraging attacks on civilian targets, including infrastructure, transport, and student dormitories.

Last week, Brussels transferred €3.9 billion ($4.44 billion) to Ukraine under a €90 billion loan package that allocates €30 billion for budget support and €60 billion for defense in 2026-2027. The latest tranche is expected to finance drone procurement, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Read more

Earlier this week, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that the Baltic states have provided air corridors for Ukrainian drones that have attacked civilian infrastructure in northwestern Russia.

“European integration has been moving from let’s trade with each other to let’s go to war,” the former diplomat said, stressing that the bloc had increasingly embraced a geopolitical and defense agenda instead of its usual focus on trade.

Kneissl pointed to the creation of an EU defense commissioner, whom she described as “a commissioner for war.”

“Europe was always about trade,” she said, reiterating that von der Leyen had established a geopolitical commission in 2019.

“We Europeans do not have the power to project force and have never really been able to define some sort of values with which some of us don’t agree,” the former diplomat continued, having expressed doubts that “this geopolitical commission will work.”

Watch the full interview below:

The nations of Europe have been degraded to the status of Third World countries due to their failed immigration policies, US President Donald Trump has said.

Trump took a step back from celebrations commemorating the 250th anniversary of the signing of the US Declaration of Independence to take another jab at Washington’s supposed allies in the EU and UK.

“Europe is learning that when you take in Third World criminals, you become a Third World Country. It happens quickly, in just a blink of the eye,” the president wrote in a post on X on Saturday, July 4.

Trump also implied that his tougher stance on immigration has spared America the same outcome. “I was elected just in time!!!” he said.

Despite the number of asylum-seekers arriving in the EU subsiding since the 2015 migration crisis, the foreign-born population in the bloc reached a record 64.2 million last year, expanding by 20.2 million since 2010, according to a report by the Center for Research and Analysis on Migration at RFBerlin.

Read more

Also on Saturday, US President J.D. Vance gave an interview to the Sunday Times, saying “something is very broken about British politics,” and “people are really crying out for significant structural change.”

Vance was commenting on the recent resignation of Keir Starmer, who became the sixth British prime minister to leave the post in the space of just a decade. The UK has “been failed by its leadership for a long time” and “can do a lot more than it’s currently doing,” he stressed.

Last week, Trump warned the EU countries that he will impose a 100% tariff on all goods they send to America if the bloc moves forward with increasing taxes on digital services provided by American tech companies.

In late June, the US president also told NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte that he was “disappointed with most” of the bloc’s European members.

“I just want loyalty... In Germany, we have 50,000 troops. And then you want a little – give us a little nudge, give us a little kiss. We don’t want much. And they say, ‘No, we can’t do it,’” he said.

READ MORE: Germany rejects Trump’s demand for loyalty

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius responded to Trump earlier this week, claiming that “NATO’s concept is not one of blind obedience, but rather… a spirit free in deliberation.” The decisions within the bloc are made “by free consensus of all member states and without being dictated by individual member states,” he told Der Spiegel.

It’s not every day that an EU member state has the opportunity to push back in favor of freedom. At least not without elections. But a German court did have that chance – and promptly blew it on behalf of European citizens everywhere.

Back in 2022 when the Ukraine war was ramping up, the European Commission made an executive order banning Russian media broadcasting in the EU. Meaning that you couldn’t – and still can’t – access RT from within the EU, either on TV or on the web, without a VPN.

So some folks running a website in Saarbrucken, Germany, near the French border, started including some RT videos in their live feed. They reportedly did this exactly four times, back in 2023. Whoop-dee-do, right?

Wrong. This is the EUSSR we’re talking about, remember?

For this, the accused ended up facing criminal prosecution in Germany for promoting some EU-sanctioned RT Germany content. But it turns out that even the German court in Saarbrucken considering this case had doubts as to whether these guys and their website actually fit the definition of an “operator” under the EU sanction’s language that “prohibits any operator from broadcasting, enabling, facilitating or otherwise contributing to broadcast, any” Russian media content. So the German court referred the question to the European Court of Justice tasked with interpreting and clarifying EU regulations and laws.

Read more

Wrong question, guys. Why didn’t you start with asking the ECJ whether the regulation itself, made unilaterally by the EU’s unelected and unaccountable executive branch, is even valid at all under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Article 11 protecting freedom of expression? The fact that the question wasn’t put to the European court by the German one has spawned a judgment that’s stunning in its failure to interpret the application of any free speech restrictions narrowly enough to avoid the disproportionate limiting of free expression.

The German court missed the forest for the trees and got down into the weeds and all hung up on the comparatively minor issue of whether the website could be considered an “operator” without being a commercial entity. Which the European court then used as a prelude to launch a sweeping McCarthyist “reds under the bed”-style tirade.

“The term ‘disinformation’ is a translation of the Russian word ‘дезинформация’ (dezinformatsiya), coined in the early 1920s by the Soviet intelligence services. Joseph Stalin is credited as being the originator of that term, deliberately making it sound French in order to make it seem Western in origin and thereby enhance its credibility,” wrote the EU court, self-identifying as a history professor. How about if I take that as an open invitation to self-identify as a judge in my capacity as a final-year law student?

The ECJ ultimately ruled that commercialism is irrelevant when the website solicits donations, and had raised over €60,000 within a period of a year. It basically said, look, any commercial nature of the platform risks being a false dichotomy, because who’s to say that the sanctioned entities themselves wouldn’t be paying these independent outlets through donations to promote their banned content: ”Even though, for the purposes of classification as an ‘operator’, no economic activity or income generation is necessary, the context of an appeal for donations enabling such sums to be collected warrants some comment. The fact that some websites are financed by donations rather than by a registered commercial activity justifies increased vigilance as to their possible use as a tool for propaganda purposes, in particular in the case of State-sponsored disinformation campaigns,” the European court ruled. “That lack of clarity makes it more difficult to identify financial flows and, therefore, the actors likely to influence editorial policy or content. It thus creates an environment conducive to interference by external interests, including by third countries, which may intervene directly or indirectly in the production or broadcasting of content.”

Read more

Isn’t it the prosecution’s job to present actual evidence and proof of influence through the powerful state-backed legal instruments at its disposal? Shouldn’t the ECJ’s definition of “operator,” if it leans so heavily on the risk of foreign corruption, therefore hinge on whether actual collusion has first been established beyond any reasonable doubt? The ECJ sounds shockingly blasé here about the basic burden of proof for criminal conviction.

This court case had been stayed, or suspended, in Germany pending the ruling by this European Court of Justice. But now it’s free to convict these guys of promoting banned Russian content, under the pretext that just maybe they’re not-so-independent media that schemed on the down-low to distribute Russian media content – something that a lot of people have been doing all over social media of their own volition.

Ultimately, what the buzz around this case effectively does is put a chilling effect on that sharing, and it also risks making people self-censor out of fear of being dragged into court for a judicial proctology exam and having their lives potentially ruined in the press over accusations of Russian collusion. What if these guys (and others) just happen to agree with some of the views expressed on banned Russian media? Who’s going to protect their honestly-held views from establishment authoritarianism?

Hang on, here’s a volunteer for the task.

Read more

“Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of democracy. And the EU protects what matters, including the right to receive independent, reliable information. The European Media Freedom Act helps keep journalists and sources safe, strengthens editorial independence and protects media organizations from undue interference or legal intimidation. Today, on World Press Freedom Day, we reaffirm our duty to support and protect journalists so they can do their work free from pressure, intimidation, or harm,” says unelected European Commission President and de facto Queen Ursula von der Leyen.

Oh, great. So the same people who censor speech are also its self-appointed defenders. Like an arsonist who goes running around setting fires but also works as a firefighter as their day job.

What’s clear from all this is that EU regulation may look precise on paper, but enforcement isn’t so straightforward. When even member state courts require an official interpretation, then how is the average person supposed to avoid running afoul of the law? The result ends up being less about what’s actually banned and more about what merely feels safe to touch. Not exactly the kind of vibe that one tends to aim for in a democracy.

A military-grade aerial drone has been discovered washed ashore on a beach on the Black Sea Coast of Türkiye, Ihlas News Agency (IHA) has reported.

The UAV was spotted by local residents in the Filyos district of Zonguldak province, who called emergency services, the agency said in an article on Sunday.

The area was swiftly cordoned off by police, and bomb disposal experts were deployed over concerns that the drone could be carrying explosives, it added.

The initial assessment suggested that it was a military UAV, but a more thorough technical examination will be required to determine its country of origin, according to IHA.

The Turkish authorities haven’t yet commented on the discovery of the UAV, which is the second in less than a week.

Zonguldak'ın Çaycuma ilçesine bağlı Filyos beldesinde, askeri amaçlı olduğu değerlendirilen bir insansız hava aracı (İHA) sahile vurdu. pic.twitter.com/p0w7PC1JzQ

— Tapınakçı (@Mr_Tapinakci) July 5, 2026

On Wednesday, a drone carrying 5kg of explosives went down in northeastern Trabzon province, IHA reported. Investigators determined that the aircraft was of Ukrainian origin, the agency said, adding that local residents experienced a brief panic before the crash site was secured.

Read more

There were at least three UAV incidents in the country last month. In late June, a fixed-wing drone hit the ground in Türkiye’s Kastamonu province, while another one was found in Samsun province. Just over a week before that, a drone crash-landed on a beach in Bartin province.

In late March, the Turkish government said that they are closely monitoring the risks posed by drones in the Black Sea. According to Ankara, it maintains “contact with the relevant parties to prevent the war from spreading… and to prevent further escalation.”

Kiev has ramped up its long-range UAV attacks on energy infrastructure and civilian targets inside Russia amid continued setbacks on the battlefield in recent months.

There have been a number of incidents of explosive-laden drones, flying towards Russia’s northwestern Leningrad Region, crashing in NATO member states – Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland.

READ MORE: Baltic states enabled Ukrainian drone attacks – Moscow

Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu has warned previously that if it turns out that the Baltic states and Finland “deliberately provide their airspace” to Ukrainian UAVs, Moscow has the right to self-defense in response to an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

North Korea has tested a strategic cruise missile and other weapon systems aboard its newest naval destroyer, KCNA state news agency reported Sunday. The country’s leader Kim Jong-un reportedly observed the launch and evaluations of the vessel’s combat systems.

Conducted on July 3 aboard the newly built 5,000-ton warship Kang Kon, the tests reportedly assessed the vessel’s target detection and information processing capabilities, integrated firepower system, naval guns, automatic cannons, and electronic warfare equipment as part of its performance evaluation.

The news agency cited Kim as hailing the reliability and combat effectiveness of the destroyer’s weapon systems.

The North Korean leader reportedly noted that recent advances in domestic weapons development demonstrated the potential of the country’s naval combat systems to strengthen military readiness for strategic operations.

Kim also outlined further plans for developing additional surface and underwater combat systems and deploying them in operational waters, according to the report.

He called for continued efforts to expand North Korea’s war deterrence and war-fighting capabilities, KCNA noted.

The country’s leader ordered officials to complete the destroyer’s testing program and commission the vessel into the navy within two months, according to the report.

Kim reportedly convened a consultative meeting later in the day on the development of the country’s shipbuilding industry.

In June, Pyongyang commissioned the 5,000-ton destroyer Choe Hyon and announced plans to deploy the Kang Kon, a vessel of the same class, as part of North Korea’s broader naval modernization drive.

He also revealed plans to follow the current destroyer program with a new class of 10,000-ton strategic surface combatants.

Israel has no intention of leaving Lebanon. At least, it won’t do so now and on terms that would suit Beirut (not to mention Hezbollah and Tehran). Moreover, in parallel with the Lebanese campaign, West Jerusalem is reactivating operations in Syria: Israeli forces launched an artillery strike on the village of Abidin in the western part of Syria’s Daraa Governorate, and, according to regional sources, Israeli aircraft conducted flights over the rural areas of Daraa and Quneitra governorates  near the Golan Heights.

At first glance, it appears that yet another breakthrough has occurred on the Lebanese front. The US, Israel, and Lebanon signed a trilateral framework agreement in Washington (although three agreements have already been reached in the past two months). US Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented it as a step toward the restoration of Lebanon’s sovereignty, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the dismantling of its infrastructure. But upon careful examination of the agreement, it becomes clear that it cannot ensure lasting peace; it only creates a diplomatic pause during which each side will attempt to consolidate its own position.

This is a ‘framework’ agreement – and that says it all. It’s not a full-fledged peace treaty or a final settlement, but a set of principles that have yet to be transformed into a working mechanism. The agreement provides for the gradual restoration of control over the Lebanese army, the start of Hezbollah’s disarmament, and the eventual withdrawal of Israeli troops after the elimination of the threat to Israel. In other words, Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon is not immediate and unconditional, but is tied to a condition that is nearly impossible to fulfill quickly.

This is the crux of the matter. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly stated that Israel will not leave southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah remains armed and poses a threat. This effectively means that Israel’s presence is not a temporary measure, but a permanent instrument of pressure. As long as Hezbollah exists, Israel remains in Lebanon; but as long as Israel remains, Hezbollah has a reason not to disarm. It becomes a vicious circle, in which each side justifies its actions by the actions of the other.

Lebanon finds itself in the most difficult position. Formally, Beirut has committed itself to regaining control over southern Lebanon. But Hezbollah is not simply an armed group that can be disarmed by administrative action. It is an independent military-political force that is firmly integrated into the Lebanese system; it has a social base, infrastructure, and external support. Therefore, the demand to disarm Hezbollah may sound good on paper, but in practice, instead of a peace mechanism it could become a pretext for a new internal crisis.

It is no coincidence that Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri, a staunch Hezbollah ally, has already criticized the agreement and stated that it will not be implemented. As expected, Hezbollah rejected the agreement, perceiving it as a form of capitulation. This is the biggest problem: the agreement was signed by three nations, but the main armed player – Hezbollah – which is directly responsible for stabilizing the situation in southern Lebanon, is not a party to the agreement. 

At the same time, Israel is reopening the Syrian front. The attack on Abidin in Daraa Governorate is not a random incident. Southern Syria, Daraa, Quneitra, and the area near the Golan Heights have long been perceived by Israel as a potential threat. Following the weakening of the Syrian state and the shift in the regional balance of power, Israel has changed its defense strategy and is actively forming buffer zones around its borders. West Jerusalem explains its role in maintaining a security zone in southern Syria by the need to prevent attacks by armed groups.

This is why Syria is again becoming part of Israel’s overall strategy. Israel demonstrates that if it is forced to make concessions in Lebanon, it can still  expand pressure along other perimeters – through Syria, the Golan Heights, Daraa, and Quneitra. This is a signal not only to Damascus, but also to Tehran and Hezbollah: Israel will not wait for the threat to fully materialize; it will act preemptively. 

The ultimate goal of all these maneuvers in Lebanon and Syria is to ‘squeeze’ Iran. Having failed to achieve its objectives in 2025 and in the spring of 2026, Israel wants to take revenge presently. According to Tehran, the signed US-Iran memorandum specifically mentions the cessation of military operations, including in Lebanon, and the parties’ commitment to respect Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. For Tehran, this is an attempt to include Lebanon in a broader bargaining process with Washington and to demonstrate that the stabilization of the region is impossible without taking Iranian influence into account.

The situation is complex: The US attempts to portray the agreement as a diplomatic success even though the sides continue to exchange blows and the ceasefire could come to an end at any moment; Israel is given the chance to maintain a military presence in Lebanon until its conditions are fully met; Lebanon receives the promise of restored sovereignty – but with no means of immediate control over Hezbollah, this becomes largely impossible. Meanwhile, Iran attempts to integrate the Lebanese issue into its dialogue with Washington; and Syria is becoming an additional pressure point, playing the role of a ‘whipping boy’.

In such circumstances, peace remains elusive. This is merely a managed tactical pause before the next round of war. Israel will not leave Lebanon because the threat of Hezbollah persists; Hezbollah will not disarm because Israel remains; and Lebanon cannot fully control the south because state institutions are weaker than the Hezbollah movement on the ground. Apparently, the US is trying to freeze the conflict without resolving its main contradiction.

The strike on Abidin, Syria, shows that Israel is not thinking solely in terms of the Lebanese front. It is building a broader security belt from southern Lebanon to southern Syria. And while US President Donald Trump is telling the world about agreements, a completely different reality is taking shape on the ground: a reality of buffer zones, artillery strikes, air patrols, and the constant expectation of a new round of escalation. 

Even if we assume that Trump genuinely seeks to end the war and reach a peace agreement with Iran, including in the context of the Lebanon crisis, he will find this extremely difficult to achieve; the stakes are too high, and in many ways, he was the one who raised them. Therefore, the framework agreement looks less like the beginning of peace and more like an attempt to legally formalize a temporary balance of power. And the longer this temporary balance is presented as a peace settlement, the greater the likelihood that Lebanon will once again become the arena of a major war and a bargaining chip in the struggle between the opposing sides.

The parliamentary opposition in Poland has demanded answers from the government of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk after reports of a secret delivery of in-demand Patriot air defense missiles to Ukraine.

On Saturday, several Polish social media accounts, including prominent blogger Pawel Sokala, claimed that the authorities in Warsaw had handed over a batch of US-made PAC3 interceptors to Kiev in March without announcing it publicly or consulting with parliament.

The critical shortage of Patriot missiles due to their heavy use in the Ukraine conflict and the American-Israeli war against Iran had forced Washington to delay the contracted shipments of the interceptors to some of its allies in Europe and Asia in recent months. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Pentagon has exhausted almost 50% of its stockpile of Patriots since the attack on Tehran in late February.

Read more

The deputy speaker of the Polish parliament, Krzysztof Bosak, who leads the right-wing Confederation of Freedom and Independence party, described reports of the government keeping the lawmakers in the dark about the handover of the US-made missiles to Ukraine as “very disturbing information.”

“We desperately need them for our air defense system,” he said, claiming that the Patriots are the only type of munitions capable of shooting down the Russian Iskander missiles stationed in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad.

“We must pass a law prohibiting the transfer of any Polish weapons abroad without parliamentary consent,” Bosak insisted.

Moscow has repeatedly called speculations that it is planning to attack Western European countries “nonsense,” aimed at scaring domestic audiences and justifying increased defense spending. The Iskanders have been deployed in Kaliningrad for defensive purposes in response to NATO’s expansion, according to the Russian authorities.

Read more

Former Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak from the Law and Justice party said in a post on X on Saturday the alleged shipment of Patriots to Kiev “sounds like an action completely contrary to the basic duty of the authorities, namely ensuring the safety of their own citizens.”

Blaszczak insisted that Tusk’s government must answer if the delivery did happen and if Poland’s overall position in the queue for receiving the interceptors from the US has somehow been affected by it.

Warsaw has been one of the staunchest supporters of Kiev during its conflict with Moscow, but relations between the neighboring countries soured in recent weeks after Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky named a special-forces unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which was responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles during the Second World War.

Earlier this week, Poland announced that it will not transfer its remaining Soviet-era MiG-29 jets to Ukraine, while also warning that Kiev will have problems with joining the EU if it continues to honor nationalists involved in crimes against the Polish people.

US President Donald Trump has taken the stage in Washington, DC, to deliver his Freedom 250 address after a storm threat forced a chaotic evacuation of the National Mall and left many attendees unable to get back through security in time for the speech.

Thousands had gathered near the Washington Monument on Saturday for the “Salute to America” celebration marking 250 years since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

The event was billed as the centerpiece of the country’s Independence Day festivities, with military flyovers, live performances, a presidential address, and what organizers described as the largest fireworks display in history.

“There’s no way we can be deterred,” Trump told the cheering crowd, recalling that he had told organizers and security officials that “if we have to speak in front of one person at 4 o’clock in the morning, I’m going to be here.”

The program was thrown into disarray after severe thunderstorms moved toward the US capital, prompting security officials to order crowds off the Mall and into nearby buildings, museums, Metro stations, and other shelters. Videos shared online showed attendees streaming away from the stage area as the evacuation order triggered confusion across the heavily secured zone.

CHAOS on the National Mall rn as visitors for tonight’s Independence Day celebration are running back to the mall to keep their seats despite Secret Service telling everyone to leave due to incoming thunderstorms. pic.twitter.com/SChmoOoY5Z

— Mike Carter (@MikeCarterTV) July 5, 2026

Many people were forced into crowded buildings to wait out the storm, while others reportedly remained outside despite lightning, strong winds, and repeated warnings. Security screenings were suspended during the evacuation, and the process of reopening checkpoints left many attendees stuck in lines or unable to return to the main viewing area before Trump began speaking.

NOW: National Guard Troops are FLIPPING picnic tables on the National Mall as Motorcycle Police instruct the crowd to Evacuate the Great American State Fair

Video by @noturtlesoup17 | Licensing @FreedomNTV desk@freedomnews.tv pic.twitter.com/pEhfOCwKAD

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) July 5, 2026

Several planned elements, including some military flyovers, were reportedly delayed or canceled because of the weather. The disruption followed a day of extreme heat in Washington, with temperatures climbing above 100F. The city’s Independence Day parade was canceled earlier in the day, while medics and National Guard personnel were seen assisting overheated attendees and distributing water.

Currently at the National Mall interviewing folks. The crowds are refusing to leave when ordered by Secret Service due to lightning concerns. At one point, there was a stampede towards the stage when the announcer came on asking them to leave again. pic.twitter.com/Tnzj0NynZu

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) July 4, 2026

Trump had vowed earlier in the evening that he would deliver the speech regardless of the storm threat. “We’re going to be there no matter what,” he wrote on Truth Social, urging supporters to return once the weather cleared.

READ MORE: American flag skydiver crashes into beer tent (VIDEO)

The Freedom 250 celebration is part of a broader series of events marking America’s semiquincentennial. The National Mall program drew hundreds of thousands of visitors and culminated in a massive fireworks display over the capital.

US President Donald Trump has taken the stage in Washington, DC, to deliver his Freedom 250 address after a storm threat forced a chaotic evacuation of the National Mall and left many attendees unable to get back through security in time for the speech.

Thousands had gathered near the Washington Monument on Saturday for the “Salute to America” celebration marking 250 years since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

The event was billed as the centerpiece of the country’s Independence Day festivities, with military flyovers, live performances, a presidential address, and what organizers described as the largest fireworks display in history.

The program was thrown into disarray after severe thunderstorms moved toward the US capital, prompting security officials to order crowds off the Mall and into nearby buildings, museums, Metro stations, and other shelters. Videos shared online showed attendees streaming away from the stage area as the evacuation order triggered confusion across the heavily secured zone.

CHAOS on the National Mall rn as visitors for tonight’s Independence Day celebration are running back to the mall to keep their seats despite Secret Service telling everyone to leave due to incoming thunderstorms. pic.twitter.com/SChmoOoY5Z

— Mike Carter (@MikeCarterTV) July 5, 2026

Many people were forced into crowded buildings to wait out the storm, while others reportedly remained outside despite lightning, strong winds, and repeated warnings. Security screenings were suspended during the evacuation, and the process of reopening checkpoints left many attendees stuck in lines or unable to return to the main viewing area before Trump began speaking.

NOW: National Guard Troops are FLIPPING picnic tables on the National Mall as Motorcycle Police instruct the crowd to Evacuate the Great American State Fair

Video by @noturtlesoup17 | Licensing @FreedomNTV desk@freedomnews.tv pic.twitter.com/pEhfOCwKAD

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) July 5, 2026

Several planned elements, including some military flyovers, were reportedly delayed or canceled because of the weather. The disruption followed a day of extreme heat in Washington, with temperatures climbing above 100F. The city’s Independence Day parade was canceled earlier in the day, while medics and National Guard personnel were seen assisting overheated attendees and distributing water.

Currently at the National Mall interviewing folks. The crowds are refusing to leave when ordered by Secret Service due to lightning concerns. At one point, there was a stampede towards the stage when the announcer came on asking them to leave again. pic.twitter.com/Tnzj0NynZu

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) July 4, 2026

Trump had vowed earlier in the evening that he would deliver the speech regardless of the storm threat. “We’re going to be there no matter what,” he wrote on Truth Social, urging supporters to return once the weather cleared.

READ MORE: American flag skydiver crashes into beer tent (VIDEO)

The Freedom 250 celebration is part of a broader series of events marking America’s semiquincentennial. Organizers said the National Mall program was expected to draw hundreds of thousands of visitors and culminate in a massive fireworks display over the capital.

President Donald Trump called his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to discuss the Ukraine conflict, the situation around Iran, and the prospects for restoring bilateral ties, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said.

The conversation took place on Saturday, as the United States marked the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. According to Ushakov, Putin personally congratulated Trump and the American people on the milestone, after sending a formal message to the White House a day earlier.

The call lasted one hour and 25 minutes, Ushakov said, describing it as “businesslike and highly constructive.”

Ukraine conflict

Putin briefed Trump on what Ushakov described as the real situation on the ground in Ukraine, saying Russian forces were advancing along the entire line of contact and taking “one settlement after another.”

Read more

Putin described the liberation of Konstantinovka, a key Ukrainian stronghold, as an important step toward establishing full control over the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic. The Kremlin aide said Moscow expects the remaining fortified areas still held by Kiev’s forces to be taken as well.

Putin reiterated Moscow’s preference for a political and diplomatic settlement, provided that Russia’s core positions are taken into account. At the same time, he accused Kiev and its European backers of seeking to prolong and escalate the conflict, including through “terrorism against civilians.”

Trump, according to Ushakov, again confirmed his readiness to help bring the hostilities to an end and seek a peaceful settlement. He also argued that ending the Ukraine conflict as soon as possible could unlock “enormous prospects” for mutually beneficial cooperation between Russia and the US, the Kremlin aide said.

Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, will continue mediation efforts and are ready to visit Moscow “at a convenient time,” Ushakov added.

Iran settlement

Read more

The two leaders also discussed the situation around Iran, where a public farewell ceremony is being held for slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Putin expressed hope that the negotiation process based on the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran would help produce mutually acceptable, long-term solutions to key issues, Ushakov said. The Russian president also reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to provide practical assistance to efforts aimed at de-escalation and stabilizing the region.

Trump thanked Russia for what he described as its balanced position and constructive proposals, according to the Kremlin aide.

Bilateral ties

Turning to bilateral ties, the presidents emphasized the importance of continuing contacts, including on military-political and economic issues.

Read more

The leaders also pointed to the upcoming launch of a joint Russian-American crew to the International Space Station from the Baikonur Cosmodrome as a symbolic example of cooperation between the two powers.

The two presidents stressed the importance of preserving the shared pages of Russian-American history. Putin reminded Trump of Russia’s contribution to the emergence of American statehood, while both leaders highlighted the alliance between Moscow and Washington during World War II.

Trump mentioned that he personally admires St. Petersburg’s Hermitage Museum, while Putin wished the US success in hosting the ongoing FIFA World Cup, citing Russia’s own experience as host in 2018.

What’s next?

According to the Kremlin aide, Moscow initiated the previous phone call on June 14, Trump’s 80th birthday, while this time it was the American side that proposed speaking on the day of the 250th anniversary of US independence.

The presidents agreed to remain in contact and hold another call in the near future, according to Ushakov. Putin also reminded Trump that he has a standing invitation to visit Moscow.

US President Donald Trump is set to take the stage in Washington, DC, to deliver his Freedom 250 address after a storm threat forced a chaotic evacuation of the National Mall and left many attendees unable to get back through security in time for the speech.

Thousands had gathered near the Washington Monument on Saturday for the “Salute to America” celebration marking 250 years since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

The event was billed as the centerpiece of the country’s Independence Day festivities, with military flyovers, live performances, a presidential address, and what organizers described as the largest fireworks display in history.

The program was thrown into disarray after severe thunderstorms moved toward the US capital, prompting security officials to order crowds off the Mall and into nearby buildings, museums, Metro stations, and other shelters. Videos shared online showed attendees streaming away from the stage area as the evacuation order triggered confusion across the heavily secured zone.

CHAOS on the National Mall rn as visitors for tonight’s Independence Day celebration are running back to the mall to keep their seats despite Secret Service telling everyone to leave due to incoming thunderstorms. pic.twitter.com/SChmoOoY5Z

— Mike Carter (@MikeCarterTV) July 5, 2026

Many people were forced into crowded buildings to wait out the storm, while others reportedly remained outside despite lightning, strong winds, and repeated warnings. Security screenings were suspended during the evacuation, and the process of reopening checkpoints left many attendees stuck in lines or unable to return to the main viewing area before Trump began speaking.

NOW: National Guard Troops are FLIPPING picnic tables on the National Mall as Motorcycle Police instruct the crowd to Evacuate the Great American State Fair

Video by @noturtlesoup17 | Licensing @FreedomNTV desk@freedomnews.tv pic.twitter.com/pEhfOCwKAD

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) July 5, 2026

Several planned elements, including some military flyovers, were reportedly delayed or canceled because of the weather. The disruption followed a day of extreme heat in Washington, with temperatures climbing above 100F. The city’s Independence Day parade was canceled earlier in the day, while medics and National Guard personnel were seen assisting overheated attendees and distributing water.

Currently at the National Mall interviewing folks. The crowds are refusing to leave when ordered by Secret Service due to lightning concerns. At one point, there was a stampede towards the stage when the announcer came on asking them to leave again. pic.twitter.com/Tnzj0NynZu

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) July 4, 2026

Trump had vowed earlier in the evening that he would deliver the speech regardless of the storm threat. “We’re going to be there no matter what,” he wrote on Truth Social, urging supporters to return once the weather cleared.

READ MORE: American flag skydiver crashes into beer tent (VIDEO)

The Freedom 250 celebration is part of a broader series of events marking America’s semiquincentennial. Organizers said the National Mall program was expected to draw hundreds of thousands of visitors and culminate in a massive fireworks display over the capital.

Thousands of people were ordered to evacuate the National Mall in Washington, DC, on Saturday evening after severe storms threatened to derail President Donald Trump’s Independence Day speech and the country’s 250th anniversary celebrations.

The sudden evacuation came just hours before Trump was expected to address supporters at the “Salute to America 250” event, billed by organizers as one of the largest patriotic displays in US history.

Videos shared online showed crowds streaming away from the area near the Washington Monument, while others appeared to remain near the stage despite warnings from police and security officials. Attendees were urged to seek shelter in nearby museums, federal buildings and Metro stations as dark clouds gathered over the capital.

CHAOS on the National Mall rn as visitors for tonight’s Independence Day celebration are running back to the mall to keep their seats despite Secret Service telling everyone to leave due to incoming thunderstorms. pic.twitter.com/SChmoOoY5Z

— Mike Carter (@MikeCarterTV) July 5, 2026

Security screenings were temporarily suspended, creating confusion over whether people who left would be allowed back in before Trump’s remarks and the planned fireworks show. Some military flyovers and other scheduled elements were also reportedly canceled or delayed because of the weather.

NOW: National Guard Troops are FLIPPING picnic tables on the National Mall as Motorcycle Police instruct the crowd to Evacuate the Great American State Fair

Video by @noturtlesoup17 | Licensing @FreedomNTV desk@freedomnews.tv pic.twitter.com/pEhfOCwKAD

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) July 5, 2026

The event had already been battered by extreme heat. Washington’s Independence Day parade was canceled earlier in the day, while temperatures in the capital were expected to exceed 100F. Similar celebrations in several other East Coast cities were also disrupted by dangerous weather.

Currently at the National Mall interviewing folks. The crowds are refusing to leave when ordered by Secret Service due to lightning concerns. At one point, there was a stampede towards the stage when the announcer came on asking them to leave again. pic.twitter.com/Tnzj0NynZu

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) July 4, 2026

The White House had promoted the National Mall gathering as the centerpiece of a year-long celebration marking 250 years since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. The official program included a full day of performances, ceremonies honoring service members, Trump’s keynote address, and what organizers described as the largest fireworks display in history.

READ MORE: American flag skydiver crashes into beer tent (VIDEO)

Despite the storm warning, Trump was still expected to speak later in the evening, although the schedule remained uncertain.

The constant churn of British prime ministers shows that the UK political system is badly failing the public, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said, warning that ordinary people are “crying out” for real change.

Britain’s problem is bigger than any single leader, as the succession of David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer points to deep dysfunction in a system that is no longer delivering for the public, Vance suggested in an interview with The Sunday Times.

“What I see is six prime ministers in the last few years. What that says to me is that something is very broken about British politics and that people are really crying out for significant structural change,” Vance said. He added that the country has “been failed by its leadership for a long time” and “can do a lot more than it’s currently doing.”

Read more

Starmer announced last month that he would step down as prime minister and Labour leader after less than two years in power, following a revolt inside his own party. Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is widely expected to replace him after winning a by-election in Makerfield.

Vance said he did not know much about Burnham personally, but stressed that Washington would work with whoever leads one of America’s “closest and most important allies.”

The vice president’s comments, published on the 250th anniversary of the US declaration of independence from Britain, come after months of unusually blunt criticism of London from Washington.

Read more

US President Donald Trump recently said Starmer had “failed badly” on migration and energy. Earlier this year, he said Starmer was “not Winston Churchill,” as relations soured over London’s hesitation to support the US-Israeli war with Iran.

Vance was especially outspoken when he condemned the brutal stabbing of British teenager Henry Nowak last month, arguing that it would not have happened had European elites “stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants.” Downing Street responded by accusing foreign politicians of trying to “interfere” in British democracy and “stir up division.”

The vice president rejected the idea that such criticism amounted to hostility toward Britain, insisting that “it comes from a perspective of love and admiration… even though sometimes what we say is provocative.”

READ MORE: Starmer turned UK into ‘authoritarian hellhole’ – George Galloway

Vance made a similar argument at the Munich Security Conference last year, when he accused European governments of opening the “floodgates” to migrants while restricting free speech and hollowing out democratic norms.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump have held a phone call, during which they discussed the Ukraine conflict, the situation around Iran, and the prospects for restoring bilateral ties, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said.

The conversation took place on Saturday, as the United States marked the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. According to Ushakov, Putin personally congratulated Trump and the American people on the milestone, after sending a formal message to the White House a day earlier.

In his congratulatory telegram, Putin expressed confidence that restoring “constructive, equal, and mutually beneficial” ties would serve the interests of both nations and the wider international community, Ushakov said. He noted that Trump had sent Putin a “warm” message on Russia Day on June 12, paying tribute to the country’s “rich history and culture” and the resilience of the Russian people.

The leaders discussed the Ukraine conflict, including in the context of Trump’s planned participation in the NATO summit in Türkiye on July 7-8, Ushakov said. According to the aide, Trump again confirmed his readiness to help bring the hostilities to an end and seek a peaceful settlement.

Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, will continue mediation efforts and are ready to visit Moscow “at a convenient time,” Ushakov added.

Putin reiterated Moscow’s preference for a political and diplomatic settlement, provided that Russia’s core positions are taken into account.

The Russian president also briefed Trump on the battlefield situation, where he said Russian forces were advancing and “liberating one settlement after another.”

Trump, for his part, noted the “enormous prospects” for cooperation between Russia and the US that could open up once the Ukraine conflict is resolved, according to the Kremlin aide.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

German police have deployed pepper spray and batons in a clash with left-wing activists in the city of Erfurt. The demonstrators were attempting to derail a convention of the opposition Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

The right-wing party advocates tougher immigration laws and also opposes Germany’s support for Ukraine, including sanctions against Russia. Speaking late last month, AfD co-chair Alice Weidel called for lifting a ban on Russian oil and gas imports to help revive Germany’s ailing economy.

Worum geht es nochmal in #Erfurt?
(von @chefreporterNRW) pic.twitter.com/gd9PjmXFy6

— ANNA LÜSE (@i_burgerin) July 4, 2026

Founded in 2013, the party came in second with 20% in last February’s federal elections, winning 152 seats in the 630-seat Bundestag. However, the AfD was excluded from coalition talks and government formation as part of a policy known as the ‘firewall’ in German politics.

According to police estimates, approximately 31,000 protesters descended on Erfurt on Saturday, with organizers putting the number at 50,000. Some of the activists set up road barricades, while others glued themselves to railway tracks.

On top of that, Antifa members also attempted to forcibly breach a police cordon surrounding the city exhibition hall, where the AfD convention was taking place. Several AfD delegates, as well as conservative YouTubers filming the rally, were reportedly beaten up by the left-wing radicals. 

So sieht das „Fest der Demokratie“ in Erfurt aus: Unsere Reporter von @apollo_news_de werden von einem Mob gejagt und mit Schlägen, Tritten gegen den Kopf traktiert. Die Kollegen mussten medizinisch versorgt werden. (Foto/Video @BILD ) pic.twitter.com/TKNhImaX8u pic.twitter.com/llHxUssiMM

— Max Roland (@maxroland20) July 4, 2026

During Saturday’s convention, AfD delegates re-elected Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla as party co-chairs.

Speaking to the broadcaster ‘Phoenix’, Weidel said that she sees “no coalition possibilities” with the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) at present.

“Currently, that’s not possible under [Chancellor] Friedrich Merz,” she concluded.

Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD’s lead candidate in Saxony-Anhalt’s elections slated for September, similarly ruled out a coalition with the CDU at the regional level.

“I can’t save Germany with those who have knowingly driven it into the ground for the last 20 or 30 years, in every respect,” he explained, claiming that the Christian Democrats are “sliding further and further to the left.”

According to an ARD-DeutschlandTrend poll published on Thursday, the AfD is Germany’s most popular political party, enjoying the support of 27% of respondents. The CDU, which, together with the Social Democratic Party (SPD), forms the current ruling coalition, is trailing with 22% of the vote, the survey indicated.

Read more

The AfD has been steadily gaining support across Germany in recent months, despite having been slapped with the “confirmed right-wing extremist” label by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) in several regions.

Meanwhile, 84% of Germans are dissatisfied with Chancellor Merz’s performance, including 51% of supporters of his own Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, the poll showed.

The survey comes as Germany’s economy remains largely moribund, with high energy prices rendering local businesses uncompetitive. Despite economic problems, Merz’s government has been actively pouring money into a military buildup, as well as aid for Ukraine, citing a supposed Russian threat.

A week-long funeral for Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has begun in Iran, with thousands of mourners urging the country’s authorities to exact revenge on the US and Israel for his killing.

The burial ceremonies come more than four months after Khamenei was assassinated on February 28 at the very beginning of the latest US-Israeli aggression against Iran. He was killed in a concentrated airstrike on his official residence in Tehran alongside multiple relatives, including his son-in-law, daughter, and 14-month-old granddaughter.

Coffins holding the remains of Khamenei and his family members have been put on display at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque in the Iranian capital, with top officials and foreign dignitaries paying their last respects.

Thousands of mourners gathered outside the mosque, with many seen carrying Iranian national flags, as well as blood-red flags, an important symbol in Shia Islam. The flag, called the ‘Ya la-Tharat al-Husayn’ dates back to the late 7th century, when it was first raised after the Battle of Karbala in a call to avenge the death of Imam Husayn ibn Ali.

Attendees were heard chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” as well as demanding “revenge” on those behind Khamenei’s assassination.

The funeral is set to continue throughout the next week, with an estimated 30 million expected to participate in the mourning of Khamenei in Iran and neighboring Iraq, where more than half the population are Shia Muslims. 

READ MORE: Iran bids farewell to late supreme leader (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)

Khamenei’s body will be transported through at least five cities, with the procession expected to visit multiple Shia shrines along the way, including the Iraqi cities of Karbala and Najaf, which are home to key Shia holy sites. The tour is set to end at the Shia holy city of Mashhad, where the late cleric was born.

July 4 – Independence Day in the US – is a surprisingly popular holiday in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

For example, in Prague, the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to illuminate the historic Cernín Palace in the colors of the American flag until July 5 to commemorate the 250th anniversary of US independence. In Warsaw, iconic government buildings and bridges are often similarly illuminated. In Romania, the entire country’s leadership is set to gather for a reception at the US Embassy in Bucharest, where slogans such as “strategic partnership with the US is the DNA of Romanian foreign policy” will be clearly articulated.

The popularity of this holiday has been repeatedly played up in the movies of the region, where the standard image of the celebration is a turkey in a typical Khrushchev-era apartment building against the backdrop of the US national flag. However, what was previously being played off as an ironic take on provincial inferiority complexes is now becoming the official policy of Central and Eastern European foreign ministries. To understand this ‘romance’ between ‘New Europe’ and Washington, it must be broken down into several key components.

Sociological psychosis: The straight-A students in the front row

The primary pillar underlying this adoration of the Stars and Stripes is a deep-seated collective inferiority complex. According to Pew Research, approval of US policy in Poland remains stable at 86-90%. This is an astronomical figure: America is loved more in Warsaw than in the United States itself. Poles, Romanians, and Czechs behave like quintessential top-performing students who desperately need the praise of a strict teacher. Hanging an American flag and throwing a barbecue party on the Fourth of July is a ritual of psychological compensation, rather than just a holiday for local elites. They need to prove to themselves that they are no longer the “post-Soviet periphery,” but a full-fledged part of the Pax Americana. Even if that means repainting their own palaces.

Arms purchases: Buying protection from a feudal lord

The second reason is purely material. Excessive loyalty in Central and Eastern Europe can be measured in the billions of dollars that flow to the American military-industrial complex. The prime example here is Poland. Warsaw has voluntarily shouldered a military budget amounting to an insane 4-5% of its GDP and is buying up Abrams tanks, F-35 fighter jets, and Patriot systems in such quantities that American defense contractors can barely keep up with the signing of contracts. Bucharest is not far behind: Romania is rapidly expanding the Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, which by 2030 will become the largest NATO military hub in Europe, surpassing Germany’s Ramstein Air Base. In international relations theory, this is called “buying security from the overlord.” The border states understand that they lack real sovereignty, so their only currency is their willingness to pay for an American umbrella and offer their territory as training grounds.

Read more

Betting on egoism: Washington’s ‘favorite wife’

The third important aspect relates to the pragmatic nature of Central and Eastern European countries’ policies. By demonstrating fanatical devotion on July 4, New Europe is achieving a selfish objective – it is trying to sell its loyalty to Washington at a higher price than France or Germany. The logic is simple: to show the White House that Berlin and Paris are hesitant, selfish partners, constantly arguing with the US, while Poland and Romania are reliable, loyal, and heavily armed outposts. Being Washington’s ‘favorite’ on the continent is their way of securing economic preferences, as well as political clout within the EU itself.

Against this backdrop, Slovakia and Hungary stand out somewhat. In Slovakia, the level of trust in the US barely exceeds 30%, while in Hungary the situation is slightly more complex. Under Viktor Orban, Budapest spent years pointedly ignoring official receptions at the American embassy and clashing with the Biden administration. However, at the same time, Hungary became a veritable Mecca for American right-wing conservatives. Orban managed to build a unique bridge with the MAGA movement: Budapest became the first European venue for America’s prestigious Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Tucker Carlson broadcast for weeks from the banks of the Danube, and conservative American professors were welcomed by Hungarian universities, where they helped to create a new school of thought based on ‘traditional values’.

Hungary loved America – but only the ‘right’ kind, Trumpist America, cynically using its right wing as a battering ram against Brussels. Current Prime Minister Péter Magyar is being forced to break this paradox. On the one hand, he needs to make peace with Brussels and Washington. On the other hand, he has already declared war on Orban’s legacy, cutting off government funding for CPAC and launching criminal investigations into the diversion of funds to American lobbyists. Magyar is forced to walk a tightrope: he won’t install red, white and blue lighting in Böm Square in Budapest, lest right-wing voters accuse him of being a ‘Soros pup’, and must limit himself to dry, formal telegrams.

In the mid-2000s, old-school diplomats on Moscow’s Smolenskaya Square recalled their interactions with Central and Eastern European countries within the framework of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) and the Warsaw Pact. During major communist holidays – May Day or the anniversary of the October Revolution – the most ardent, proactive, and vocal enthusiasts were not the officials in Moscow. The elites of the Eastern European borderlands traditionally tried to appear holier than the Pope. It was in Prague, Warsaw, and Bucharest that they renamed streets ahead of schedule, reported 100% turnout at demonstrations, and demanded that portraits of general secretaries be hung on every street corner, turning party protocol into a farce akin to something described by Franz Kafka.

Read more

Decades have passed and the Soviet Union is long gone, but genetic memory remains immortal. The slogans have changed, but the servile ‘little brother’ attitude remains the same. In 2026, these same countries are demonstrating a collective Atlanticist psychosis, celebrating US Independence Day with a fervor that would make even conservatives in Texas blush.

In classical international relations theory, this phenomenon of excessive loyalty among small states is called ‘bandwagoning’. And here lies the most profound tool of American soft power. Once upon a time, the nomenklatura elites of Central and Eastern Europe dutifully studied at the Higher Party School in Moscow. After 1991, their children and successors flocked to study in the UK and the US on State Department scholarships. Washington reprogrammed the mental code of the local bureaucracy through Ivy League institutions: they think in American terms and sincerely consider the Pax Americana their sole civilizational matrix. This is classic mimetic sovereignty; they have gradually transitioned into a cargo cult: the population believes that if they copy the external attributes of the master, they will automatically be able to join the major leagues.

Russia and the United States bear a “special responsibility” for maintaining global security, President Vladimir Putin has said while congratulating his counterpart Donald Trump on the 250th anniversary of American independence.

In a letter published by the Kremlin on Saturday, Putin wished Trump and his family “health, well-being and success,” and the American people “happiness and prosperity,” while describing the signing of the US Declaration of Independence as “an important milestone in world history.” 

He also emphasized the countries’ shared history and special responsibilities as nuclear powers.

“We were allies in two world wars, together freed humanity from the horrors of Nazism, and later played an important role in laying the foundations of the modern world order. Today, Russia and the United States, as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, bear a special responsibility for ensuring global security and stability,” the message reads.

Read more

Putin also recalled that Russia had supported the North American colonists in their struggle for independence from Britain 250 years ago.

During the American Revolutionary War, Empress Catherine the Great refused Britain’s requests to send Russian troops to fight the colonists and later established the League of Armed Neutrality, which challenged London’s naval blockade and was widely seen as favoring the American cause.

Since Trump returned to office last year, Moscow and Washington have renewed high-level contacts after years of strained relations. Putin and Trump met in person last August and have held several phone calls discussing the Ukraine conflict, the Middle East, and broader bilateral ties. However, several outstanding issues, including Ukraine-related sanctions and diplomatic property disputes, have not yet been resolved.