The US and India are not on the cusp of a trade deal despite negotiations nearing completion, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on Thursday following talks with Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal in Milwaukee.

The two sides have identified the remaining sticking points and are working to resolve them, Greer told reporters after the G20 Trade Ministers’ Meeting. “I don’t think there is something imminent,” he said, adding, “We’re in the short strokes” and that negotiations were approaching their final stages. He did not specify which issues remained unresolved.

Greer described his meeting with Goyal as constructive and said officials from both countries were continuing discussions. The Indian minister said the talks focused on concluding an interim agreement under the broader India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA).

The meeting came on the heels of a phone call between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump on Wednesday. The leaders reviewed cooperation in trade, defense, energy, and critical technologies. Greer called their conversation “very constructive” and said the two leaders could speak again soon to assess progress.

India and the US agreed on a framework for an interim trade agreement in February, but subsequent changes in Washington’s tariff policies have prolonged negotiations. The framework envisaged lower Indian tariffs on US industrial and selected agricultural products, alongside tariff relief for certain Indian exports.

Goyal said last week that the pact was almost “done and dusted,” but its implementation depended on India securing competitive tariff treatment relative to rival exporters.

The negotiations are also taking place amid renewed US tariff pressure over India’s Russian oil purchases. Trump signed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act last month, authorizing tariffs of up to 100% on major buyers of Russian energy.

New Delhi has warned that such measures could affect bilateral relations and international energy markets. Greer did not identify Russian oil as one of the remaining obstacles to the trade agreement.

Washington is sending more warships and troops to the Middle East as US President Donald Trump is considering the resumption of large-scale strikes against Iran after the midterms, AP has reported.

Trump told reporters on Thursday that he has “to make a decision: either Iran signs a very fair deal, or it won’t exist any longer.” In a Time magazine interview published the same day, he said that new attacks on the Islamic Republic were “possible” after the US election on November 3, but declined to reveal any further details.

In its article on Thursday, AP said that a third aircraft carrier and some 9,000 additional service members, including 7,000 sailors and 2,000 marines, are currently on their way to the area of the conflict with Iran.

It would increase the US military presence in the Middle East to more than 20,000, which is “an unusually high number,” it stressed.

The forces on the move include the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group, with the cruiser USS Chosin and the USS Makin Island amphibious readiness group, which includes the USS John P. Murtha and USS Anchorage amphibious landing ships, an unnamed American official told the agency.

With the USS George H.W. Bush and the USS George Washington already being deployed, three US aircraft carriers could be in the Middle East simultaneously as early as the end of October, according to the source.

Washington last had as many carriers in the region in April at the height of the American-Israeli missile exchanges with Iran. Before that, it happened back in 2003.

Axios reported on Friday, citing a US official, that it wasn’t yet clear if the USS Theodore Roosevelt would join the two carriers or replace one of them.

Washington also sent two additional Patriot missile batteries to protect oil and gas facilities in Saudi Arabia and Qatar in recent weeks, according to Axios. It was done to make it easier to get permission from Riyadh to use Saudi airspace for possible strikes on Iran, the outlet explained.

When asked by Time if the conflict with Tehran would harm the Republican Party’s chances in the midterms, Trump first acknowledged that “it’s possible,” but then said that “it should help, because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

A poll by AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, which was published on Thursday, suggested that some 70% of Americans disapprove of the war with Iran.

After the initial US-Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic in late February, Trump claimed that the conflict will be over in a few weeks, but it’s still ongoing, with the diplomatic process remaining in a stalemate.

Trump told Time that he rejected Iran’s latest peace proposal, made during the UN General Assembly last week, because “things that I wouldn’t have approved a year ago I wouldn’t have today.”

In September, Iranian Parliament speaker and top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned that further aggressive actions by the US will be met with “faster, heavier and more painful” retaliation by Tehran.

“The Americans have surely understood that the era of proportionate responses has come to an end and our recent strikes against aggressor bases were only a start,” Ghalibaf said.

Reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignored warnings from Egypt and the UAE shortly before the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack should not be assumed to doom him politically, US President Donald Trump has said.

The Israeli leader, whose Likud party is facing a difficult election in late October, has been accused of either failing to properly assess the threat posed by Gaza militants or deliberately allowing the attack to happen in order to justify a major military campaign against the Palestinian enclave.

Trump commented on the allegations and Netanyahu’s record of political survival in an interview with Time magazine published on Thursday.

“People have written off Bibi many, many times, just like they’ve written off me many, many times. I wouldn't underestimate Bibi,” Trump said.

He said his primary concern is “to help them defend Israel,” and suggested that if Netanyahu knew about an imminent attack, “he would have done something about it.”

Netanyahu losing sway in US media

The latest wave of accusations against Netanyahu was triggered by a Haaretz report in early September claiming UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed had warned him that Hamas was preparing a major attack. According to the outlet, Netanyahu downplayed the warning and did not pass it on to his security chiefs. Reports about a separate Egyptian warning date back to the immediate aftermath of the incursion three years ago.

Netanyahu’s office has rejected the claims. The Associated Press reported this week that the Israeli prime minister sought to persuade the UAE leader to publicly deny the story during a surprise visit to the Arab nation over the weekend.

The allegations have become a major political issue in Israel and have also received significant coverage in the US mainstream and international media.

MS Now host Mika Brzezinski said Israel’s border with Gaza was “wide open, the gates were empty” on the day of the attack, arguing that the Israeli government “had practically opened the door” by moving security forces to the West Bank.

“Netanyahu was warned repeatedly that it was coming, and yet he continued funding Hamas through Qatar,” her husband and co-host Joe Scarborough added.

Brzezinski and Scarborough are part of the US media establishment and are consistent pro-Israeli voices on cable television, whose criticisms of Netanyahu indicate he is losing sway in the US.

In August, Netanyahu claimed personal credit for influencing American policy, saying that his nearly 1,000 hours of appearances on American television had helped him shape opinion in Washington and eventually bring the Trump administration around to attacking Iran.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has “very good ideas” for ending the Ukraine conflict and has repeatedly pressed for its peaceful settlement, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Modi has refused to take sides in the conflict, despite pressure from the West to isolate Russia. This neutrality has given India the room to discuss the need for a peaceful end to the conflict with both Moscow and Kiev.

Putin told the annual Valdai Discussion Club meeting on Thursday that Modi raises the Ukraine conflict at every meeting between them, despite their close personal relationship, and has proposed ideas aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions. He thanked Modi for those efforts but did not disclose details of the proposals.

The Russian leader briefed Modi on the ongoing peace initiatives when they met on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in New Delhi last month, where the Indian prime minister reiterated his call for dialogue and diplomacy and said India stood ready to assist peace efforts.

❗️Putin: PM Modi Has Very Good Ideas for Finding Mutually Acceptable Solutions in Ukraine Conflict

‘We are grateful to the Prime Minister for his ideas and for his desire to end the conflict peacefully and as quickly as possible,’ Putin added. pic.twitter.com/o7BvzJ5EP7

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) October 1, 2026

At the earlier Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Modi told Putin, “We need to move from endless war to an end to the war.”

Moscow, too, has welcomed New Delhi’s efforts at peace. Ahead of the BRICS Summit, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia appreciates Indian initiatives to help end the conflict.

In an August interview with Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun, Modi said both Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky had shared their perspectives on the conflict with him. Putin said last week that proposals for a settlement remained on the table, although Moscow would have to assess them against its own interests.

Meanwhile, Washington has proposed a trilateral meeting with Russia and Ukraine in the United Arab Emirates, Zelensky said last week. The proposed talks would take place at a technical level, but a date has yet to be agreed. The Kremlin said such a meeting could take place soon.

For the Global South, energy security is no longer a policy talking point – it is a question of survival. With traditional shipping routes rattled by the Middle East conflict, developing countries are being hit by rising costs, broken supply chains, and shortages they did not create.

At the 81st UN General Assembly in September 2026, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and other leaders from the Global South made that frustration unmistakably clear: poorer nations are being squeezed by a deepening crisis across energy, food, fuel, fertilizer, finance, and logistics.

Nepalese Prime Minister Balen Shah put it starkly: “We have built a world with flawless logistics for war and broken logistics for food. And this is not Nepal’s private misfortune. Ask Bangladesh. Ask Bhutan. Ask India. Ask the Maldives. Ask Pakistan. Ask Sri Lanka. Ask any other country in our region and you will hear the same account: hit by the climate we did not warm, and hit again by the wars we did not start.”

Weeks earlier, on the other side of the world, BRICS leaders gathered in New Delhi had already framed the same problem in strategic terms. Their summit declaration called for stable energy markets, “undisrupted flows of energy from diverse sources,” and stronger protection of critical infrastructure.

Events soon put that ambition under strain. Drone attacks disrupted Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, an important route for moving crude to the Red Sea while bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. With loadings at Yanbu affected, Saudi Arabia began offering more crude to Asian buyers through ship-to-ship transfers off Oman. The episode showed how quickly even an alternative route can become vulnerable.

BRICS now includes some of the world’s biggest oil producers as well as major importers. Yet membership alone does not guarantee access to another member’s oil when supplies tighten. Producers may have other buyers, while prices and transport conditions can change quickly. The grouping has major oil resources. The harder part is making some of those barrels reliably available to members when supply pressures grow.

What Russian trade reveals

Russia is a useful example of how these energy ties can help during a shortage without guaranteeing supply. As Middle Eastern supplies became less reliable, Russian crude helped India make up some of the shortfall. In July, Russia accounted for a record 50.83% of India’s crude imports, showing how quickly buying patterns can change when supply is disrupted. But the increase in Russian supply did not amount to assured access. As Chinese refiners stepped up purchases, competition for Russian barrels intensified.

A separate analysis estimated India’s Russian crude imports falling to 1.87 million barrels a day in August from 2.79 million in July. Even when BRICS opens another source of supply, its members may still be bidding against one another for the same barrels.

Russian oil, however, now faces another constraint. US President Donald Trump earlier this month signed legislation authorizing tariffs of up to 100% on goods from major buyers of Russian energy, potentially including India and China. For major buyers such as India and China, sanctions now add another layer of uncertainty to securing Russian barrels.

Trade has also begun to flow the other way. After repeated Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries contributed to domestic fuel shortages, Russia began importing gasoline from India: according to data from Kpler, Russia’s Murmansk port received 40,000 tonnes of gasoline from Nayara Energy, 49% of which is controlled by Rosneft. By late August, Russian gasoline production had fallen to about 70% of domestic consumption as more refineries were forced to temporarily suspend operations or reduce output.

India’s shift toward more Russian crude, and Moscow’s later purchases of Indian gasoline, were both responses to supply disruptions that had already begun to unfold. They showed how quickly energy flows can adjust when circumstances change. BRICS could try to organize some of that flexibility in advance, rather than leaving its members to scramble for alternatives only after a disruption has started. That would make the group’s energy cooperation less reliant on improvisation.

Making stored oil usable in a crisis

One way to reduce that improvisation is to position oil closer to the buyer before it is urgently needed. India already has one such bilateral example. The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited already have a storage relationship at Mangalore. A May 2026 agreement explores increasing ADNOC crude stored in India to as much as 30 million barrels, including possible new storage at Visakhapatnam and Chandikhol. It also considers Indian strategic crude storage in Fujairah.

The arrangement is bilateral and does not give India a guaranteed right to all the stored crude in a crisis. Even so, it shows that a producer can place oil inside an importing country before a shortage hits. The harder part is agreeing beforehand how much of that oil the buyer could draw on.

One option is a voluntary emergency oil arrangement among interested BRICS members, rather than a common reserve for the entire grouping. Clear ownership is only one part of it. The importing country would also need a defined right to draw an agreed quantity when an emergency occurs. The terms could set how much oil is covered, where it is stored, and how it is priced. They would also spell out who can release it and how the stock is replaced. Refinery compatibility and transport would have to be worked out as well. This would remove some of the uncertainty before markets become even more difficult. India or any other buyer should not be negotiating access after ships have been diverted and prices have already jumped.

India is already working on some of these practical questions outside BRICS. A July India-Japan statement on energy resilience covers stockpiles, emergency response, supplies from third countries, and maritime transport. The India-Japan framework is different, but it shows that many of these operational questions can be worked through in advance. New Delhi therefore does not have to start from scratch. Some of those ideas could now be adapted to voluntary cooperation between BRICS producers and importers.

The test before the next summit

Getting hold of the oil is only part of the problem. The payment also must go through. BRICS finance ministers and central bank governors have already called for better cross-border payment systems. A promised barrel is of little use if the payment cannot be cleared when it is needed. Companies and banks should run payments through the agreed route beforehand and keep a backup ready.

The arrangement should then be put through realistic exercise. The New Delhi Declaration specifically welcomes the work of the BRICS Energy Research Cooperation Platform. There is no need to create another institution. The platform could work with participating oil ministries, national oil companies and storage operators on one or two pilots.

Suppose Hormuz traffic falls further just as a bypass pipeline is damaged and war-risk insurance becomes unavailable. If an importer invokes its agreed right to the oil, how long does it take for the stored crude to reach the refinery? The time it takes would show whether the arrangement is useful in a real emergency.

The New Delhi pledge will matter more if it works when supplies tighten. A member facing a shortage should be able to draw on an agreed volume without having to negotiate the terms again. That is where BRICS can begin to turn its promise of resilient energy flows into something members can use.

French President Emmanuel Macron has rejected what he described as “American free speech” as he defended the EU’s controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), which US officials have branded an instrument of censorship.

Speaking to reporters during a trip to Spain on Wednesday, Macron said he had asked the EU to enforce the DSA “much more extensively, much faster and much more forcefully” to tackle the spread of misinformation.

“So-called American ‘free speech’ – at least as it exists today and has been promoted by some people – is the opposite of free speech,” Macron said, arguing that individual freedoms come with responsibilities and respect for the freedoms of others.

“I know this when I walk down the street: my freedom cannot mean that I am free to hit you, insult you or vandalize the public space that belongs to everyone. Yet that is some people’s idea of ‘free speech,’” he added.

“Until we hold those who disseminate content on social media accountable, we will not be able to regulate it,” the French leader said. “When someone writes something – when a journalist writes something completely false or an editor publishes it – they can be held accountable.”

Adopted in 2022, the DSA requires online platforms such as Facebook, X, TikTok, Google and YouTube to address illegal content, increase transparency around advertising and algorithms, protect minors, and assess and mitigate systemic risks such as disinformation. The largest platforms face additional obligations and can be fined up to 6% of their worldwide annual turnover for violations.

In December 2025, the EU imposed its first fine under the DSA, ordering Elon Musk’s X to pay €120 million ($140 million) for violating the law. Last month, the US government backed X’s appeal, arguing that the bloc had overstepped its authority in targeting an American company.

“We will not tolerate the European Commission engaging in regulatory overreach to try and control American engines of innovation and economic growth,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the US Justice Department’s Civil Division.

US officials have accused the EU of eroding freedom of speech and attempting to silence dissenting voices for political reasons. “The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage,” US Vice President J.D. Vance wrote on X in December.

Last year, the US imposed visa restrictions on European officials and heads of online monitoring groups, including Thierry Breton, the former EU internal market commissioner and a key architect of the DSA. Breton compared the move to McCarthyism, the Cold War-era campaign in the US to purge suspected communists and alleged subversives.

US President Donald Trump has also faced accusations of restricting press freedom. Last month, he barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, accusing them of spreading “fake news.” A federal judge subsequently ordered their access restored, ruling that the outlets were likely to succeed in their claim that the ban was unconstitutional.

The Russian military has targeted a strategic bridge in Kiev in a series of drone strikes, Ukrainian media outlets have reported.

The Pivdennyi Bridge (Southern Bridge), one of Kiev’s main road crossings over the Dnieper River, carries up to 90% of transit road traffic between Ukraine’s left-bank and right-bank regions, Strana.ua reported, citing a local official. It also serves as a key transport corridor for military equipment and other goods being sent to the front, the outlet added.

Russia reportedly hit the bridge in at least three drone attacks on Thursday, with the strikes targeting areas around its supports and roadway. Videos posted on social media showed major explosions at the site, with plumes of thick black smoke rising into the sky.

Initial inspections following the first two strikes found no critical structural damage, and surface traffic was subsequently restored. A later strike, however, damaged a bridge support, guardrail, roadway and the protective concrete structure surrounding the metro line, according to Kiev Mayor Vitali Klitschko. Traffic across the bridge was again suspended.

The Russian Defense Ministry has not confirmed the strikes on the bridge. Moscow has previously said its forces target critical infrastructure and logistics used by the Ukrainian military.

Ukrainian media and officials have been sounding the alarm over Russia’s new jet-powered Geran drones, which fly much faster than earlier propeller-driven models and are more difficult to intercept.

Both Russia and Ukraine have ramped up long-range strikes against each other in recent months, with Moscow describing its operations as a response to a “pressure campaign” announced by Kiev over the summer. The Russian Defense Ministry has said its forces struck port infrastructure, ships carrying military equipment and weapons factories, including facilities producing components for drones and missiles.

Riot police fired tear gas at protesting students in Saint-Denis, a suburb of Paris, amid nationwide strikes that led to nearly 2,000 arrests across France on Thursday.

High school and university students joined striking firefighters, healthcare workers, transport staff and other civil servants, demanding the hiring of more substitute teachers and better learning conditions. They erected makeshift barricades, blockaded schools and universities, and set garbage bins on fire during standoffs with police.

A total of 1,949 people were arrested on Thursday, up from 625 the previous day. Interior Minister Laurent Nunez condemned what he described as “unrestrained violence,” while the ministry reported that 305 police officers and gendarmes were injured.

Tensions en cours à Saint-Denis : face à face entre lycéens et policiers devant le commissariat.

Usage de gaz lacrymogène pour disperser la foule. pic.twitter.com/qrJXq9xKz3

— CLPRESS / Agence de presse (@CLPRESSFR) October 1, 2026

French Education Minister Edouard Geffray said that more than 400 schools would be closed on Friday due to the unrest. He argued that the student movement had been “held hostage by violent groups.”

Mortiers d’artifice contre gaz lacrymogène ce matin aux abords du lycée Diderot dans le 19e arrondissement de Paris pic.twitter.com/6Y5JVe2JB9

— CLPRESS / Agence de presse (@CLPRESSFR) October 1, 2026

Nunez said France’s police watchdog, the General Inspectorate of the National Police, had opened three investigations into incidents in which students were injured. In one case, prosecutors said a young man in Tours sustained head injuries consistent with being struck by a projectile fired from a less-lethal police weapon, according to RFI.

The interior minister, however, defended the overall police response as proportionate.

Aujourd’hui avec les étudiants de Paris 8 on est allés rejoindre les lycéens de Saint-Denis et d’Aubervilliers pour les soutenir face à la répression. La réponse de la police ça a été de nous gazer et nous matraquer, comme ici devant Le Corbusier. 👇 pic.twitter.com/qY4x5QLgQW

— Irène Karalis (@polystirene_) October 1, 2026

In Marseille, protesters attacked firefighters responding to a blaze outside Lycee Saint-Exupéry, looting and setting fire to one of their vehicles. One firefighter was injured.

Protesters also torched a city bus near Lycee La Floride, while several other buses were attacked, prompting authorities to suspend public transport across Marseille.

🔥🇫🇷 ALERTE - Des lycéens ont INCENDIÉ un bus à Marseille. (témoins)pic.twitter.com/F2N7NdwokT

— AlertesInfos (@AlertesInfos) October 1, 2026

The government held a crisis meeting on Thursday, after which the prime minister’s office, citing intelligence services, claimed that the violence had been organized by the left-wing La France Insoumise (France Unbowed, LFI) party and “its far-left proxies.”

🚨🇫🇷Chaos in a Paris suburbs as high school students set their school entrance on fire.

All the students at this school in Saint-Denis are from migrant backgrounds.

Yesterday, police had to use tear gas to disperse the crowd. pic.twitter.com/mHdfoTlgik

— Mario ZNA (@MarioBojic) September 29, 2026

LFI spokesman Manuel Bompard urged the government “not to descend into conspiracy theories or treat high school students like children.”

“This spontaneous movement was born out of frustration with utterly unacceptable educational conditions,” Bompard told AFP.

Jean-Luc Melenchon, LFI’s candidate in next year’s presidential election, called on students to use only nonviolent methods.

The students are demanding more funding for public education, less overloaded timetables and smaller classes. Christelle Kauffmann, deputy secretary general of the SNPDEN-Unsa school administrators’ union, said principals lacked the resources to reduce class sizes.

Speaking to BFM TV, she condemned attacks on school principals, several of whom had been injured during the protests.

Several schools were damaged and vandalized, including Lycee Diderot in Paris, where the facade was blackened by a large fire involving garbage bins and scooters, and Lycee Nelson-Mandela in Nantes, where a deliberately set fire damaged the building.

La façade du lycée Diderot (Paris 19e) noircie après un important incendie de poubelles et de scooters aux alentours de 10h. Retour au calme pic.twitter.com/OCQNKDyrSu

— CLPRESS / Agence de presse (@CLPRESSFR) October 1, 2026

The unrest comes as French President Emmanuel Macron’s popularity has fallen to near-record lows, with recent polls putting his approval or confidence rating at around 16-18%.

Former US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has filed for divorce from her husband of 34 years, Bryon Noem, according to court filings seen by multiple outlets.

The former DHS chief, dubbed ‘ICE Barbie’ online over her glamorous appearance while overseeing US President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration crackdown, filed the divorce papers on Monday in Hamlin County in her home state of South Dakota, citing “irreconcilable differences.”

“Kristi Noem has filed for the dissolution of her marriage to Bryon Noem. She has great faith in the South Dakota judicial system and will reserve any further comments for the legal process,” her attorney told People magazine on Tuesday.

The couple married in 1992 and have three adult children – two daughters and a son.

Bryon Noem reportedly acknowledged receiving the divorce papers on April 8, two days after his wife’s legal team signed the complaint.

Shortly before that, reports emerged that he led a double life as a cross-dressing ‘bimbofication’ fetishist – a subculture centered on exaggerated hyper-feminine, Barbie-like aesthetics. The Daily Mail reported in March that Noem had posted multiple pictures of himself in exaggerated forms of drag online during his wife’s roughly 14-month tenure as DHS secretary. He also reportedly spent at least $25,000 on acquaintances from bimbofication forums.

His online activity could have posed a potential blackmail risk for his wife, national security experts cited by the Daily Mail said.

Just weeks before, Trump had fired Noem as DHS secretary over several mounting controversies. He later appointed her to a diplomatic role focused on security cooperation in the Americas.

Her dismissal came a day after Noem was questioned in Congress about an alleged affair with Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski – claims she dismissed as “tabloid garbage.”

Both controversies erupted at a particularly sensitive time for Noem and the DHS, with the department facing public criticism and intense congressional scrutiny following the fatal shootings of US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents during Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual keynote address and answered audience questions at the Valdai Discussion Club’s international forum outside Moscow on Thursday.

During a more-than-three-hour session moderated by foreign affairs expert and RT contributor Fyodor Lukyanov, Putin spoke on a broad range of topics, including tensions with the West, the Ukraine conflict and artificial intelligence.

A world in turmoil and the emergence of a new global balance

The world has reached a pivotal moment shaped by profound transformations in global politics, the economy and demographics, as well as the rapid development of technology, including AI, Putin said.

“We are confident that, in the long term, as we move away from Western hegemony, the global situation will gradually change for the better – toward a more stable, democratic, and free multipolar international order,” he said.

The risk of new conflicts

Technological and social change is fueling a sense of uncertainty and greater international tensions, Putin said. Governments may seek to preserve stability at home by “exporting instability” abroad, while new opportunities “fuel ambitions” and encourage countries to take greater risks.

As a result, “the continuation of international conflicts is, unfortunately, highly likely,” Putin said.

AI could herald an era of ‘digital totalitarianism’

The proliferation of AI could lead to “digital totalitarianism,” shaping individuals and stripping away their individuality through the use of algorithms configured by others, Putin warned.

“Such digital totalitarianism would be just as much of a dead end – as bleak and inhumane – as the totalitarian societies of the past that we know so well,” he said.

Countries and communities must join forces to find broadly acceptable solutions to the challenges posed by AI and other technologies capable of influencing human behavior, identity and thought, Putin said.

While AI can be a useful tool, any final political decision must remain in human hands, he stressed.

Relations with the West

Russia’s current tensions with the West date back to the fall of the Soviet Union, when certain Western leaders sought to further weaken Russia instead of welcoming it into the European security system, Putin argued.

“Despite the many years – and I want to emphasize this, many years – of attempts by the new Russia to become part of so-called Western civilization, in practice they did everything they could to truly isolate and further break apart the Russian Federation itself,” the president said.

“They still say this at various events and gatherings even today: ‘We need to finish breaking up the empire,’” Putin added.

He pointed to NATO’s eastward expansion, which he claimed violated assurances given to Moscow. Putin further argued that European politicians were using escalatory rhetoric toward Moscow to draw attention away from political and economic problems at home.

No saber-rattling around Kaliningrad

The president reiterated that Russia would respond to any potential attack on its Kaliningrad Region, an exclave on the Baltic Sea sandwiched between NATO members Poland and Lithuania. Any assault on Russian territory would “inevitably” be viewed as grounds for using all the weaponry at Moscow’s disposal, he said.

Putin was referring to recent statements by Western officials, including Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who have argued that NATO should be prepared for a potential conflict involving Kaliningrad.

Nuclear weapons as ‘Chekhov’s gun’

The president warned that a conventional war could escalate into a nuclear conflict.

“Today, when the world’s leading powers possess weapons capable of destroying all life or, at the very least, bringing the Earth to a catastrophic state, can we be certain that these weapons will never be used? Of course not,” Putin said.

Putin compared the risk posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons to “Chekhov’s gun,” a dramatic principle attributed to Russian playwright Anton Chekhov that holds that a gun introduced early in a story should eventually be fired.

”We all know the famous saying: if a gun is hanging on the wall at the beginning of a play, by the end it is bound to go off,” the Russian leader said. “We must bear that in mind and prevent it from happening.”

“If we want to live – and everyone wants to live – then, as I once said in a public speech, let’s live in peace. Let’s work together to find ways to make that happen,” he said.

The Ukraine conflict and Russia’s goals

Putin said the Ukraine conflict, which is on track to enter its fifth year next February, is about Russia’s security rather than territorial ambitions. He reiterated Moscow’s demand that Ukraine abandon its plans to join NATO in favor of permanent neutrality.

Russia is ready to end the conflict, but only on terms acceptable to Moscow, he said.

A massive fire has broken out in a historic apartment block located in St. Petersburg’s city center. Known as the Miller House, the building stands just across the street from the iconic Saint Isaac’s Cathedral.

The blaze that stated on Thursday evening quickly spread through the massive three-storey house. Videos from the scene that surfaced on social media show almost the entire building engulfed in flames, with sprouts of fire coming out of its windows and plumes of thick black smoke rising high into the night sky.

Built in the late 18th century, the Miller House got its name after its late 19th century owner, Colonel Karl Miller. It was known for its ornate interiors of historical and artistic value, including stucco decoration, fireplaces, tilework, and natural wood elements.

Nationalized after the Revolution in 1917, the house served as an apartment block until the 2010s when it was designated as in need of renovation. In 2021, it was added to the regional list of cultural heritage sites.

The repairs and renovation works began this past spring, with the building owners planning to turn it into a luxury apartment block.

According to the emergency services, the blaze engulfed an area of 2,000 square meters. Nearly 40 fire engines and 165 firefighters were deployed to the scene. At some point, the blaze spread to the neighboring residential building, prompting an emergency evacuation.

The regional emergency services announced at around 2am local time that the fire had largely been extinguished.

The fire allegedly caused a roof and floor decks collapse, local media reported, citing eyewitnesses. The witnesses also claimed that the fire spread through the entire building in mere minutes. Police have been deployed to the scene, with the reasons for the incident still being investigated.

The renovation works were “proceeding at full speed,” the company that owns the building told the local media. According to the company’s press service, the work was focused on reinforcing the floor structures, while no construction workers were present at the site when the fire started. “We are looking into the situation and are in constant communication with all relevant authorities,” TAS added. The work was expected to be finished by late 2027.

The European Commission’s attempt to bolster its “digital sovereignty” and reduce reliance on US technology has fallen flat, with its chosen “backup” internal communications app facing sharp criticism from EU officials, Politico has reported.

Dubbed ‘Element Pro’, the new app was described by the Commission as a “sovereign back-up to Teams” – the body’s main communications tool developed by US software giant Microsoft – according to an internal memo seen by the news site. Element Pro was introduced in July to help “ensure… business continuity” in the event of a potential “disruption.”

“In recent months, digital sovereignty has become increasingly important,” the Commission told staff in the memo. “In practice, this means having greater control over our data and systems so that we can reduce risks and limit disruption to our work, wherever possible.”

The app was developed by UK-based company Element Creations, which also has subsidiaries in France, Germany, and the US. The company, founded about a decade ago, advertises itself as a provider of a “digitally sovereign, secure and interoperable communications platform” that enables “mobile messaging, desktop collaboration, voice and video” communications, as well as email, through an “end-to-end encrypted” system. According to Politico, the Commission also hosts the app on its own infrastructure rather than on Microsoft’s cloud.

EU officials who have tried the new app do not consider it of much use, according to the outlet. “I don’t understand the added value here,” one of them reportedly said in internal communications, with another openly calling it “absolute sh*t.”

A third official contacted by Politico stated that Washington would still “instantly win the war” if it decided to cut off the EU from its digital technologies. Some officials reportedly defended the app, saying that it would “guarantee that Microslop will not peek inside.”

Element CEO Matthew Hodgson brushed off the criticism, saying that the app was still in a trial phase with the European Commission and blaming officials’ difficulties on “cognitive dissonance” linked to switching to a new app.

It comes amid broader EU efforts to develop alternatives to major US technology and social media platforms, in what Brussels’ critics describe as digital protectionism. Earlier this year, France announced plans to replace US videoconferencing platforms such as Teams and Zoom with the homegrown Visio app by 2027. The European Payments Initiative is also urging EU authorities to reduce the bloc’s reliance on Visa and Mastercard.

Swedish company W Social unveiled its Europe-focused social network, W, in early 2026 and plans to open it to the public across the bloc by the end of the year. In June, Politico reported that the European Parliament was planning to replace Google with a Franco-German backed search engine as the default tool on in-house computers.

American forces are completing their withdrawal from Iraq, yet the country that Washington once promised to turn into a model of democratic transformation in the Middle East is still facing questions that years of military presence never managed to answer.

For Iraq, this is a long-awaited political milestone, but the end of a foreign military mission does not magically fix the fragmentation of power it created. The consequences of the intervention, sectarian distrust, and competition among armed centers of influence are likely to remain part of Iraq’s political landscape for years to come.

How a military victory turned into a political dead end

Although the US had already fought Iraq in 1991, it was the invasion of March 2003 that marked the beginning of the occupation and the radical restructuring of the Iraqi state. The administration of George W. Bush justified the war primarily by pointing to the alleged threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, yet the supposed stockpiles were never found. Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown with remarkable speed, but building a stable state proved to be a challenge that American military superiority alone could not solve.

The dissolution of the Iraqi army and the sweeping process of purging the influence of Hussein’s Ba’ath party deprived the emerging political system of a substantial number of people who had previously kept the state apparatus functioning. As tens of thousands of professionals, civil servants, and military personnel found themselves excluded from the new order, social resentment merged with armed resistance, while the struggle for power became increasingly sectarian. Hussein’s dictatorship had undoubtedly left behind a deeply troubled legacy, but decisions made under the occupation catalyzed violence as a means of reclaiming lost influence.

At the same time, it would be an oversimplification to attribute all the disasters that followed solely to Washington. Iraqi political leaders who institutionalized the distribution of offices and resources along party and communal lines also contributed to the alienation of significant sections of society, while neighboring states used Baghdad’s weakness to advance their own interests. Yet it was the intervention that dismantled the previous order before institutions capable of preventing the country from fragmenting into competing political and armed networks had taken shape.

The first withdrawal of American forces was completed in 2011, but by 2014 the US had returned at the invitation of the Iraqi government after ISIS seized Mosul and large areas of Iraqi territory. At that stage, American air power, intelligence capabilities and the training of local forces genuinely contributed to turning the course of the war. Denying that contribution would diminish both the role of the international coalition and the importance of the support it provided to Iraq. Even so, the principal burden of the fighting on the ground was carried by Iraqi forces, including the army, counterterrorism units, the Peshmerga and the Popular Mobilization Forces.

The destruction of Islamic State’s territorial rule in Iraq in 2017 was a genuine military achievement, but it did not eliminate the conditions that had previously allowed jihadist forces to establish themselves in the country. If American policy is judged against its promise of creating a stable and secure Iraq, the outcome appears considerably less impressive than one would think from all the declarations of military victory. All Washington did was help suppress a threat its own intervention had helped create.

The regional consequences were equally contradictory, since the removal of one of Tehran’s principal adversaries created new opportunities for Iran to expand its influence inside Iraq. The US invested enormous resources in building a new political order in which the position of its main regional rival ultimately became considerably stronger. This does not mean that Baghdad lost its own political agency, but it demonstrates just how far the actual consequences of the war diverged from the expectations with which Washington had entered it.

Sovereignty begins with bringing armed power under state control

The American withdrawal will inevitably be regarded by part of Iraqi society as the end of a long era of occupation, even though the military presence established after 2014 rested on a different legal and political basis and took place at Baghdad’s invitation. This distinction allows the Iraqi authorities to emphasise their sovereignty without denying that foreign assistance had been necessary at a particular stage.

The far more difficult challenge will be ensuring that decisions of war and peace are genuinely made by the state. The Popular Mobilization Forces, an Iranian-backed paramilitary group, emerged as a broad mobilization structure during the Islamic State offensive in 2014, although some of the organizations that became part of it had existed long before then. The organization was later incorporated into the state system, yet it retained considerable internal diversity, which is why treating the entire Popular Mobilization Forces as a single Iranian-controlled army would be misleading.

This is one of the most difficult contradictions of post-war Iraq. Groups that helped save the state from jihadist forces acquired their own sources of political and economic influence, while some commanders developed an interest in preserving a system under which the state finances armed formations without exercising complete control over their decisions. Disarmament in these conditions affects the position of political parties, access to state revenues and the personal security of individuals who have become accustomed to relying on their own armed networks.

The government of Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is seeking to bring weapons under state control, while Iran-linked armed groups like Kataib Hezbollah are resisting these demands. The deadline imposed by the authorities has met direct opposition from several formations, while arrests of individual militia members have already prompted threats of retaliation.

Against the backdrop of the war between the US, Israel, and Iran, there is ever less space for compromise, since some armed groups view their weapons both as a means of supporting Tehran and as protection against American pressure. Baghdad, meanwhile, risks finding itself caught between Washington’s demands and the expectations of neighboring Iran, a country whose relationship with Iraq cannot be reduced simply to its ties with armed groups.

An attempt to disarm all formations simultaneously could unite against the government commanders whose interests had previously diverged, while endless concessions would merely institutionalize the autonomy of competing armed centers. A gradual process of bringing these forces under a unified chain of command, combined with tighter control over financing and credible guarantees for ordinary fighters, appears more sustainable. Otherwise, organizational rebranding may leave old networks of loyalty intact, while sovereignty remains little more than a political slogan.

New power vacuum

The Iraqi army today possesses experience that it catastrophically lacked in 2014, which is why it would be misleading to assume that the fall of Mosul could simply repeat itself. The number of Islamic State attacks in Iraq fell to a historic low in 2025 as a result of sustained pressure from Iraqi security forces. At the same time, the organization has not disappeared and continues to exploit instability in neighboring Syria.

The low intensity of attacks does not mean the underground networks are gone. The remaining cells of Islamic State, which itself grew out of the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda, continue to pose a real security threat, whereas portraying the two organizations as separate and equally powerful underground movements in contemporary Iraq would distort the actual situation.

The most dangerous scenario would play out if confrontation between the government and armed groups began consuming the resources required for everyday security. If army units were redeployed towards the capital, intelligence services became increasingly focused on internal political opponents and local commanders stopped exchanging information, jihadist networks would gain opportunities to rebuild their supply routes and recruitment mechanisms. They would not need to seize major cities immediately. A sustained series of attacks on roads and in rural areas could already be enough to undermine public confidence in the authorities.

Such a vacuum could emerge in areas where several security structures are formally present but none assumes full responsibility for maintaining order. Territories where political rivalry obstructs cooperation between Baghdad, the Kurdish authorities and local security forces would be particularly vulnerable. If arbitrary measures and collective accusations against local communities were added to this environment, underground groups could once again attempt to present themselves as defenders of those who feel excluded or mistreated.

The central question, therefore, is whether the Iraqi leadership can preserve unity of command, public confidence and effective intelligence work while simultaneously reforming the country’s armed formations. Continued external technical assistance and intelligence sharing could make this task easier, but foreign advisers cannot substitute for a domestic political settlement. The withdrawal creates a genuine danger when it coincides with the collapse of such a settlement, although the departure of foreign troops does not in itself make another war inevitable.

At the same time, the army’s ability to conduct raids against underground cells should not automatically be equated with its ability to confront large armed formations that enjoy political protection. In the latter case, an order to use force could divide the governing coalition, while commanders would inevitably have to take into account loyalties and connections within their own political camp. It is precisely this dependence of military decisions on elite rivalry that makes the possibility of internal confrontation particularly dangerous.

Why Washington is reducing its presence

Explaining the American decision solely through the current conflict with Iran would be historically inaccurate, since the timetable for transforming the coalition mission was agreed as early as September 2024. The decision reflected the decline in the terrorist threat compared with the period when Islamic State controlled substantial territory, pressure from the Iraqi authorities and a broader intention to move towards bilateral cooperation. Washington was able to reduce its direct military involvement while maintaining its relationship with Baghdad through training programs, arms cooperation, and diplomatic instruments.

Nevertheless, the conflict with Iran has clearly shown the costs of maintaining a permanent military presence. In early March 2026, Iranian drones struck Erbil airport, where an American base was located, and a coalition facility housing Italian personnel was later attacked as well. These incidents go to show that overseas military bases, while designed to project power, can simultaneously become accessible targets for retaliation.

When an expensive military facility can be repeatedly targeted with comparatively inexpensive drones, protecting that facility requires a constant expenditure of resources, and every military casualty creates political pressure for another round of escalation. Under these circumstances, reducing the number of vulnerable American garrisons can be a rational choice for Washington even though the overall military capabilities of the US remain incomparably greater than those of its opponents. This, however, explains the incentives behind current American policy rather than proving that Iranian attacks were the original cause of the withdrawal.

Even after the last military unit departs, political responsibility for the consequences of the intervention will remain. The US is leaving at a moment when the Iraqi state has still not secured a complete monopoly over the use of force and when the foundations of lasting political reconciliation are still shaky. The issue is not whether American troops should remain indefinitely against the wishes of the host country, but rather that the political project proclaimed at the beginning of the intervention was never fully completed.

The Iraqi withdrawal also raises the question as to whether it is part of a wider change in the American role in the Middle East, as Washington concentrates more resources within a strategic security belt extending from Latin America to the North Atlantic and Greenland.

There are grounds for such an interpretation, since the US has increasingly emphasized the Western Hemisphere while reconsidering the geographic distribution of its military presence. The expansion of American military opportunities in Greenland is also consistent with a growing emphasis on the security of the American continent and the North Atlantic.

Yet these decisions do not mean that the US is abandoning the Middle East altogether or that it no longer has the capacity to maintain bases there. The continuing confrontation with Iran demonstrates the persistence of powerful strategic commitments, while the reduction of one military contingent can be accompanied by a stronger naval or air presence elsewhere. Rather, Washington is adopting a more selective approach, seeking to reduce the costs of prolonged deployments where military presence has failed to produce a proportionate political return.

For Iraq, the consequences of that shift will ultimately depend less on the number of American soldiers who remain than on whether Iraqi leaders can create a functioning and accountable state authority before competing armed actors begin struggling to fill the vacuum once again.

Norway’s parliament has begun a public inquiry into ties the country’s political and diplomatic elite had with US pedophile and financier Jeffrey Epstein. Eleven current and former foreign and development ministers, including Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, who served as foreign minister from 2005 to 2012, will face questioning.

The Epstein files released by the US Department of Justice earlier this year revealed his often toxic connections to politicians, royals, and other prominent figures, for whom he is thought to have provided underage girls for sex. The disclosures have prompted parliamentary and police investigations in Norway.

The Norwegian parliamentary Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs is examining the Foreign Ministry’s handling of international aid funds, internal oversight mechanisms, and whether personal relationships involving Epstein may have influenced government decisions. Committee member Jonas Andersen Sayed has said the government must explain what it is doing to restore trust in the foreign service.

Questions are also swirling over Norway’s funding of the International Peace Institute (IPI), which received around 130 million kroner ($13.5 million) from the Foreign Ministry between 1997 and 2018. The international think tank was led by Norwegian diplomat Terje Roed-Larsen from 2005 to 2020.

Norway, home to the Nobel Peace Prize and a longstanding player in international diplomacy, has faced heightened scrutiny over Epstein’s connections to its political and diplomatic circles.

Roed-Larsen, a central figure in the 1990s Middle East peace talks and a key architect of the 1993 Oslo Accords, is among several prominent Norwegians under investigation by Norway’s economic crime authority, Oekokrim, following the disclosure of the Epstein files.

Former Prime Minister Thorbjoern Jagland and former diplomat Mona Juul are also under investigation. Juul and Jagland are suspected of aggravated corruption, while Roed-Larsen is suspected of complicity in aggravated corruption. All three have denied wrongdoing.

Former Foreign Minister Boerge Brende, meanwhile, testified before the committee after stepping down as president and CEO of the World Economic Forum in February amid scrutiny of his contacts with Epstein.

Separately, the parliament has appointed an independent commission of academics and legal experts to examine matters raised by the Epstein files. The commission is due to submit its findings by January 31, 2028.

The European Commission has halted foreign aid payments to Sierra Leone ostensibly over a Dutch demand that Freetown must extradite a convicted drug trafficker. The move has escalated a dispute that has led the West African country to accuse the Netherlands’ government of neo-colonialism.

Dutch Justice and Security Minister David van Weel announced the suspension on X on Thursday while attending a meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers in Luxembourg. He described the move as “a good start” to efforts to strengthen the “EU sanctions regime against organized crime.”

The dispute centers on Jos Leijdekkers, known as “Bolle Jos,” who was handed a 24-year sentence in the Netherlands in June 2024 for cocaine trafficking, an armed robbery and ordering a murder. He remains on the Dutch police’s most-wanted list. He has also reportedly received prison sentences totaling around 100 years in Belgium.

Sierra Leone had been due to receive €18 million (about $20.3 million) in aid before year-end for education, food programs and infrastructure, public broadcaster NOS reported. A further €22.5 million (about $25.4 million) pledged for 2027 could also be suspended if Sierra Leone continues to refuse cooperation, Van Weel said. The Commission has not yet publicly announced the suspension.

Reuters reported early last year, citing sources with direct knowledge of the matter, that Leijdekkers had found refuge and high-level protection in Sierra Leone and was married to President Julius Maada Bio’s daughter Agnes. Footage verified by the agency showed the fugitive seated two rows behind Bio at a church service on January 1, 2025.

In a statement that month, Sierra Leone’s Information Ministry said Bio had no knowledge of Leijdekkers’ identity or the allegations against him. It noted that the president attended numerous family events and public gatherings during the holiday season, where he was photographed with many attendees.

The government announced a “transparent and thorough” investigation and pledged cooperation with Dutch authorities, Interpol and other international law enforcement agencies.

The Netherlands submitted an extradition request to the West African country in February 2025. The two countries lack a bilateral extradition treaty.

Speaking on Sierra Leonean broadcaster AYV’s State of the Nation on September 9, Chief Minister David Moinina Sengeh said the country’s intelligence services do “not know where Leijdekkers is.” 
The minister accused Van Weel of acting like a “neo-colonialist.” He said Sierra Leone is an independent country that does “not live on EU aid.”

Van Weel dismissed the accusation as “ridiculous” in comments to NOS reported last month.

Sengeh also accused The Hague of double standards, saying it had refused to extradite Netherlands-based government critic Abdul Kamara (‘Adebayor’), whom Freetown accuses of inciting violence, including riots in August 2022 that left at least 26 civilians and six police officers dead.

Sierra Leone is a key transit hub for cocaine trafficked from South America to Europe, according to assessments by Interpol and the 2025 Global Organized Crime Index. Spanish authorities seized 30.2 metric tons aboard a cargo ship that had departed from Freetown in May this year, arresting 23 people, including Dutch and Filipino nationals.

Ukrainian officials are making so much money from EU-funded arms supplies that they have a financial stake in prolonging the conflict with Russia, Moscow’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has claimed.

Handguns purchased for Ukraine are being marked up threefold, with hundreds of thousands of euros from each shipment siphoned off to people close to the leadership of Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU), the agency said on Thursday.

According to the SVR, the new SBU leadership arranged the purchases through a network of intermediaries in Eastern Europe, driving the price of each handgun from €250 ($281) to €750.

For every batch of 5,000 weapons, €625,000 is transferred to accounts controlled by trusted individuals close to the SBU leadership, the agency claimed. Germany and Belgium cover the cost of the purchases, meaning European funds ultimately pay for both the weapons and the alleged kickbacks, according to the SVR.

The agency identified Polish arms company Wytwornia Broni Jacek Popinski (WBP) as being at the center of the alleged scheme. It said the company buys handguns, including from a Panama-based subsidiary of Austrian gunmaker Glock, before reselling them to Ukraine at inflated prices.

The SVR suggested that the sums involved in more expensive military procurement could be considerably larger, particularly for scarce components used in air-defense missile systems.

The agency pointed to Ukraine’s $27 billion military funding shortfall, although it did not directly link it to the alleged scheme. Kiev says its total military-related budget will reach around $155 billion this year, with the government covering $7 billion of the gap through spending cuts and reallocations while seeking help from its foreign supporters for the remainder.

Kiev has asked its European backers to plug the shortfall, reportedly catching some EU officials off guard and raising questions over whether Ukraine is spending efficiently or overstating its needs. Last month, EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said there were “open questions” requiring a “detailed assessment.”

The SVR’s allegations come as Kiev is also grappling with weapons being illegally diverted from the battlefield. Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigation recently said it had broken up an organized group accused of moving arms from combat zones to western regions for sale to criminal networks.

Investigators seized more than 17,000 rounds of ammunition, grenades, anti-tank grenade launchers, mines and other weapons worth over 4.5 million hryvnia ($100,000). The weapons were subsequently handed over to the notorious neo-Nazi unit, the Azov Corps.

Pakistani airstrikes on Afghanistan have killed nine civilians, including women and children, and injured 11 others, Kabul said on Thursday.

The strikes hit Afghanistan’s eastern Kunar and southern Helmand provinces, Afghan Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said. He condemned the attack as an “act of aggression and a crime that violates all recognized principles."

Islamabad claimed the raids killed 22 militants at hideouts in two locations. The operation was based on “credible intelligence” and selectively targeted militant camps and hideouts, Pakistan’s Information Ministry said.

"The threat to Pakistan emanates from Afghanistan. In this context, our action precisely targeted the terrorist hubs,” the ministry said, maintaining that the strikes were directed at militant hubs. Islamabad has repeatedly accused groups based in Afghanistan of carrying out attacks inside Pakistan.

The latest attack marks the third time in two weeks that Pakistan has struck targets inside Afghanistan. Last week, Pakistani airstrikes hit Kandahar and other provinces, killing four civilians, according to the Taliban government.

The renewed escalation followed a militant attack on a police facility in northwestern Pakistan last month that killed 24 people. Provincial police blamed the attack on the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as the Pakistani Taliban.

Islamabad accuses Afghanistan’s Taliban government of allowing the TTP to operate from Afghan territory and stage cross-border attacks. The TTP is separate from the Afghan Taliban but allied with it. Kabul denies providing the group safe haven and says militancy targeting Pakistan is its “internal issue.”

The latest flare-up ended roughly three months of relative calm between the neighbors. Fighting had escalated sharply in February before China-mediated talks produced a fragile ceasefire in March.

Commenting on the border standoff between the two neigbors in an exclusive interview with RT India, Mujahid said Afghanistan was only defending itself after Pakistan violated its territory. “Defending ourselves is our right, but we are neither the initiators nor do we want it to continue,” he emphasized.

The United Nations mission in Afghanistan has recorded over 1,100 deaths and injuries from cross-border violence so far this year.

Western countries are pressuring African states in an attempt to prevent them from attending the upcoming Russia-Africa Summit in Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.

The alleged pressure comes ahead of the October 28-29 gathering. The leaders of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger are expected to attend, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Alimov said on Thursday. The three Sahel states have strengthened ties with Moscow in recent years.

“We are certainly observing attempts by our detractors in Western nations to pressure African partners in an effort to prevent them from coming to Moscow,” Zakharova said.

She described it as a continuation of a colonial approach toward Africa, stating that “former colonial powers are failing to keep pace with a changing world” and that Western countries continue to seek to dictate foreign policy choices to African states.

The spokeswoman did not name the countries involved or provide specific examples. She said African states pursue independent foreign policies based on their national interests and expressed confidence that the summit would be held with broad African representation.

In September, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov singled out France, claiming that President Emmanuel Macron would use a trip to Africa to try to dissuade African leaders from attending the summit. Lavrov said Moscow’s suspicions were based on “certain facts,” but did not provide details.

Earlier this year, Zakharova raised similar concerns, saying Russia had encountered attempts to obstruct African participation in the 2023 summit and ministerial conferences in Sochi in 2024 and Cairo in 2025.

Ahead of the St. Petersburg summit in 2023, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov accused the US, France, and other Western countries of using their diplomatic missions in Africa to pressure governments to prevent active participation. He said such efforts denied African states the sovereign right to choose their own partners.

Tensions over African countries’ ties with Moscow have also spilled into economic relations. Senior US lawmakers that year questioned South Africa’s eligibility for trade benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), citing Pretoria’s military ties with Russia, and sought to move an annual US-Africa trade forum out of the country.

Washington has publicly claimed that African countries should be free to choose their own partners. “America will not dictate Africa’s choices. Neither should anyone else,” then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in 2022.

The inaugural Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi in 2019 drew official delegations from all 54 African countries, with 45 represented by heads of state or government. The second summit in St. Petersburg in 2023 drew official delegations from 48 countries, with 27 represented by a head of state or the second-highest-ranking official.

US rapper and fashion designer Kanye West cannot hold shows in Russia due to his glorification of Nazism, the Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, has said.

A Russian concert agency announced in August that West, also known as Ye, will perform at the 68,000-seat Gazprom Arena in St. Petersburg on October 10 and 11. However, there have been doubts about the shows taking place, with the city’s authorities saying later that no one addressed them for the permission to stage them. On Wednesday, the organizers said the concerts have been canceled.

During her interview with the social media channel Soloviev LIVE TV on Thursday, Zakharova said that holding West’s concerts in Russia was unacceptable.

“He sang songs about [Nazi German dictator Adolf] Hitler and sold merchandise... from his company and under his own name featuring the swastika and other coded symbols linked to Nazism... He performed the Nazi salute. In other words, it was an absolutely clear message; not just a one-off incident, but a distinct statement,” she recalled.

The rapper was not just seeking to rehabilitate Nazism, he was glorifying it, the spokeswoman added.

“How can he possibly perform in our country?” Zakharova asked rhetorically. Especially in St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad), where more than a million people died during the 872-day siege by the Nazis between September 8, 1941 and January 27, 1944, she added.

West’s concert would also be impossible in Moscow or any other city because of “our principled stance of rejecting Nazism, Hitlerism, fascism and things like that,” the spokeswoman noted.

The USSR played the key role in defeating Nazi Germany during the Second World War; around 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in the conflict referred to in the country as the Great Patriot War. The National Socialist ideology and its symbols are outlawed in Russia.

West has faced a string of cancellations and bans in several European countries over his anti-Semitic statements and praise of Hitler and Nazism. He has since apologized for some of his remarks, attributing them to bipolar disorder as well as “poor judgment and reckless behavior.”

The musician also spoke favorably about Russia on a number of occasions, expressed desire to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and even went as far as describing himself as “young Putin” in a 2021 podcast.

He has visited Moscow just once – in June 2024, but didn’t give any shows. The rapper attended the birthday of Russian designer Gosha Rubchinsky, with whom he had previously collaborated. Rubchinsky left West’s Yeezy fashion brand in 2025 shortly after he published his controversial messages on social media.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump held a phone call on Wednesday. The two countries are trying to reach a trade deal amid US pressure on India over its purchases of Russian oil.

The leaders reviewed cooperation in trade, defense, energy, and critical technologies and exchanged views on regional and international issues, according to statements issued by New Delhi and Washington.

The call comes days after Trump signed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act into law on September 18. The legislation expands sanctions, tariffs, and prohibitions on Russia while extending existing sanctions on Iran. The official Indian readout made no mention of the new law.

Last week, however, New Delhi raised the issue directly with Washington. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar reiterated concerns over the legislation during talks with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in New York. The law provides for tariffs of up to 100% on goods from major buyers of Russian crude oil and natural gas under specified conditions.

India has previously warned that measures targeting its Russian energy trade could affect bilateral relations and the international energy market, while maintaining that it will continue diversified oil sourcing.

Russia remains India’s largest crude supplier despite lower purchases in recent months. Russian shipments stood at about 2.1 million barrels per day (bpd) in August and were expected to fall to around 1.75 million bpd in September as export availability tightened and competition from Chinese refiners increased.

The Modi-Trump call also followed a meeting held by Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of the G20 Trade Ministerial in Milwaukee. The two sides are seeking to advance negotiations on the India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) that have stretched for months. The two countries finalized the framework for the first phase of the BTA in February, but since then US tariff pressure has forced New Delhi to review the terms.

The US remains India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral merchandise trade reaching $132.2 billion in the 2025-26 financial year. Indian exports accounted for $86.51 billion, while imports from the US totaled $45.62 billion.

A woman convicted of murder in the US state of Tennessee has been taken to hospital after surviving two doses of lethal injection drugs in a failed execution attempt, several media outlets reported Thursday, citing her lawyers and media witnesses.

Christa Pike, 50, was sentenced to death for the 1995 torture and murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, a fellow Job Corps student in Knoxville. If carried out normally, Pike’s execution, scheduled for Wednesday, would have been the first execution of a woman in Tennessee in more than 200 years.

Prosecutors said Pike and her boyfriend, Tadaryl Shipp, lured Slemmer to a wooded area. Pike beat and cut Slemmer with a box cutter, while Shipp, who was 17 at the time, admitted carving a pentagram into her body. While Pike received the death penalty, Shipp was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Pike did not lose consciousness after two syringes of pentobarbital were administered, her attorneys said in emergency legal filings seen by the New York Times. She still had a heartbeat, they said, and was audibly snoring.

According to her lawyers, as cited by the newspaper, Pike was later taken to a nearby hospital, although they did not know her condition. Tennessee officials reportedly confirmed to a federal judge later that day that Pike was receiving medical care.

AP cited media witnesses as saying that Pike remained conscious after the injection was administered and at one point asked prison officials about a sensation in her arm. She continued to be heard snoring behind the closed curtain before media witnesses were escorted out.

Pike was initially scheduled to be executed in the morning, but a federal appeals court issued a temporary stay to consider her lawyers’ claims that her history of childhood sexual abuse and neglect had not been adequately presented at sentencing. The US Supreme Court later lifted the obstacle, allowing Tennessee to proceed with the execution that evening.

Commenting on the apparent failure to carry out an execution, the Tennessee Department of Correction stated that it “had followed every step of the state’s lawful, established execution protocol approved by the attorney general’s office.”

It was the second failed execution in Tennessee this year. In May, officials called off the lethal injection of Tony Carruthers, convicted of kidnapping and killing three people in 1994, after executioners spent more than an hour trying unsuccessfully to place an IV for the pentobarbital.

Lethal injection is widely regarded as the most error-prone method of execution in the US. Since the beginning of 2020, 170 people have been executed in 17 states, with most executions taking place in Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma. During that period, six states have recorded botched lethal injections, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that provides data and analysis on capital punishment.

Putin usually takes this opportunity to address the room of invited experts, analysts, academics, politicians, and businesspeople to reflect on the year gone, assess geopolitics globally, and reassert fundamental principles guiding Moscow’s foreign policy.

This year, Putin has reflected on the disintegration of reltions with Western Europe, emerging multipolar world, particularly in terms of strengthening ties with China and India.

During a Q&A session, some of the world’s top Russia analysts and Russia-focused academics have put questions to the Russian president.

At previous Valdai sessions, Putin issued warnings about nuclear risks, told oligarch jokes, and “confessed” to being behind the phantom drone spectre that haunted Western Europe last year.

Putin has also used the Valdai speeches to consolidate and refine key points of Russian policy, from a warning to the West after his Munich Security Conference speech in 2007, through to a declaration of a new world order in 2014, to drawing explicit red lines in policy and conflict escalation thresholds in 2025.

Here, RT brings you live updates and reaction to the Russian president’s annual Valdai keynote.

A helicopter carrying six people, including a close ally of Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa, crashed in the country’s east on Wednesday, leaving no survivors, officials have said.

The aircraft came down at about 5 PM local time near Waddilove Mission in Marondera district, east of the capital, Harare, Zimbabwean police said in a statement later the same day.

According to government spokesman Nick Mangwana, the helicopter was carrying a high-profile businessman, three other passengers and two pilots. “Current information indicates that there were no survivors in this crash,” Mangwana wrote on X, adding that police “will confirm the names of the victims in due course.”

State-owned newspaper The Herald identified businessman Wicknell Chivayo and his wife, Lucy Muteke, among the dead, citing a family spokesperson.

Chivayo founded Intratrek Zimbabwe, an energy and infrastructure company awarded the contract to develop the country’s 100-megawatt Gwanda solar project. He was a prominent supporter of Mnangagwa and the ruling ZANU-PF party. He visited the president at his rural home on New Year’s Day this year and joined him during a meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at Mnangagwa’s private farm in May.

Kenyan President William Ruto also confirmed the couple’s deaths in a condolence message on X on Thursday, describing Chivayo as “a dear friend whose warmth touched many people.” 

“I will remember him for his friendship, his energy and his deep conviction in the possibilities of our continent,” Ruto said. He extended condolences to the victims’ families, President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the people of Zimbabwe.

The crash is the latest in a series of aviation accidents in the southern African nation. On April 23, 2021, an Air Force helicopter struck a house during a training flight in Arcturus, about 30 kilometers east of Harare, killing three crew members and a child on the ground. Another child and her mother suffered burns.

A helicopter scheduled to transport Mnangagwa crashed at Masvingo Airport on September 15, 2024, after experiencing what officials described as a technical fault. The president was not aboard, and no fatalities were reported.

Other southern African countries have also recorded such accidents, some involving senior officials. A helicopter crash near Danielskuil in neighboring South Africa’s Northern Cape killed all three aboard in October 2025. Malawi’s Vice President Saulos Chilima and eight others died in a military plane crash in the country’s mountainous north in June 2024. Zambia’s Vice President Mutale Nalumango and all other passengers and crew escaped injury in a military helicopter takeoff accident at Nakonde on July 9 this year.

The cause of Wednesday’s crash has yet to be established. Zimbabwe’s Air Force has previously complained of an aging fleet, saying Western sanctions had hampered purchases of replacement aircraft, Reuters reported after the fatal 2021 crash.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has welcomed the US withdrawal from Iraq, adding that the Americans should also leave all other countries in the region.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon announced that the last American troops had departed from Iraq after being there for 23 years.

In its statement yesterday dedicated to the US pullout, the IRGC said that it “congratulates the proud nation of Iraq… and the revolutionary fighters of the Islamic world on this historic victory.”

The US lost a total of 4,419 troops in Iraq, according to the Pentagon. The Watson Institute at Brown University has estimated that the invasion cost American taxpayers some $2.8 trillion dollars. “These figures show America’s heavy and disgraceful defeat,” the IRGC statement read.

The Guard insisted that “America’s presence not only brought no security, but was itself the source of insecurity, terrorism and instability in West Asia.”

The US invaded Iraq in 2003, toppling the country’s longtime leader Saddam Hussein, and than carried out smaller-scale operations against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), which emerged in 2014 out of the chaos created by the American interference. According to some estimates, over a million Iraqi civilians lost their lives during the period, with millions more displaced.

“It can be firmly said that America’s expulsion from Iraq is the prelude to its expulsion from all of West Asia… America must leave the region and leave security management to the peoples themselves,” it said.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi said on Wednesday that the US withdrawal signaled the beginning of a “new phase, one defined by Iraq’s sovereignty, the strength of its institutions, the readiness of its forces, the unity of its decision-making, and balanced partnerships with its friends.”

In a post on his Truth Social platform on the same day, US President Donald Trump described the American involvement in Iraq as “a very expensive excursion into Hell.” Its conclusion is a win for both Washington and Baghdad, he claimed.

It was “very bad decision-making that got us involved in this quagmire in the first place,” Trump said.

The invasion of Iraq was launched under the administration of then President George W. Bush over accusations the country’s longtime leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were never substantiated by Washington.

Trump himself initiated a conflict with Iran in late February on the pretext of preventing it from obtaining a nuclear bomb, despite claiming the previous June that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program had been “obliterated” by US-Israeli strikes. Tehran has repeatedly insisted that it is not working on a weapon.

Washington’s position in the Middle East has been dealt a blow during the Iran war, as Tehran has damaged or outright destroyed key US radar, communications, and other military infrastructure at bases in Gulf nations, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait and others.

The Pentagon is now considering whether to reduce the US military footprint in the region after the Iran war ends, the Washington Post reported in August, citing anonymous officials. Diplomatic efforts to settle the crisis currently remain in a stalemate.

The resignation of Aleksandar Vucic as president of Serbia should be understood in the context of the internal political conflict between the ruling elites and Generation Z, which began several years ago as a result of the collapse of the newly renovated railway station building in one of Serbia’s largest cities, Novi Sad. 

Tactically, this step is connected with his aspiration to join the parliamentary election campaign (the vote is scheduled for October 25). This maneuver may indeed succeed. However, much more serious today are questions about Belgrade’s further strategic approach to young people and the patriotically minded population of the country.

For Russia, it is important to remain intellectually attractive to Serbian youth, thus denying opponents the argument that contemporary Moscow-Belgrade relations are grounded exclusively in economic benefits. It is precisely in this context that the possibility lies of preserving the special spirit of the connection between the two nations in an era when long-term alliances that previously seemed unshakeable have totally broken down.

Current state of affairs: Vucic, the Student List and other political forces

Ahead of the snap elections, Serbia’s domestic political landscape is defined by a fierce standoff between Vucic's ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SPP) and the opposition movement, which is rapidly gaining momentum. Experts say the election itself resembles a referendum on the ruling party.

The campaign has devolved into a fierce information and economic war, with unprecedented media polarization. In an attempt to stabilize its fluctuating ratings in major cities, the government has launched direct cash payments to citizens. The authorities are also placing emphasis on economic stability, the “Serbia 2030” program, and maintaining preferential prices for Russian gas ($318 instead of the market price of $868), which is being touted as the key to the economy’s survival.

The opposition coalition Student List – Students Win has bet on street mobilization, an aggressive media campaign, and horizontal network leadership. This coordinated movement of Generation Z is demonstratively distancing itself from the old, systemic, pro-Western opposition. By pointedly rejecting party flags in favor of the national tricolor, they have seized the patriotic agenda, demanding the depoliticization of the state apparatus and deep institutional reforms.

The movement’s growth followed a tragedy in the country’s second-largest city, Novi Sad, where 16 people died when a canopy collapsed at a recently renovated train station. Ordinary Serbians perceived the incident as a direct consequence of corruption, nepotism, and official negligence. Students led the popular outrage, turning months of protests into the largest anti-corruption movement in modern Serbian history.

It’s noteworthy that Generation Z’s share of Serbian society is small at only 15%. People over 45 are the largest cohort at 50% of the total. Therefore, in order to reach national prominence, the youth core abandoned the classic party format in favor of a “citizens’ group.” The electoral list, in addition to students, includes respected “adult” professionals, such as university professors, renowned doctors, lawyers, social activists, workers, and former train drivers. This approach has attracted voters of all ages who are tired of politics-as-usual.

According to summer polls conducted by the sociological center Crta, 44.9% of citizens were prepared to vote for the Student List, while 35.7% indicated their intention to vote for the ruling party. Currently, according to political analysts, the two forces are very close.

Meanwhile, traditional right-wing ‘patriotic’ forces, such as Milos Jovanovic’s conservative bloc NADA and the Dveri movement, are seeking seats in the Assembly by criticizing Vucic’s own ‘right-wing’ policies. Unlike the ruling forces, these parties take an uncompromising pro-Russian stance and demand an immediate end to Serbia’s EU accession negotiations, which obligate Belgrade to comply with Brussels’ directives. The main theme of their election platforms is a categorical rejection of any recognition of Kosovo’s independence. 

The right-wing forces view Russia’s veto power in the UN Security Council as the only reliable guarantor of the country’s territorial integrity and insist on formalizing the strategic alliance with Moscow, including Serbia’s integration into the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The growing popularity of the radical patriotic flank deprives the ruling coalition of its monopoly on the conservative electorate and seriously complicates Vucic’s task of forming a future government.

The external context is also raising the temperature: the cancelation of European Commissioner Marta Kos’ visit due to disputes over national heroes has given the opposition grounds to claim Serbia is isolated. However, Vucic’s team is pragmatically countering these accusations by demonstrating its continued policy of balancing between the main geopolitical powers in the Balkans. Belgrade successfully maintains contacts with both Moscow and Beijing, while simultaneously continuing dialogue with the West. A clear indication of this multi-vector approach was Vucic’s recent participation in the Ukrainian summit of the Carpathian Eight (C8), where his team demonstrated openness to initiatives supported by Brussels.

What is dangerous about what is happening 

The current situation poses a fundamental threat to Serbian statehood, as the opposition’s actions resemble a model of non-violent mass protest organized online, reflecting the methodologies used in color revolutions. In Serbia, the methodology has taken on unique characteristics, as it lacks an explicit link to Western donors and is focused on a youthful, patriotic agenda.

According to Ekaterina Entina, a professor at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, a new political strategy for rallying opposition forces is being developed in Serbia: “The whole intrigue from the start of the student protests has been that they haven’t revealed who’s behind them. And all attempts to uncover truly significant funding channels, significant channels of political and social influence, have come to nothing. Everyone knows who’s funding them in small ways, but the grand scheme remains unknown.”

The main question is why such a protest network is needed in the Balkans if there are no visible reasons for the country to change course. After all, the ruling party’s policy aimed at European integration has no visible alternatives. Moreover, even the administration of US President Donald Trump, while not perceiving Serbia as a powerful geopolitical player, pragmatically prioritizes Belgrade for diplomatic and economic contacts in Europe. Clearly, the goal of this network’s major but secret donors is much more far-reaching than the mere destabilization of Vucic’s system of governance, with all its pros and cons. One way or another, Vucic is a temporary variable in the equation. The primary goal is a fundamental reversal of the direction of Serbian society itself.

To understand this, it’s worth turning to renowned Western sociologist Manuel Castells, particularly his work 'Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age'. He argues that leaderless horizontal networks are inherently incapable of real, day-to-day governance; after the destruction of old institutions, they immediately become mired in discord and are unable to transform street energy into legislation. 

The organizers of the Serbian network, however, don’t need students to come to power. Their calculation is different: knowing that Serbian society is mentally oriented toward Russia, external players have hijacked patriotic, Orthodox slogans and led the Generation Z youth into a decentralized “network trap.” The goal is to accumulate all sincere, traditionally Russia-friendly conservative protesters and then trigger Castells’ paradox: discharging this energy into a senseless administrative deadlock and chaos.

As Serbian political analyst Ostoja Vojinovic notes, the practical culmination of this scheme is expected on the night of the vote count through the phenomenon of “parallel legitimacy.” When the state announces one result, the street protesters will announce another, and social media will contribute a third picture. Ballot stuffing will instantly become an “established fact” for young people, thus completely paralyzing traditional institutions of power.

This methodology of dismantling is aimed at the core of Serbian statehood. Serbian experts state:

“Serbia is, in its own way, a unique European country, where an anti-Russian course is a priori impossible – it would mean political suicide. Historical memory is too strong here for momentary circumstances to steer the country toward a destructive, hostile course toward the Russian Federation.”

Understanding that a frontal pro-Western turn in Belgrade is impossible due to public resistance, the decision has been made to scorch the very patriotic field using the hands of local youth. By driving Serbian Russophilia into a digital “network trap” and condemning the country to controlled chaos, external actors are attempting to create a landscape in which future generations of politicians will simply no longer have to take into account the electorate’s pro-Russian expectations.

Relations with Russia 

In the current reality, Moscow needs a critical analysis of the geopolitical risks, as neither shared historical memory nor traditional cultural and religious ties guarantee the long-term stability of bilateral relations. In the coming geopolitical era of collapse of previously firm alliances, Russia must be prepared for any scenario. The likelihood that, under the pressure of a generational shift, the current model of relations between Belgrade and Moscow will be transformed or temporarily weakened is high.

Russian elites need to recognize the risks of a possible political transition in Serbia now. The answer to these risks will lie in Russia’s intellectual appeal, aimed at the horizon of a shared future, a multipolar world, and a clear understanding of how to work with the new generation. A new reality will inevitably emerge from the fragments of the previous pragmatic system of maneuvering, and the extent to which Russia can maintain intellectual appeal to Generation Z will determine whether the Balkans will remain a sovereign Eurasian outpost or be completely absorbed into the Euro-Atlantic matrix.

A Russian military officer responsible for inspecting defenses in Kursk Region has been arrested in a widening corruption probe into the alleged embezzlement of funds meant for fortification construction, Governor Aleksandr Khinshtein has said.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Khinshtein said the officer, who was later identified as Colonel Aleksandr Barinov, had been detained the previous day. He was responsible for accepting defensive structures in Kursk Region and neighboring frontline areas but allegedly signed acceptance certificates “without looking,” effectively approving work without inspecting it.

Investigators allege that Barinov, a department head in the engineering troops directorate of Russia’s Leningrad Military District, approved reinforced-concrete anti-tank barriers known as “dragon’s teeth” that did not meet required standards. His actions are believed to have helped conceal the theft of at least 700 million rubles ($8.5 million) allocated for fortifications in Kursk Region.

The defenses came under intense scrutiny after Ukrainian forces launched a large-scale incursion into Kursk Region in August 2024, breaking through the border and seizing dozens of settlements. Russian forces subsequently pushed them back and announced the region’s full liberation in April 2025.

Barinov, who has partially admitted guilt, has been charged with abuse of office and remanded in custody until November 27.

“I am certain that this story does not end here,” Khinshtein said. He pledged that the regional government would continue cooperating with law enforcement to identify everyone involved in what he described as crimes of “unprecedented scale and cynicism.”

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, Kursk Region has been hit by a string of corruption scandals involving money earmarked for border defenses. The federal government allocated 19.4 billion rubles for fortifications in 2022-2023, including bunkers, firing positions, anti-tank barriers, and trenches, but prosecutors later alleged that contractors used sham deals and shell companies to siphon off funds.

The scandal has engulfed some of the region’s most senior former officials. Ex-governor Aleksey Smirnov was sentenced to 14 years in prison in April after being convicted of accepting particularly large bribes. Smirnov admitted guilt and claimed that his predecessor, Roman Starovoit, had proposed taking kickbacks.

Starovoit, who governed Kursk Region until becoming Russia’s transport minister in 2024, was found dead from a gunshot wound in July 2025, hours after President Vladimir Putin dismissed him. Investigators treated suicide as the main theory. Law-enforcement sources later said Starovoit had been under scrutiny over possible involvement in the theft of funds allocated for the fortifications, while the Kremlin said his dismissal had not been formally linked to a loss of confidence.

Other officials and contractors have also received prison terms. Former Kursk Region Development Corporation chief Vladimir Lukin was sentenced to nine years over the theft of 152 million rubles, while three businessmen were convicted in a separate scheme involving inflated construction contracts and the theft of more than 141.7 million rubles.

European NATO members should have been able to attack Iran instead of relying on the US and Israel, according to Secretary-General Mark Rutte, the head of the self-described defensive alliance.

Iran has been attacked twice in two years, both times over allegations that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons, which Tehran rejects as false. Speaking at the Euronews Defence & Space Summit on Friday, Rutte endorsed the idea that European nations should acquire the military capabilities needed to carry out such wars of aggression themselves.

In the future, “the Europeans will be able to take care of their backyard themselves. It should be us doing this, not the Americans,” he said.

“Europe was not able to take out the nuclear capability of Iran. We couldn’t. We didn’t have the capabilities. In 10 years, we can and we should,” he added, referring to multi-billion euro rearmament efforts now underway in European members of the military bloc.

Earlier in the day, the NATO chief dismissed Russian concerns over hostile rhetoric by some members of the bloc regarding the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Region.

“Basically what we said is, ‘hey, listen, we are a defensive alliance, and stop the nuclear threat’,” he told journalists when asked about a formal warning Moscow had sent to Brussels.

Russia cited remarks by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who proposed in September deploying additional troops near the Russian border so that Moscow would be “uncertain of what we will do.” Moscow said it would use its “entire available arsenal” to defend Russian territory from a possible attack by NATO states.

NATO was created in the early years of the Cold War, ensuring a continued US military presence in Western Europe. The Soviet Union later established its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, which no longer exists.

While NATO describes itself as a defensive alliance, it has carried out military attacks against other countries, including the UK- and French-led 2011 intervention in Libya, after which the North African state was balkanized.

Russia considers NATO’s eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War a major national security threat and has cited it as one of the principal causes of the Ukraine conflict.

Rutte’s argument in support of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran echoed remarks by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said in June 2025 that the Israelis were doing “[the] dirty work for us.”

The incident aboard FlyDubai flight FZ1073 has yielded some confirmed facts, but it is still too early to draw firm conclusions. The passenger jet was flying from Dubai to Tel Aviv on Wednesday when a confrontation broke out in the cockpit. The aircraft then transmitted a distress signal and made an emergency landing in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. All 174 passengers and crew members survived. According to media reports, the plane lost altitude rapidly, while passengers and airline employees aboard helped subdue the attacker and restore control to the crew. Early wire reports offered conflicting accounts, including claims of a hijacking, because the aircraft had transmitted the corresponding emergency signal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the copilot had attacked the captain and apparently tried to crash the plane. Defense Minister Israel Katz described the incident as an attempted jihadist terrorist attack. Israeli authorities have already characterized it as an attempted act of terrorism, drawing comparisons with the September 11, 2001 attacks. But the investigation is ongoing, and no final findings have been released. FlyDubai confirmed that an altercation had occurred in the cockpit and said investigators were working to establish its cause and the motives involved. Authorities in the United Arab Emirates also announced an investigation and urged the public not to spread unverified information. Saudi officials confirmed the emergency landing and said both pilots had been hospitalized.

The central question – what exactly happened – therefore remains unresolved. Israel has already said it views the incident as an act of terrorism. Yet the publicly available evidence is still insufficient to establish an ideological motive, an intention to kill Israelis specifically, or any connection between the attacker and an organization. Investigators are examining his motives, the circumstances of the attack, and whether it involved advance planning.

Media reports identified the suspect as the copilot and an Omani citizen, but those details came from Israeli sources and have not been confirmed by all parties. No information has been released about whether he made any statements, had contact with radical groups, or acted on someone else’s instructions. FlyDubai has explicitly warned against jumping to conclusions.

Two separate questions need to be distinguished here. The first is whether the attacker acted alone aboard the aircraft. Reports suggest that only one person carried out the attack in the cockpit. The second is whether he was a lone extremist in the political sense: someone acting on his own initiative, without outside connections, support, or a prearranged plan. That remains unknown. A single perpetrator does not necessarily mean there was no organization behind him. Equally, an attack on a plane bound for Israel does not, by itself, prove that such an organization existed.

If investigators establish that the copilot deliberately tried to destroy the aircraft because it was headed to Tel Aviv or because Israelis were aboard, the incident could be classified as a terrorist attack carried out through access granted by his job. That would distinguish it from the more familiar scenario of an attacker trying to board a plane with a weapon. In that case, the security challenge would extend beyond passenger screening to the possibility of someone exploiting a trusted position within the aviation system.

Radicalization as the political backdrop

Still, it is also too early to dismiss the incident as a personal dispute between two crew members. The flight was bound for Israel, and the confrontation occurred in a region where protracted conflict is a fact of daily life. This week, the Israel Defense Forces again struck Gaza, killing Palestinian civilians. Under those circumstances, there can hardly be any meaningful talk of a ceasefire. In September, further attacks took place in the West Bank, where no Hamas fighters were involved: an armed assailant attacked an Israeli, while settlers attacked a Palestinian family.

Radicalization in this context is not simply a matter of new armed groups emerging. It also means a growing number of people coming to see violence as an acceptable political response, assigning collective responsibility for a government’s actions to entire populations, and treating any compromise as betrayal. The longer military operations, civilian deaths, and mutual recriminations continue, the easier it becomes for extremists to portray violence as “retribution” or “resistance” instead of a crime. Different forces employ this rhetoric, but it does not absolve individual perpetrators of responsibility for attacking civilians.

Israel’s military operations in Gaza, conditions in the West Bank, settlement expansion, and inflammatory statements by Israeli officials deepen the region’s sense of injustice, particularly among those who identify with their “Palestinian brothers and sisters.” This helps radical movements emerge and readily recruit supporters who believe they have a moral right to seek revenge by any means available. In their view, all’s fair in war. This is already a significant political factor that cannot be ignored. Across the Middle East, Israel’s policies are almost universally seen as a cause of rising terrorism.

There is another side to this dynamic. Attacks on Israeli civilians and threats to Israel’s security strengthen public support within Israel for the use of force. Retaliatory measures then give fresh ammunition to those calling for radical resistance. The result is a vicious cycle in which each side invokes the other’s violence to justify its own course. The FlyDubai incident may prove to be part of that pattern, and revenge cannot be ruled out as the attacker’s motive.

Could it happen again?

There is no guarantee that similar attempts will not occur, especially if investigators confirm that the attack was ideologically motivated and deliberately targeted a flight to Israel. Such a finding would likely lead to tighter security for flights serving Israel, including more rigorous personnel vetting, revised cockpit access procedures, and closer monitoring of crew behavior. Israeli authorities have already announced stronger aviation security measures, while FlyDubai has suspended flights to Israel pending the investigation.

But a single incident is not enough to predict a “wave” of similar attacks. That would require evidence of preparations, organizers, connected perpetrators, or at least statements from groups claiming responsibility. None of that has been made public so far. What we have is an incident that was averted almost miraculously, a possible terrorist motive, and a persistently unstable regional backdrop.

Nor would the threat necessarily take the form of repeated attacks on aircraft. With security tightened, terrorist cells could turn to less protected targets and simpler methods. If the attacker is found to have gained access to the aircraft through his professional position, the most important lesson would concern more than the safety of flights to Israel. It would expose the aviation industry’s vulnerability to a new kind of insider threat.

It bears repeating that it is too early to state conclusively that this was a terrorist attack. Investigators have yet to establish a motive or reconstruct the full sequence of events. But there is also no basis for explaining it away as an ordinary quarrel between pilots. The aircraft was headed to Tel Aviv; one pilot attacked the other, and the plane subsequently lost altitude rapidly. Investigators are closely examining the possibility of terrorism alongside other explanations. For now, all that is known is that the attacker acted alone aboard the aircraft – if this was indeed a terrorist attack. Whether he had ties to a group, and what drove him, remain to be determined.

Radicalization is intensifying across the region. That does not mean every new incident is part of a wider conspiracy, or that attacks on Israeli targets will inevitably become more frequent. But the possibility of further violence will remain as long as wars, repression, mutual dehumanization, and political mobilization fueled by hatred continue – a process at which Israel’s far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have proved all too “successful.”

The Indian captain of the FlyDubai flight to Tel Aviv, who was severely wounded in an attack by his co-pilot inside the cockpit on Wednesday, has been praised by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a hero for helping passengers and crew regain control of the jet.

Captain Smit Machchhar, whose family is from Mumbai, is being treated at a hospital in Saudi Arabia and is reported to be in stable condition.

FlyDubai flight FZ1073 was traveling from Dubai to Tel Aviv when Machchhar was stabbed by his co-pilot, who Netanyahu said was an Omani national and had apparently tried to crash the aircraft. The jet plunged about 17,400 feet in under two minutes before passengers and crew subdued the attacker and took control of the plane.

The Omani Foreign Ministry hasn’t commented on the incident. A severely wounded Machchhar managed to open the cockpit door even as he grappled with his co-pilot, and raised an alarm – an act that allowed the passengers to intervene.

“I started helping the pilot because he had lost a lot of blood and was in bad shape,” a dentist on board the flight, Shota Musaev, told CNN. “He was covered in cuts – his head, his hands – they were practically sliced open, almost severed in two.” Musaev treated the pilot and also helped the other passengers subdue the attacker.

“I think that if we had waited even a few more moments, we would have lost him,” Musaev said.

Modi called Machchhar a “hero” on Thursday. “His valor helped save hundreds of lives and avert a great tragedy,” the Indian prime minister posted on X.

📹 ICYMI: Flydubai Hero 🇮🇳 Captain Who Helped Foil Mid-Air Attack Spoke About Crew’s Role A Year Ago

In the interview, Capt. Smit Machchhar spoke about how passengers depend on crew in an emergency.

After reportedly being stabbed by his co-pilot, the Indian captain managed to… https://t.co/x3N09Baz20 pic.twitter.com/Ph3H40NA8E

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) October 1, 2026

Netanyahu praised Machchhar’s “extraordinary bravery.” He called the Indian captain a “true hero” and said his actions had helped in preventing “a catastrophic mid-air disaster,” and saved the 174 people on board the plane.

Musaev said he spoke with Machchhar while treating him and learned that the 39-year-old has two children and lives in Dubai. Machchhar has nearly 9,750 flying hours on Boeing 737 aircraft. He spent about 11 years with the Indian carrier SpiceJet, where he became a senior commander and line training captain responsible for training and checking other pilots, before joining Flydubai in 2022. His experience includes more than 6,400 hours as pilot-in-command at SpiceJet.

“None,” Machchhar told an interviewer last year when asked what he considered more important, a smooth landing or on-time arrival. “Safety,” he added in a prescient comment.

“As long as you’re walking out of the aircraft is what I want,” he added.

India’s embassy in Riyadh and the consulate in Jeddah are monitoring Machchhar’s condition and remain in contact with his family and Saudi authorities.

Machchhar had originally planned to join his family’s textile business, but later pursued management studies in Mumbai and trained as a pilot in New Zealand, local media reported.

FlyDubai confirmed that an altercation occurred on the flight deck but said the underlying reasons and motive remain unknown and subject to a formal investigation.

The Pentagon will set up a new Autonomous Warfare Command to design, produce and field robotic systems across the military, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has said in his ‘State of the Force’ address.

The announcement comes as experts sound the alarm about the threat posed by military AI, saying that over-reliance on it could lead to the erosion of human critical thinking, increase the risk of accidental escalation due to the unpredictability of the decision-making by the algorithms and make warfare even more dangerous for civilians.

During his speech at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia on Wednesday, Hegseth said that the AutoWarCom would be granted “service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force in the fastest peacetime shift in modern military history.”

“Drone warfare supercharged by SI-enabled targeting is the biggest battlefield revolution in generations,” he stressed.

A day earlier, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order replacing the term “Artificial Intelligence” (“AI”) with “Super Intelligence” (“SI”) in the US government’s vocabulary.

The lessons of the Ukraine conflict, in which both sides actively rely on drones, have been one of the main motivations for launching the new command, according to the secretary of war.

In a memo published the same day, Hegseth noted that the Pentagon’s long-time strategy “of buying fewer, increasingly sophisticated weapons” has lost its effectiveness.

“Warfare… has changed dramatically and suddenly. Advanced computing now enables precise, low-cost weapons to be produced at massive scale. These systems increasingly threaten our costly legacy platforms and disrupt our force projection. Urgent change is required,” he wrote.

The Autonomous Warfare Command, which will be led by a four-star general, should become operational by October 1, 2027, the secretary of war said.

Bloomberg reported last month that heavy reliance on AI, staff cuts and rushed targeting procedures contributed to a US missile strike on an Iranian girls’ school in Minab on February 28, in which at least 157 people, including 123 children, were killed.

Officials involved in the Pentagon investigation told the agency that some US Central Command (CENTCOM) personnel expected Palantir’s Maven Smart System to flag stale or inconsistent intelligence when selecting potential targets, but it failed to do so. The US hasn’t publicly acknowledged responsibility for the Minab strike.

Last week, CNN reported that AI almost caused a serious incident between US and China in spring. The American forces were about to intercept a Chinese vessel, which, according to an intelligence report, was carrying components for a nuclear weapon to Iran. The mission was called off at the last moment when it became clear that a chatbot used by the analyst misidentified the cargo, according to the broadcaster.

During a defense conference in Beijing in mid-September, Thailand’s Defense Minister Adul Boonthumjaroen warned that the world was at “a critical turning point” due to the emergence of the military AI. “The most pressing is not who will be the most powerful, but rather, how can we build an international order,” he said.

India has approved a $19 billion expansion of its green-energy grid to remove the transmission constraints that are holding back the country from fully utilizing its fast-growing solar and wind power generation capacity, especially during peak hours.  

The Green Energy Corridor Phase III (GEC-III) will enable the country’s green grid to carry up to 135 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power, and deploy 50 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of battery storage. It is targeted for completion by fiscal 2032-33.

GW is a measure of generation capacity, while GWh measures the total amount of energy produced or consumed over time.

Nearly 21GW, or about 9% of India’s installed renewable capacity, is currently connected through temporary grid arrangements while awaiting dedicated transmission infrastructure. This infrastructure gap restrains the transmission of around 12GW of power to users during periods of peak solar generation. 

Grid operators had to restrict 8,133GWh of solar electricity during the April-June period, when peak power demand reached a record 270GW, because of these transmission constraints and the need to maintain grid stability, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy told India’s parliament.

GEC-III will pair the additional transmission capacity with Battery Energy Storage Systems, enabling the stored renewable electricity to be released during periods of higher demand. This will help to reduce peak-hour power restrictions and meet demand outside solar-generation hours.

New Delhi currently has about 8.66GWh of installed large-scale battery storage, against a projected requirement of 236GWh by 2031-32, according to Power Ministry data.

India crossed 300GW of installed non-fossil power capacity in July, with these now accounting for more than 54% of the country’s installed generation capacity. New Delhi is targeting 500GW of non-fossil power by 2030.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has rejected claims by UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham that Tehran is linked to the recent security scare near the RAF Fairford airbase in southwestern England.

Police arrested five men on Sunday near the military facility that hosts US bombers used in missions against Iran. The suspects turned out to be British citizens in their early 20s and were released on bail the following day.

“There are strong indications that Iran played a part in what happened over the weekend at RAF Fairford,” Burnham told the BBC on Wednesday, marking the first time UK authorities have publicly linked the incident to a foreign actor.

He declined to provide further details, promising to “say more in due course.”

PM Burnham says the UK Government "can confirm our belief that we believe Iran to have played a part" in the RAF Fairford incident.

I can confirm Iran's belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) September 30, 2026

Araghchi responded to Burnham’s claims on social media.

“I can confirm Iran’s belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all. You’re barking up the wrong tree,” he wrote on X.

The Iranian Embassy in London earlier issued a statement strongly denying any involvement in the incident near RAF Fairford and accused the UK government of peddling “Iranophobia.”

Burnham also defended the decision to release the suspects, which had been questioned by US President Donald Trump, insisting that the men were subject to the “strictest possible bail conditions.”

The American leader claimed the suspects were known to the law enforcement.

“I would have said, ‘Don’t let them have bail.’ I’m surprised that they released them. I wouldn’t have done that,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

The case has fueled much speculation in Western media, including theories that Russia or unspecified Islamist extremists may have been behind the incident. Police initially believed the suspects illegally held explosives, but none were found in three vans found in the vicinity of the base.

In another twist, the BBC reported on Wednesday that one of the five suspects had called the police himself shortly before the arrests – and about an hour before local residents alerted authorities to suspicious vehicles near the base. According to the Daily Mail, masked men reported by locals in the woods were apparently armed police responding to the initial tip.

Dubai-based airline FlyDubai has suspended flights to and from Israel after a Tel Aviv-bound passenger jet was diverted and made an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia following an apparent hijacking attempt.

Direct air travel has been one of the most visible signs of normalized relations between Israel and the UAE since the countries signed the US-brokered Abraham Accords in 2020.

“Following the incident involving flight FZ 1073 on 30 September, and in coordination with the relevant authorities, Flydubai flights to and from Israel will be suspended while the investigation continues,” the airline said in a statement on Wednesday.

“The safety and wellbeing of our passengers, crew and operations remain our highest priority. This temporary suspension will allow the relevant authorities to continue their work and establish all the facts surrounding the incident,” Flydubai added.

The UAE’s aviation regulator, the General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA), acknowledged that a “security incident” aboard the aircraft had forced the plane, which was traveling from Dubai International Airport to Ben Gurion International Airport, to land in Tabuk in northwestern Saudi Arabia.

According to Israeli officials and passengers, most of whom were Israeli nationals, a fight broke out in the cockpit during which the co-pilot stabbed the captain, causing the plane to plunge. Passengers and crew members eventually subdued the assailant, after which the aircraft landed safely, with no fatalities among the 174 people on board. The captain was reportedly seriously injured during the altercation.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attacker had apparently planned to crash the plane and that the actions of the captain and passengers prevented “a 9/11 disaster.”

US President Donald Trump, who discussed the incident with Netanyahu by phone, suggested that the co-pilot was “perhaps a terrorist, or perhaps a whack-job.”

Emirati-Israeli relations have faced growing strains since the start of the Gaza war in 2023, despite the two countries maintaining diplomatic, commercial and security ties.

Regional tensions escalated further after the US and Israel launched their war against Iran in late February. Tehran retaliated by firing thousands of missiles and drones at the UAE, which hosts US military forces.

Netanyahu visited the UAE on Sunday for talks with President Mohamed bin Zayed on bilateral ties and the war with Iran. Tehran condemned the visit and warned of “highly dangerous consequences,” arguing that Netanyahu’s presence threatened regional peace and security.

Lithuanian Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevicius has said there is no evidence that Russia is preparing an attack on NATO territory, following a meeting with the military bloc’s chief, Mark Rutte, in Brussels.

His remarks came amid heightened tensions between Russia and NATO, as some Western officials and intelligence agencies have warned that Moscow could be preparing operations against member states in Europe.

At a press conference on Tuesday, an AFP reporter asked Sinkevicius, whose Baltic country borders Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave and Moscow’s close ally Belarus, whether the “increasing hysteria and fear of hybrid attacks” could undermine Europe’s confidence and play into Russia’s hands.

“We’re not shaking. We’re not shivering. We are investing hugely in our defense capabilities,” Sinkevicius replied.

“I think it’s a must to say if the threat is there for the society. But you can’t exaggerate and say, ‘Oh, something is happening in the upcoming months or weeks,’” he added.

“I was addressing the secretary general [Rutte, asking] ‘Is there any proof, real proof intelligence services are providing, something on the table, that Russia is getting ready for something?’ And there is actually none,” Sinkevicius said.

“The risk remains but it is not fluctuating, increasing or decreasing. We have to calmly do our work, and we’re doing it,” he added. 

👀 Lithuanian PM: "I was addressing the secretary general [Mark Rutte asking,] 'Is there any proof, real proof intelligence services are providing, something on the table, that Russia is getting ready for something?' And there is actually none."

In other words, most of the “OMG!… pic.twitter.com/2UdYUWWKPR

— 1g0r.B0hm (@1g0rB0hm) September 30, 2026

Rutte said the bloc should respond to potential threats by strengthening its own defenses and doing “even more for Ukraine, and not less.”

Speaking at the Euronews Defence & Space Summit in Brussels the following day, the NATO chief similarly sought to play down fears of an imminent Russian attack.

“There is no imminent threat to NATO territory. If there is a build-up, we will see it and we will deal with it,” Rutte said.

European officials have increasingly discussed the possibility of a military confrontation with Russia, particularly around Kaliningrad, which is sandwiched between NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys argued in May that NATO must demonstrate its ability to “break into” the Russian exclave and destroy its air-defense and missile systems if necessary. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said last month that NATO members should closely monitor Russian forces in Kaliningrad and conduct exercises “so aggressively” that Moscow would be forced to divert troops from Ukraine to defend the region.

The Kremlin has described remarks about Kaliningrad as “borderline crazy,” while the Russian Embassy in Belgium condemned what it called “an unprecedented surge” in NATO military activity along Russia’s western borders.

“The Alliance is conducting a large-scale information campaign to propagate the myth of the ‘Russian threat’ and spread false information about Moscow’s alleged ‘intentions’ to attack one of the Baltic states by 2029 at the latest, or even sooner,” the Russian Embassy said on X on Monday.

It warned NATO members that “reckless and irresponsible” actions risked triggering a direct armed conflict.

Patrick Branco Ruivo, the director general of the company operating the Eiffel Tower, has said he will step down amid controversy over female employees being replaced by men during a visit by Hindu dignitaries.

According to French media, Branco Ruivo told staff and the board of directors of the Societe d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SETE) on Tuesday that he would leave by the end of the year. However, he denied issuing “any instruction aimed at sidelining or replacing women” during a September 5 tour of the monument by members of the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), a global conservative Hindu religious organization.

“Nevertheless, women were indeed sidelined, and I regret that,” Branco Ruivo said, as cited by Le Figaro.

His decision followed an internal investigation that uncovered “a series of dysfunctions and failures” in the organization of protocol visits, which SETE said had led to the “unacceptable” sidelining of female employees.

A separate investigation launched by the City of Paris is still underway, according to French media.

The scandal broke after Eiffel Tower employees said management had issued instructions that led to female staff “being sidelined, replaced and made invisible because of their sex” during the BAPS delegation’s visit in early September.

“Some [women] were asked to leave their posts and withdraw to other areas. In some posts they were replaced by men. And all female employees were instructed not to go through or cross certain areas while the delegation was present,” staff at the iconic landmark said.

The CGT trade union representing Eiffel Tower employees held a strike on September 7 to protest the treatment of female staff, forcing the landmark to remain closed for the day.

SETE said at the time that the Hindu delegation had requested arrangements limiting “interactions with women,” adding that “these conditions should not have been accepted.”

BAPS, however, denied asking for “female employees to be hidden, removed or excluded from the visit,” insisting that its monks observe their “personal spiritual commitments” without seeking to impose them on others. The organization nevertheless apologized for “any pain or inconvenience caused” by the incident.

BAPS is known for building large Hindu temples and cultural complexes around the world, including in London, Abu Dhabi and Robbinsville, New Jersey. The delegation’s Eiffel Tower visit coincided with celebrations surrounding the inauguration of a new BAPS temple in the Paris suburb of Bussy-Saint-Georges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plan backfired.

What went wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

Four years later: Where is Russian oil going?

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

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

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

Sanctions changed the routes, ships, and customers. They did not stop millions of barrels of Russian crude from reaching the global market.

Why is Russian oil worth more now?

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

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

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

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

The EU subsequently suspended automatic adjustments to its Russian crude price cap until July 2027, while retaining the option of an earlier review.

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

Not all barrels are created equal: The refinery factor

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

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

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

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

Europe doubles down

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

Slovakia and Hungary have resisted demands for a rapid cutoff, arguing that refineries, pipelines, and other infrastructure built around Russian supplies cannot simply be switched to alternatives overnight.

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

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

The West’s Catch-22

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia possesses the largest coastline in the Arctic, measuring over 24,000 km. Moscow has repeatedly outlined defending its interests in the region as a major priority and has expanded its military presence there in response to hostile moves of the US-led NATO bloc, while developing the Northern Sea Route.

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

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

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

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

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

Talk of reversing Brexit has grown recently, with several prominent British politicians floating the idea. Burnham’s comments are the clearest indication yet that rejoining the EU could be on the table, although any such move would reopen questions over sovereignty, immigration, and regulatory control that drove much of the Leave vote.

Why did Britain leave the EU in the first place?

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

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

What did Brexit achieve?

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

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

Brexit also gave Britain an independent trade policy, allowing it to negotiate agreements without the approval of EU members. The UK has since struck deals with Australia, New Zealand, and India and joined the CPTPP, a major Indo-Pacific trade bloc. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimates that the long-term economic gains from post-Brexit trade agreements are small compared with the impact it expects from higher trade barriers with the EU.

The bloc nevertheless remains Britain’s largest trading partner, accounting for about 41% of UK exports and roughly half of imports in 2025.

Why is the issue being reopened now?

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

Leaving the EU single market and customs union also created new barriers to trade with Britain’s largest trading partner. Businesses face customs declarations, rules-of-origin requirements, and additional checks that did not apply when Britain was an EU member.

While Brexit gave Britain greater control over legal migration, Burnham has argued that it weakened the country’s ability to tackle irregular migration by reducing cooperation with European countries, particularly over Channel crossings.

Is preserving the UK part of the calculation?

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

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

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

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

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

Much of the alignment has centered on Russia and Ukraine. London and its European partners have coordinated weapons supplies and training for Kiev, sanctions against Moscow, and efforts to expand European arms production.

In July, Britain secured participation in the EU’s €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan, allowing British defense companies to compete for procurement contracts financed through the scheme. The UK agreed to make a contribution proportionate to the value of contracts awarded to British companies.

Could Britain simply rejoin the EU?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goyal’s Arc Echo collection was showcased at Moscow Fashion Week on Sunday. The current edition, which runs through October 1, features more than 350 designers from over ten countries. In 2025, the Fashion Design Council of India presented CoEK-Khadi India and Samant Chauhan at the event, while Russian label Hatsibana later appeared at Lakme Fashion Week in New Delhi under an FDCI–Moscow Fashion Week exchange.

Stronger links between emerging markets could eventually allow designers and buyers to work with each other without routing business through established fashion centers such as Paris, Goyal told RT India. That will, however, require these countries to establish effective commercial structures that make shipping, buying and cross-border partnerships easier.

Social media is also weakening the traditional barriers to global visibility. Designers from smaller cities and countries can now put collections directly in front of international audiences and editors, giving them routes into the industry that previously depended much more heavily on established fashion capitals.

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

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

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

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

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

Left in disarray with a weak central government and security forces, Iraq became fertile ground for Islamist militant groups. The crisis came to a head with the emergence of Islamic State, which seized around a third of Iraqi territory and spread into several neighboring countries, proclaiming a ‘caliphate’. Its militants massacred those they deemed insufficiently Muslim, as well as Christians and members of other religious minorities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moscow responded that it would not dismantle or alter the monument. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova even stated that one might as well demand that the wind stop blowing or the sun stop shining. 

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

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

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

A series of coincidences

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

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

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

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

Japan’s reaction was immediate. Takaichi called the visit “absolutely unacceptable,” Motegi repeated Tokyo’s position about the islands being an “inherent part of Japanese territory,” and the Japanese Foreign Ministry summoned Russian Ambassador to Japan Nikolay Nozdrev. Moscow responded firmly, dismissing the statements of Japanese officials as politically irrelevant, offensive, and legally null and void; it reiterated that Iturup, like the rest of the Kurils, is an integral part of Russia, and that Japanese officials have no right to tell Moscow which regions of the country the Russian president may visit.

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

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

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

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

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

Below, Russian experts analyze the situation. 

‘Relations have not cooled suddenly’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An independent bilateral agenda no longer exists; therefore, we may only speak of the global situation and how it relates to Russia’s Far East. 

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

Who started it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This explains Russia’s strong reaction. “Of course, no one is saying that this is literally preparation for an attack on the Kuril Islands. But Russia is obliged to evaluate not only statements, but military capabilities,” Bonch-Osmolovskaya says.

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

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

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

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

Energy instead of diplomacy

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

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

Vladimir Nelidov – PhD in History, associate professor of the Department of Oriental Studies at MGIMO, Senior Researcher at the Center for Japanese Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and RIAC expert – considers this to be the main reason why the threats didn’t go beyond words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Takaichi could not remain silent

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

Nelidov suggests viewing the situation through the eyes of the Japanese leadership to better understand their logic. Sanae Takaichi rose to power as a nationalist politician and, among other things, a defender of national honor. Her policy is grounded in this. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who benefits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freezing point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a way to achieve a thaw in relations? All three experts agree that there is no simple solution. Normalizing bilateral ties is impossible until relations between Russia and the West are normalized; the Japanese leadership lacks both the will and the capacity to adopt an independent stance. However, Shchepkin believes that once the conflict in Ukraine ends, Tokyo will be among the first to act: as soon as the sanctions regime is lifted or minimized, Japan will be ready to soften its position and resume dialogue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

♦️ תהלוכת העריקים בירושלים. צילום: יאיר לוי

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

— Asslan Khalil (@KhalilAsslan) September 29, 2026

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

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

— הפרגוד (@moshepargod) September 29, 2026

The demonstration comes two days after hundreds of Haredi Jews rallied in Bnei Brak to honor 160 ultra-Orthodox draft dodgers released from a military prison. While the event was described by organizers as a homecoming party, it turned political and was used to launch the Color Black, a newly registered Haredi political party. Its program largely revolves around securing military-service exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox community.

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

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

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

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

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

‘We don’t need handouts’

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

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

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

He called for a balanced and realistic budget, while demanding that the government fully fund national projects and federal programs and meet all of its social commitments.

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

Security and the Ukraine conflict

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

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

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

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

Developing the new regions

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

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

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

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

Election shows ‘national unity’

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

Russian officials said more than 1,600 UAVs were repelled, including 450 on approaches to the capital, describing the unprecedented attack as an attempt to disrupt the elections. At least two civilians were reported killed in Moscow Region.

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

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

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

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

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

What is the F-16 initiative?

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

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

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

What’s the problem?

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

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

Was the issue unexpected?

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

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

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

Is Ukraine getting more jets?

There were delays in deliveries as well.

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

Most of the aircraft that Kiev did get reportedly came from the Netherlands and Denmark, the co-leaders of the F-16 initiative.

Why does Ukraine have air defense problems?

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

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

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

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

Can Ukraine come up with alternatives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The killing comes amid resistance to the Ebola response in eastern DR Congo. The World Health Organization (WHO) has said insecurity and attacks on health facilities are complicating efforts to contain the outbreak by restricting access for response teams, disrupting surveillance and discouraging people from seeking care.

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

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

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

The disease is caused by the Bundibugyo species of Ebola virus. There is currently no approved vaccine or specific treatment for the strain, although candidate vaccines and treatments are being studied, according to the WHO.

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

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

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

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

Why has Mali raised the accusation again?

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

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

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

Malian Prime Minister Abdoulaye Maiga described the offensive as an attempt to seize power. The Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged the assault, saying it amounted to an attempted coup and claimed that the attackers had received training involving Ukrainian and European mercenary instructors. 

How did the dispute with Ukraine begin?

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

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

What has been reported about Ukrainian involvement since then?

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

Fousseynou Ouattara, vice president of the defense commission of Mali’s transitional council, told TASS in July that authorities had identified fighters who had received drone training in Ukraine. Malian outlet Bamada also reported that soldiers recovered a drone bearing Ukrainian writing and documents allegedly linked to Ukrainian intelligence during operations against JNIM.

What has Ukraine said?

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

Is Mali alone in making the accusation?

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

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

What does Moscow say?

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

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

Why have the Sahel states turned to Russia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington and Moscow have separately discussed potential economic cooperation. Following talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Moscow earlier this month, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said the sides had discussed possible “major, mutually beneficial Russian-American projects.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India is now the world’s second-largest supplier of seafarers, with 311,936 maritime professionals accounting for 12.16% of the global workforce, according to the 2026 BIMCO-ICS Seafarer Workforce Report cited by the Shipping Ministry.

The targeting of commercial ships and crews in international waterways is “simply unacceptable,” Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar told the UN General Assembly on Saturday, calling for restraint, de-escalation, and uninterrupted flows of energy and commerce.

Traffic through Hormuz remains well below pre-conflict levels. Ten commodity vessels crossed the strait on September 23, compared with a ten-day average of about 17. Before the US-Israeli war on Iran began in February, around 125 large commercial vessels typically used the route each day.

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

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

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

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

From 2008 to 2018, Somali pirates disrupted critical world waterways, causing widespread chaos. The new incident comes amid a resurgence in piracy off the coast of Somalia following years of relatively low activity. At least 15 attacks have been recorded in the region this year, according to an analysis of International Maritime Organization data, with Somali pirates successfully hijacking at least six commercial vessels since April.

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

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

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

Countries in the region have stepped up maritime security cooperation amid the renewed activity. Russia and the Seychelles, an Indian Ocean island nation roughly 1,300 km southeast of Somalia, are planning joint anti-piracy exercises in November during a Russian Navy port call, Seychelles’ defense chief said on Saturday.

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

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

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

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

Germany’s main argument in favor of this military buildup is, of course, the need to deter the “threat from the East” – a classic case of history repeating itself. The fact that Russia has no intention of attacking NATO doesn’t seem to matter; it serves as a convenient excuse and a rallying cry to ramp up militarism. Technically, from German territory, Tomahawk missiles can only reach parts of European Russia, but Berlin’s ambitions extend well beyond this missile system.

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

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

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

But that’s not all. The Bundeswehr is considering other missile projects as well. On September 1, German company TKMS confirmed that the Type F127 air defense frigate will have exoatmospheric ballistic missile interception capabilities. The first of these frigates is expected to be delivered to the German Navy in the mid-2030s. It will be equipped with SM-2 Block IIIC and SM-6 Block I interceptors. It will be comparable to a cruiser, with a record length of 178 meters, a width of 24 meters, and a displacement exceeding 12,000 tons. Its armament will include 96 Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells for missile-interception weapons, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles. The construction of at least five such ships is planned. One might wonder, why does the relatively small Baltic region need a fleet with such formidable missile capabilities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part of a bridge collapsed on the Dyatkovo-Lyudinovo rail section, sending ten cars off the tracks, according to Kovalchuk. A separate strike in Unecha District derailed another 18 empty freight cars, A third attack damaged tracks in Navlya District, but did not disrupt train traffic or cause injuries.

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

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

Russia has responded to Kiev’s terrorist attacks by intensifying its long-range missile and drone campaign against Ukraine’s military-industrial facilities and logistics infrastructure. The Defense Ministry in Moscow maintains that it does not target civilians and that its strikes are directed solely at military targets and infrastructure supporting Kiev’s forces.

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

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

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

The surge comes despite Western efforts to curb Moscow’s energy earnings. The G7, EU and Australia introduced a $60-per-barrel price cap on Russian crude in December 2022 alongside an EU embargo on seaborne imports, followed by restrictions on Russian petroleum products in February 2023.

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

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

Russia has consequently raised its crude-export forecast for 2026 by about 150,000 barrels per day while cutting its forecast for refined-product shipments by roughly 500,000 barrels per day, according to Bloomberg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAM was part of Akhannouch’s outgoing coalition government alongside his National Rally of Independents and Istiqlal. During the campaign, PAM ruled out renewing the alliance with Akhannouch’s party, but Mansouri later said she had no “red lines” for coalition talks.

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

Tangier Mayor Mounir Limouri, a PAM official, was placed in police custody on Monday as part of the investigation, multiple outlets reported, citing judicial sources. Five other suspects were held in pretrial detention. Limouri denied any connection to the alleged tampering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This live feed has now ended.

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

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

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

NATO spokesperson Allison Hart confirmed receiving the Russian message and accused Moscow of irresponsible rhetoric.

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

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

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

Russia has repeatedly rejected Western claims that it intends to attack NATO before the end of the decade, describing such warnings as warmongering aimed at persuading voters to support sharply higher military spending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The AfD has rejected accusations of extremism. Responding to a parallel push for a potential ban in Hamburg this week, AfD parliamentary leader Dirk Nockemann called it an “attack on democracy and the will of the voters” and dismissed the proposed working group as “desperate.”

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

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

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

Merz himself has expressed skepticism about pursuing a ban. Earlier this month, the chancellor said the legal hurdle was “very high” and argued that outlawing the AfD would not solve the problems its voters believe they face.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats are ahead of Republicans by more than ten points nationally in the race for control of the US House of Representatives, according to recent polls by Quinnipiac University and NPR/PBS/Marist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- LAYERS of ‘CONTROLS’

- Internal CYBERSECURITY, BIOSECURITY and CHEMICAL THREAT controls
Auditors

- Independent board

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

— RTVisual (@RT_Visual_on_X) September 29, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 29, 2026

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

“The name Super Intelligence conveys the true capabilities of the technologies being developed today, unlocking new forms of human creativity and empowering Americans to achieve what was previously impossible – not simply imitating or automating human intelligence as is implied by the term ‘Artificial Intelligence,’” the White House said.

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

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

Trump has ruled out slowing AI development under his watch, dismissing fears of the technology going rogue as “a hoax.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiev has rejected Russia’s ceasefire terms, which include the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Russian territory in Donbass and an end to Western military aid to Ukraine. Moscow has argued that Ukraine was not negotiating in good faith and accused Kiev’s European backers of trying to sabotage US-mediated talks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korper said Van der Stap had been carefully vetted after his release from prison in December 2025 and before joining the company, adding that he was shocked by the arrest.

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

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

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

Media reports on the affair suggested Van der Stap might have been a victim of an elaborate ruse, presumably set up by a ShinyHunters spinoff faction, known as the Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters. According to Brian Krebs, an American investigative journalist focused on for-profit cybercriminals, Van der Stap has been engaged in a bitter dispute with the leader of the spinoff, known only as ‘Rey,’ over control of the ShinyHunters branding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Margarita Simonyan (@M_Simonyan) September 29, 2026

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

Rosenberg’s question to Russia’s top diplomat followed several days of high-pitch war hysteria in the UK press, including a significantly over-reported ‘security incident’ near an RAF base. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We are reaching a plateau,” Alikhanov said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Luc Auffret (@LucAuffret) September 29, 2026

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

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

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

French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu is set to unveil €54 billion ($62 billion) worth of cutbacks in his 2027 budget on Thursday. Lecornu denies that he has drafted an “austerity” budget, but left-wing politician Jean-Luc Melenchon, a supporter of the strikes, has said that it would only heighten unrest, and has vowed to undo the budget and cancel government debt if elected president next year.

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

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

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

Follow: @europa pic.twitter.com/n0UYs2SEi8

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

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

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

Follow: @europa pic.twitter.com/K3klBV2mHS

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

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

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

A technology shaping China – and the world

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

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

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

Xi’s BRICS vision: AI as a shared opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chen Yixin’s warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

From principles to institutions

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

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

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

A global governance agenda

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

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

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

Making openness and security compatible

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

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

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

A defining question for the AI era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given the ever-tightening grip of Israeli security forces and the fact that there have been no operational airports in the Palestinian territories for quite some time, the move makes the work of the Dutch mission to Ramallah impossible and effectively amounts to an expulsion of the diplomats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights group that co-sponsored the measure, welcomed its signing, saying Muslims had for decades faced a “difficult choice” between observing their faith and meeting work or academic obligations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agriculture and support for poorer regions have historically accounted for about two-thirds of the EU budget. However, the six countries are demanding that those resources be redirected toward defense, competitiveness and innovation, adding that every area of spending must contribute to the proposed cuts.

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

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

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pledged to build the strongest conventional army in Europe, while his government has expanded the armed forces and is considering a return to conscription, despite tens of thousands of Germans vehemently opposing the idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another is Europe’s long military tradition. From ancient Greece and Rome onwards, military power has been central to European statecraft, and Russia historically found itself between two very different strategic worlds, the mounted powers of the Great Steppe to the east and heavily armed European states to the west.

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

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

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

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

The consequences are especially visible in the eastern states of the former German Democratic Republic, where dissatisfaction with the political establishment has long been a greater factor; Alternative for Germany and the Left have benefited as support for the traditional parties has weakened.

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

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

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

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

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

Under US President Donald Trump, the economic side of this relationship has also become increasingly explicit, where Washington expects Germany and other European allies to spend substantially more on defense and shoulder a greater share of the financial burden of the Western security system, and I return, Germany may retain considerable influence over the economic affairs of the European Union.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian Navy group, consisting of the ice-class patrol ship Ivan Papanin, the large landing ship Kondopoga, the salvage tug Pamir, and the naval tanker Sergey Osipov, successfully passed from the Laptev Sea into the Kara Sea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened at Fairford?

The drama in Gloucestershire, southwest England, began after a local resident noticed three vans blocking a road after midnight on Saturday near RAF Fairford, and a group of “hooded and ‘balaclava’d’ men” running from her car headlights.

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

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

How did British security services react?

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

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

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

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

Who are the Fairford incident suspects?

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

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

— Victoria Derbyshire (@vicderbyshire) September 28, 2026

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

What do British police officially suspect?

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

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

“We know everything about them,” he told reporters. “I would not have released them.”

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

Who declared a foreign power was involved?

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

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

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

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

How is Britain escalating war rhetoric?

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

The media machine has been playing its part in whipping up the war hysteria. Sky News aired a mockumentary titled ‘The Wargame’ playing out a crisis leading to a possible nuclear conflict with Russia. The BBC also urged readers to ask themselves whether they are “psychologically prepared for war”.

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

Is the Fairford incident a false flag?

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

Can the British government be believed?

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

The obvious historical example is the 2003 invasion of Iraq, . Prime Minister Tony Blair strongly backed US President George W. Bush’s false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. RAF Fairford itself was used by US bombers during that war.

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

What is the last refuge of a scoundrel?

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

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

Is Western Europe caught in its own echo-chamber?

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

Last month in Sweden, a Russian couple vacationing from Spain became the focus of a security scare after camping near a property connected to the CEO of arms manufacturer Saab. Quickly labeled as possible spies or assassins in the press, the tourists were cleared of any wrongdoing and told to leave Sweden, their holiday ruined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case comes amid a broader US shift on transgender issues. Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has reversed Biden-era gender-identity protections, ordered the federal government to recognize only two biological sexes, and moved to dismantle DEI programs, although the New York Times has retained its diversity policies. Public attitudes have also shifted, with a 2025 Pew survey finding growing support for restrictions on transgender people, even as a majority continued to back protections against discrimination.

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

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

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

Government corruption was selected by 50%, followed by Russian missile and drone strikes at 40%. Other leading concerns were incompetent officials at 30%, low wages, pensions, and social benefits at 28%, and Ukraine’s military mobilization campaign at 24%. The latter refers to the country’s mandatory conscription system.

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

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

Before that, Zelensky fired Irina Mudraya as deputy head of his office after she was accused of laundering millions to pay bail for former Energy Minister German Galushchenko, who is a suspect in a separate corruption case linked to businessman Timur Mindich.

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

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

Recent Russian strikes have degraded internet access, digital television broadcasts, and other services used by the Ukrainian public by hitting data centers in Kiev that Moscow says were used by the Ukrainian military and intelligence services.

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

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

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

The same month, Brussels effectively turned down the plea, pointing Kiev toward “already existing mechanisms,” including subsidies under the Ukraine Facility and EU-backed lending programs.

Speaking to Bloomberg on Monday, Vysotsky confirmed that the idea was dead in the water but argued that a $250 million low-interest World Bank loan would keep the agricultural sector afloat. “It’s going to more or less provide us a possibility to survive until the new year,” he said, warning that this is only a temporary solution.

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

Despite the EU refusing to allocate additional money, Vysotsky floated an even more ambitious proposal. During a meeting in Brussels on Monday, he urged the bloc to consider a €1.1 billion allocation to help cover the extra cost of rerouting Ukrainian agricultural exports through so-called Solidarity Lanes, less vulnerable to the de facto Russian blockade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bombers are part of the Russian nuclear triad and are capable of carrying missiles with thermonuclear warheads.

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

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

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

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

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

Other patented medicines from India still face the broader tariff unless they qualify for a separate exemption.

Washington says the measure is aimed at reducing its reliance on imported patented medicines and encouraging more production at home. Around 53% of patented pharmaceutical products distributed in the US were produced abroad in 2025, while only 15% of patented active pharmaceutical ingredients by volume were made domestically, according to data provided by the White House.

The tariff expansion comes as Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal begins a visit to Washington this week. He is due to meet US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer as the two countries seek to advance trade talks.

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

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

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

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

Trade is another point of friction. India and the US have reached “more or less an understanding” on a proposed trade agreement, but changes in Washington’s tariff framework created new complications and contributed to “bumps” in the relationship last year, Jaishankar said.

He also pointed to mobility as an issue increasingly shaping public perceptions of the relationship, saying its economic benefits and political sensitivities are moving in different directions. Despite the disagreements, Jaishankar said New Delhi still expects India-US ties to remain on an “upward trajectory.”

The comments come as Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal begins a US visit aimed at advancing the bilateral trade agreement and finalizing an interim deal. He is due to meet US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer during the trip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian forces have been advancing toward the area. Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov said in late August that Russian troops had breached parts of the first Ukrainian defensive line there, with forces operating within several kilometers of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.

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

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

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

The nuclear patrols over Greenland

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

Theoretically, this strategy was feasible: It would have made it impossible for the USSR to disarm the US with a single blow. However, in practice, as the number of nuclear-armed aircraft patrols increased, so did the number of incidents involving nuclear weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The standard crew consisted of five members; however, a third pilot and a substitute navigator were included on the mission. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gunner Staff Sergeant Calvin Snapp was less fortunate. He ejected first and landed nearly 10 km from the base in -30C degree temperatures. Wrapping himself in his parachute, he waited for help for 21 hours before being rescued by a search team. Miraculously, they found him alive, though severely hypothermic.

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

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

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

Cleaning up a nuclear disaster in the Arctic night

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

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

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

The US suggested to the Danish authorities that they should just wait for spring when the ice would melt and everything would sink into the Arctic waters. But Denmark was outraged. The Americans were given a choice: Either clean up their mess or close down the Thule base and leave Danish territory.

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

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

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

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

What the ice couldn’t bury

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

In the 1980s and ‘90s, a scandal erupted. Danish cleanup workers launched a legal battle against the American government. Though they lost the case, they succeeded in forcing the release of numerous classified documents. Subsequent investigations revealed that cancer mortality rates among Danish workers involved in the cleanup operation were about one and a half times higher than those of the general population. It also turned out that the health monitoring of the cleanup crews after the incident was inadequate. Ultimately, officials concluded that radiation exposure wasn’t significant and found no link between the increased cancer rate and the 1968 accident. 

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

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

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

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

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

Anthropic is reportedly seeking a valuation of more than $2 trillion when it goes public this autumn, nearly double the $1 trillion target reported by Reuters in May. Less than a month after the earlier figure was reported, Anthropic claimed that its unreleased Mythos Preview model managed to “escape” its testing environment and carry out advanced cybersecurity exploits without being “explicitly trained” to do so. Anthropic then declared it to be too powerful to release to the public.

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

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

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

Closed-source AI companies give their customers no control over the weights of their  models – essentially the tweaks that determine the choices the models make. Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman argue that opening their models to the public would lead to unacceptable security risks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the Pentagon has not yet officially confirmed the breach, nor commented on who was behind the intrusion or what they did with the information they accessed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ibrahim said the UN Security Council had failed to identify and condemn the RSF’s sponsors, which he accused of recruiting foreign mercenaries, providing political backing to the paramilitary group and financing media platforms spreading what he described as “disinformation” against the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

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

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

Ibrahim said peace would require the RSF to be disarmed and its weapons to remain under the control of state institutions. He also called for attacks on civilians and infrastructure to end.

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

The RSF was originally established by the Sudanese government under former President Omar al-Bashir in 2013, drawing heavily on the Janjaweed militias that Khartoum had used to fight rebels in Darfur. Its status was later formalized by law before tensions with the regular army erupted into open warfare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“If in 2 weeks the UK does not halt the illegitimate exploitation, we will go to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS),” he warned.

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

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

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

Earlier in September, Buenos Aires initiated sanctions proceedings against 60 people and companies ‌over being involved in oil exploration near the Falklands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington pledged on March 11 to make up to 172 million barrels available as part of a coordinated 400-million-barrel release by International Energy Agency members in response to the supply crisis. Much of the US crude is being provided through exchanges rather than sold outright, meaning companies must return the oil later along with additional barrels as a premium.

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

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

Crude exports through Hormuz were on track to average about 7.4 million bpd in September, according to preliminary Kpler data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The police raids in Abia took place in Umunneochi district, where gunmen have targeted travelers and residents for years. The state government ordered more checkpoints and told people living in the forests to leave after the kidnapping of Methodist Church leader Samuel Kanu-Uche there in 2022.

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

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

Around 200 American troops were deployed to Nigeria in February to support counterterrorism operations. Most have since withdrawn, and Nigeria said the main force was expected to leave by the end of September, with a smaller advisory team remaining.

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

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

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

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

Faced with the shortage, defense contractors are spending billions of dollars on factories and expanded production capacity, but the investment has yet to translate into major gains, the Wall Street Journal reported, adding that the additional missiles will arrive too late to substantially improve US inventories in any conflict over the next several years.

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

According to the WSJ, the issue precedes the Iran war. An Army Science Board study launched after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 found that the US munitions industrial base had been hollowed out. “It’s a miracle that we have anything that blows up,” Mackenzie Eaglen, who helped coordinate the study, told the paper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also had issues with “scope authorization,” performing tasks without asking for permission, and in some cases attempting to use potentially unsafe external tools, he added.

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

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

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

However, US President Donald Trump, who insists that America must prevail in an AI race against China at any cost, brushed off warnings about the risks posed by the technology as a “hoax” peddled by his Democratic rivals. “Whoever wins AI, wins,” he stressed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the men were released on bail the following day after “extensive interviews and enquiries,” according to Laurence Taylor, the head of the UK’s National Counter Terrorism Policing. No suspicious materials were found.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump confirmed on Saturday that he had rejected Iran’s proposal for a seven-day ceasefire that would have reopened the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that he sought a better deal. The US president has emphasized that his primary goal is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that Tehran never acquires nuclear weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

What’s happening in Cuba?

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

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

Why is the US squeezing Cuba?

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

What does Havana say?

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

What is China’s position?

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

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

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

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

How is China aiding Cuba?

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

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

What’s in it for China?

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

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

Who else supports Cuba?

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

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

Russia remains one of Cuba’s closest partners, providing diplomatic and economic support, including $18 million in food assistance through the UN from 2018 to 2025, with another $2 million allocated this year. A Russian tanker carrying 730,000 barrels of crude oil in late March has been Cuba’s only major oil shipment this year.

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

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

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

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

The number of civilian volunteers, including dozens of women, enrolling in the training course has risen recently amid renewed threats from US President Donald Trump, RT’s Saman Kojouri reports from Tehran.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent casualty estimates, however, differ drastically from the official Ukrainian figures, with the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimating that Ukrainian forces have suffered between 525,000 and 625,000 casualties, including those killed, wounded, and missing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“People here are strong, courageous and educated; everyone understands perfectly well what is happening around Russia,” Putin said. “It became clear that such people cannot be intimidated. And it is impossible to defeat such people, such a country. Therefore, victory will undoubtedly be ours.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Panel discussions will run through Thursday, October 1.

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

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

Russia continues to play an active role in the G20 and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and is a founding member of BRICS, which has expanded to 11 countries representing “nearly half the world’s population [and] about half the world’s GDP,” Sakwa explained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The route connects… pic.twitter.com/pUKsSzJEJq

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) September 28, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netanyahu reportedly played down the threat, saying Israel was prepared and that an attack was more likely to come from the occupied West Bank. His office has rejected the Haaretz report as an “absolute lie,” insisting no such conversation took place.

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

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

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

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

Israeli intelligence had also obtained a Hamas battle plan known as ‘Jericho Wall’ more than a year before the attack. The New York Times reported that the document outlined a cross-border assault involving attacks on Israeli military positions and communities, closely resembling the operation eventually carried out on October 7. Israeli military and intelligence officials reportedly dismissed the plan as too ambitious for Hamas to execute.

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

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

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

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

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

Up the down staircase

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

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

Without Western financial aid, Ukraine would have already faced a financial catastrophe; however, it continued to exist. Despite occasional disruptions, major industrial facilities remained operational, as did the small and medium-sized businesses that supported them – suppliers, transport companies, various outsourced services, construction and repair crews, and so on. Cafes, restaurants, the telecommunications sector, and small businesses stayed open. Ukraine’s robust logistics sector remained active. The government collected taxes from all these businesses.

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

The worst possible moment

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

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

Ukrainian strikes on Black Sea oil and grain exports gave Russia a pretext to respond in kind and effectively block Ukraine’s shipping in the Black Sea. As with strikes on warehouses, Russia maintained the upper hand in the escalation. There are several reasons for this: Russia’s increased firepower, the depletion of Ukrainian air defenses, and more broadly, Ukraine’s smaller size, its lack of strategic geographic depth, and fewer targets within the country. While the ‘war on cities’ affected Russia as well, Ukrainian strikes did not cause the same amount of damage. 

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

The only available option 

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

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

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

Taking this logic into account, even an energy truce is bad for Ukraine, as a moratorium on mutual strikes would deprive Kiev – or rather, its masters – of the only effective leverage over Moscow.Of course, this is a one-way street. In an earlier article, we analyzed how the Ukrainian state is becoming detached from its own society. Today, I’d like to point out that in its current form, the Kiev regime has no other options: On one side of the scale lies the fate of Ukraine, and on the other, the interests of its masters. Zelensky has no real choice. In the interests of its masters, Ukraine must sacrifice itself and inflict the greatest possible damage on Russia, or if possible, even defeat it. 

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

***

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