Tech billionaire Elon Musk has branded OpenAI bosses “utterly untrustworthy assholes” after the company announced plans to withdraw its artificial intelligence models from Cursor following the coding platform’s acquisition by SpaceX.

Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 with its current CEO Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman, and several other developers and researchers, left the company three years later over its direction and has since been locked in a bitter public and legal feud with its leadership.

Earlier this month, SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Anysphere, the developer of Cursor, which provides programmers with access to AI models from several companies.

On Friday, OpenAI abruptly announced that it intends to end Cursor users’ access to its models, with a “proposed shutoff date” of November 12. The company said it could not be confident that “SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts.”

I couldn’t care less. Scam Altman and Greg Stockman are utterly untrustworthy assholes who stole an open source nonprofit.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 29, 2026

“I couldn’t care less. Scam Altman and Greg Stockman are utterly untrustworthy assholes who stole an open source nonprofit,” Musk wrote on X on Saturday.

OpenAI said its agreement with Cursor allows it to cancel the contract within a limited period following a change of control, although it has not accused Cursor itself of violating its terms.

Anthropic, one of OpenAI’s main rivals, quickly moved to capitalize on the dispute, saying it would increase computing capacity to support its Claude models on Cursor following the cutoff announcement.

During court proceedings, Musk accused OpenAI of breaking that founding commitment by adopting a profit-driven model and accepting a $13 billion investment from Microsoft. The billionaire has repeatedly accused Altman of having “stolen a charity” and described himself as a “fool” for providing the company with early financial support.

In May, a US federal jury rejected Musk’s claims, finding that he had waited too long to bring the case and had missed the statutory deadline. Musk has pledged to appeal the verdict.

The US could use nuclear weapons against Iran after failing to topple its leadership with conventional means, former presidential counterterrorism adviser Joe Kent has told podcaster Tucker Carlson.

In April, US President Donald Trump threatened that Iran’s “whole civilization will die” unless Tehran agreed to Washington’s demands. Trump has since repeatedly issued similar threats, saying that US forces could obliterate the country’s civilian infrastructure, including power plants and bridges.

Appearing on Carlson’s show on Friday, Kent described the nuclear option as realistic, saying that “we would be fools to think that this couldn’t happen here, in this current scenario, especially as the [Trump] administration scrambles for a way out.”

How close are we to nuclear war? According to Joe Kent, a lot closer than you think.

0:00 Monologue
23:19 Are We Heading Toward Nuclear War?
26:51 What Does Unconditional Surrender Actually Mean?
30:23 Should Trump Be Impeached?
36:24 Israel's Escalation Into Lebanon and… pic.twitter.com/g7zkjzWezY

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 28, 2026

He noted that Trump has failed to achieve any of his constantly shifting objectives in the conflict with Iran, despite employing the whole gamut of US military and economic capabilities.

According to Kent, if Washington is still intent on removing the Iranian leadership from power and forcing it into a “total surrender,” there are only two options left at Trump’s disposal: a full-scale ground operation or a nuclear strike.

The former is “not feasible whatsoever,” given Iran’s vast territory and population, Kent told Carlson.

“If you just play out the scenario for long enough, you arrive at weapons of mass destruction, you know, fairly quickly,” Kent claimed. He speculated that Washington could hypothetically opt for a limited nuclear strike on underground uranium enrichment facilities tucked away in Iran’s mountainous areas.

Trump and several other senior US officials have vehemently denied claims of ammunition shortages, insisting that the Pentagon has plenty of munitions at its disposal.

However, in an apparent shift in tactics, the US president announced last week the start of a “CRUSHING ECONOMIC OPERATION” against Iran, which he dubbed the “ECONOMIC D-DAY.”

Several days later, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unveiled a slew of new sanctions against Tehran, targeting nearly 60 entities, individuals, and vessels in multiple jurisdictions, including 21 based in China.

The secretary explained that the US was aiming to make Iran an “economic outcast” by penalizing countries that refuse to sever economic ties.

“Any entity that facilitates money laundering on behalf of Iran will be removed from the US dollar system,” he warned during a press conference on Monday.

Icelanders have turned out in unusually large numbers to decide whether to reopen accession talks with the European Union, with the founding NATO member split almost exactly down the middle over its future relationship with Brussels.

Polling stations closed at 10pm local time on Saturday, with the first results underscoring just how difficult the outcome is to predict. Early counts initially gave the “no” camp a commanding lead in rural constituencies, before the overall tally swung toward “yes” as more votes came in. With large numbers of ballots still uncounted and different regions reporting at different speeds, however, the nationwide result remained far too close to call.

Interest in the referendum has been exceptionally high. More than 63,000 people – close to a quarter of the electorate – had already cast advance ballots by Friday night. Turnout on election day was also running ahead of the 2024 parliamentary election in parts of Reykjavík.

The ballot asks voters a single question: “Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?”

The campaign went down to the wire. A final Maskína survey put the “yes” camp at 50.4% and “no” at 49.6%, while a Gallup poll shortly beforehand showed essentially the reverse picture, with opponents narrowly ahead.

Iceland first applied to join the EU in 2009 after its devastating banking collapse and began negotiations the following year. The process was suspended after a change of government in 2013 and effectively abandoned in 2015 as the economy recovered and enthusiasm for surrendering powers to Brussels faded.

Supporters of restarting the talks have argued that closer EU integration could bring greater economic and currency stability and give Iceland more influence over rules it already adopts through the European Economic Area. The country is also part of the Schengen zone and deeply integrated into European markets.

The geopolitical argument has also loomed unusually large. Frostadottir’s allies have portrayed the EU as additional protection in an increasingly unstable world, particularly after US President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to take control of neighboring Greenland. Unease was further fueled in January when Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Iceland, Billy Long, joked that the country itself could become the “52nd state” of the US, with him serving as governor.

Euroskeptics, meanwhile, have argued that Brussels itself is becoming increasingly militarized and confrontational. Iceland is already a founding NATO member and maintains extensive military ties with Washington.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are close to stripping multiple left-wing nonprofits, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF), the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), of their tax-free status, the New York Post has reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened action against left-leaning charitable nonprofits and the OSF in particular, accusing them of fueling “violent protests” and damaging the country. The drive against the nonprofits picked up in the aftermath of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September last year, when Trump designated the loosely organized Antifa movement, backed by left-wing nonprofits, as a “domestic terrorist organization.”

At the time, US media reported that the US Department of Justice was pushing prosecutors to go after the OSF. The DoJ reportedly offered a range of potential charges to look into, including material support for terrorism, racketeering, arson and wire fraud. The foundation condemned the reported plans as “politically motivated attacks on civil society.”

The investigation also reportedly targets assorted anti-corporate and labor-aligned advocacy groups. Officials with the department were “like a dog with a bone” when it came to the probes, and many of the groups and their donors were already “on borrowed time,” one of the sources told the Post.

“There’s a lot of internal pressure to get it done, but some people are still moving too slowly at the IRS,” the source said. “That is expected to change very soon.”

Earlier this week, the Trump administration took action against three organizations based in Europe, including two pro-Palestinian groups, designating them as transnational terrorists. Palestine Action and Masar Badil, as well as Autistici/Inventati, which provides free digital tools to left-wing activists worldwide, are now subject to US State Department sanctions.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Baden-Wurttemberg Governor Cem Ozdemir have called for the opposition Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to be banned. The two establishment politicians claim that the country’s most popular party poses a threat to Germany’s constitutional order and democracy.

The AfD is the largest opposition force in the Bundestag and enjoys the support of 28% of respondents, according to recent surveys.

The right-wing party advocates tougher immigration controls while also calling for an end to Germany’s green policies. It is also highly critical of Berlin’s support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

In an opinion piece published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Friday, Pistorius and Ozdemir drew parallels between the modern-day AfD and Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party.

“Today, we are once again facing a threat to democracy from the extreme right,” the politicians, who represent the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party, respectively, claimed.

In making their case for outlawing the right-wing party, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that a powerful faction within the AfD espouses the idea of ‘remigration’, thus calling into question the “inviolability of human dignity” enshrined in the German constitution.

“A legal review of the constitutionality of a political party is warranted when it calls into question and threatens the continued existence of our democracy,” Pistorius and Ozdemir stated.

The two also took issue with the AfD’s supposedly “pro-Russian stance,” describing it as a “security risk.” The opposition party’s calls for Germany to withdraw from the European Union, the Eurozone, and NATO are equally “dangerous,” according to the article.

While acknowledging the AfD’s rising popularity, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that widespread public support for the party is another reason why it should be banned outright.

Voting for the opposition party out of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in Germany is no excuse, the authors argued.

“The undeniable radicalization of the AfD makes it impossible to claim ignorance of who one is voting for,” they wrote.

At present, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency classifies the AfD as a ‘suspected right-wing extremist’ entity – a designation that gives the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) powers to surveil the party and its members. In several regions, local AfD chapters have been subjected to even wider monitoring.

Meanwhile, an INSA poll published by Bild earlier this month showed that support for Germany’s governing Christian Democratic CDU/CSU bloc had fallen to 20%, with some 78% of respondents dissatisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition government, which also includes the Social Democrats.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry has summoned Ukraine’s ambassador after two Turkish-operated vessels were attacked in the Black Sea, raising concerns over the safety of civilian shipping in the waterway.

The incidents occurred earlier this week off the Russian port of Tuapse. On Wednesday, the cargo ship Lider Bordo Mavi was hit by at least three Ukrainian drones, leaving five crew members injured and setting the vessel ablaze.

The following day, another vessel, the Lider Kocatepe, was dispatched to assist the damaged ship. It came under drone attack en route, sustaining damage and forcing it to return to the Turkish port of Samsun.

Kiev’s envoy to Ankara, Naryman Dzhelialov, was summoned on Saturday. During the meeting, Turkish diplomats conveyed their concerns over the incidents and the safety of navigation in the Black Sea.

In recent weeks, Kiev has stepped up attacks on civilian shipping, attacking vessels heading to and from Russian ports and repeatedly striking Turkish-linked ships. Moscow has mounted a retaliatory campaign against Ukrainian military-linked shipping, heavily disrupting the country’s Black Sea ports and effectively bringing all marine traffic to a halt. The retaliatory strikes have reportedly affected Turkish-linked vessels as well. 

Ankara has repeatedly raised concerns over the situation, urging both sides to stop the ongoing strikes. Early in August, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for a “moratorium” on such attacks. “The conflict has spread across the whole Black Sea,” he said at the time, claiming that both Moscow and Kiev have been “attacking all commercial shipping without distinction.”

RT: It is well known that the United States has stationed nuclear weapons in NATO countries in Europe since the 1950s as part of a nuclear‑exchange programme. Why has the issue of removing US nuclear weapons from the region become a matter of fundamental importance at this moment?

Andrey Belousov: First and foremost, it must be noted that the problem of US nuclear weapons on the territory of European states and Turkiye has long been the subject of bilateral meetings on strategic stability, including at the beginning of the mid‑1990s. For the record, under presidential initiatives in the early 1990s, Russia reduced its non‑strategic nuclear arsenal four‑fold and kept the remainder at central storage bases.

We could reasonably expect symmetrical moves from the United States. Yet the actions taken by the US in the early 2000s – such as the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Greece and the United Kingdom, and partially from Italy and Germany – seemed more like a tactical concession or a trick, without changing the military‑political context in Europe. After all, the US nuclear weapons withdrawal from Greece was fully compensated by their presence in Turkiye, and those withdrawn from the UK were replaced by its own nuclear arsenal of the United Kingdom – which is the main and most important ally, strategic ally of the United States.

In contrast, the measures taken to remove and reduce US nuclear weapons in Italy and Germany did not significantly enhance security, trust, or predictability, because the practice of US nuclear weapons in Europe and joint NATO nuclear missions continued unchanged. In short, if we keep talking about this, we must remember that at that time the United States consistently followed a line to enhance its strategic capabilities, primarily through the implementation of plans and programmes not directly related to strengthening its nuclear potential, most of which was under the arms‑control bans at the time – Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

By the mid‑1990s, the US began implementing its Global Missile Defence configuration, which envisaged deploying one of its segments – the third positional sector – in Europe. At the same time, the concept of a global lightning‑strike was being implemented, under which the US could use non‑nuclear strategic carriers to strike any target anywhere on Earth.

We should also mention the development of new nuclear delivery systems and, finally, a programme to create laser anti‑satellite air‑based systems. This also included the development of heavy strike UAVs that, by their technical characteristics, fell under the criteria of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty,   but were not covered by it. It was also  a key element of enhancing US strategic capacity.

Accordingly, during that period of reshaping strategic stability from a military‑security view, Russia’s priority was to mitigate the risks and threats that could arise from the execution of the projects and programmes I mentioned. It does not mean that the issue of US non‑strategic nuclear weapons in Europe fell out of Russian diplomatic focus, let alone the Russian military, which could not ignore this problem in its defensive planning.

As tensions with the United States and its satellites increased, Russia sharpened the issue of removing American nuclear weapons from Europe, and the complete withdrawal of that armament from European territory to national territory.

Naturally, this has had a profoundly negative impact on the strategic environment.In fact, the negative factors are not limitк ed to the present situation. Factors that must be considered in analysing the current modern context also include NATO’s provocative positioning as a nuclear alliance and the continuous attempts of member states to expand that alliance eastward. Moreover, plans for advanced and extended deterrence, and the expansion and deepening of NATO’s joint nuclear missions, are increasingly being implemented. All of this must be considered together to understand the environment in which we live now.

And, undoubtedly, these aspects compel us to give enhanced attention, during this historical period, to the non‑strategic US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, as well as those of US allies in NATO – France and the United Kingdom. As a result, in the current conditions the factor of the total nuclear arsenal or the combined nuclear potential in the region takes on special importance in Russia’s military‑security context. The involvement of new states, NATO’s schemes for practising nuclear usage and discussing the possibility of deploying such weapons on their territory, and the introduction of new multifunctional aircraft platforms as delivery systems, increase the threat to Russia. The reason is that nuclear warheads can be moved quickly and covertly from permanent locations to points from which their use could have the greatest effect, including an attack on strategically important targets in the European part of Russia.

To summarise, I would like to note that all of this confirms that the European component of US nuclear forces, as well as the nuclear weapons of its allies, is designated for carrying out strategic objectives specifically, which poses critical risks for our country. This compels us to a corresponding military‑technical response. On the diplomatic front, our current efforts are focused on sparking an international discussion on the extremely destabilising nature of NATO’s joint nuclear mission practice, and on encouraging the United States to take steps toward removing its nuclear weapons from Europe.

RT: Andrey Ivanovich, what arguments, in your view, could persuade the American side and European countries alike to agree to remove this weapon?

Andrey Belousov: Here we can offer an entire battery of arguments – political, diplomatic, military, economic, international‑law and even historical in nature – grounded in the present state of inter‑state relations and the overall military‑political environment in the world.

The core of our arguments is, in principle, well known, because it is based on our doctrinal documents, our foreign‑policy concept, the fundamentals of national‑security strategy and military doctrine. Most of them relate to the fact that the international community is essentially faced with a choice: will inter‑state relations continue to develop in a confrontational paradigm that threatens a direct armed conflict between nuclear powers and the use of nuclear weapons, or will prudence prevail among our opponents, allowing the leading powers to reach an agreement on concrete joint measures to prevent escalation and avert a catastrophic scenario for the entire world?

Obviously, unlike our opponents and most Western countries, Russia does not stand at a crossroads. We have repeatedly expressed, at various levels and on different international platforms – including the UN – our readiness to cooperate with all interested states to maintain peace, strengthen regional security, and ensure strategic stability. Moreover, our statements are regularly reinforced by concrete initiatives. Recall that one of the founding principles of Russia’s foreign‑policy course in international and regional security remains the principle of equal and indivisible security. A key part of that principle is the non‑acceptance of a situation in which one state or a group of states creates comfortable conditions for itself – or a privileged status – at the expense of lowering the security level or damaging the security of other states.

From that widely recognised principle, which is set out in a host of international multilateral documents, Russia has recently put forward a whole set of key initiatives. These include proposals for the United States and its NATO allies to introduce a mutual moratorium on the deployment of intermediate and shorter range missiles. Another initiative, launched in late 2021 and early 2022, was the establishment of a security guarantee on the western front in the form of an agreement with the United States and NATO allies. Yet another initiative was a proposal, unfortunately still unrealised, to convene a summit of heads of state, the United Nations Security Council’s permanent members, to discuss urgent problems in international security. Among the latest proposals is the one put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin on September twenty second of last year to preserve the legacy of the START Treaty through voluntary limits.

In short, our opponents – primarily in Europe – must decide where we are headed next. In that context, it is far more important to bring forward arguments that are conditioned by the course of the historical process associated with establishing a new multipolar world order in which the imperative is the abandonment of global dominance by any one state or bloc of states. The new system of geopolitical coordinates, in whose formation Russia actively participates, does not allow perpetual escalation, the accumulation of unresolved contradictions critical to international security, or the further erosion of trust between the emerging centres of power, whose dangerous balance risks armed conflict. Furthermore, this system of coordinates does not allow continuous fuelling of a conflict‑generating potential in international relations and an uncontrolled arms race. It is also unacceptable, in a new world order, to create security systems aimed at a single state or predicated on bloc‑based confrontation. Rather, the new order dictates the necessity for mutually beneficial cooperation and constructive collaboration between states.

The quest, above all, is for political‑diplomatic solutions to the most urgent regional and global problems, strict adherence to the fundamental principles of the UN, the goals and tasks of the global community, respect for international law, and the recognition by every member of the international community of its responsibility for the fate of the world and international security.

RT: how could these negotiations – and the withdrawal of the weapons themselves – be organized if, in an optimistic scenario, the US side agreed with this position?

Andrey Belousov: That’s a very interesting question. At this point the organizational aspects of such negotiations, or even the procedure for removing US weapons from Europe, are secondary. The key issue now is Washington’s unwillingness to find a principled agreement to discuss this problem with a view of reaching any real agreement on the matter. What is needed is an openness to start and conduct negotiations without tying them to the question of Russia’s non‑strategic nuclear weapons, which, unlike US weapons of this class that can be used operationally against our country, do not pose a direct strategic threat to US territory.

It is obvious that Washington’s attempts to initiate a dialogue on our non‑strategic nuclear arsenal serve a single purpose – shifting the international community’s focus away from the danger posed by US nuclear weapons in Europe, and more broadly, from the missile‑nuclear programs and plans that Washington is implementing. Speaking of that danger, it cannot be overlooked that Washington’s persistence in trying to launch discussions about Russia’s non‑strategic nuclear weapons – those that do not threaten US territory – at various multilateral disarmament forums repeatedly suggests that US military strategists are seriously considering the possibility of using nuclear weapons on the European theater of operations. In fact, Europe is being viewed as a probable military theater.

Obtaining, through negotiations or discussions on strategic stability, objective data on Russia’s non‑strategic nuclear weapons via the implementation of some intrusive transparency practices – or reducing or even completely eliminating them – would increase the likelihood of a scenario in which the US and its European allies use nuclear weapons. I hope Europe will recognize the danger of such a strictly operational‑planning approach that Washington adopts toward the territory of its allies.

In a principled sense, regarding the conditions for launching any substantive US dialogue, there are three points that must be understood. First, what must precede such negotiations? Our country’s leadership – and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs – has repeatedly stated their position on this issue. Our delegations have mentioned it both in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly and at the recently held 11th Conference on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. To create a favorable climate for starting US negotiations, it is essential that they first, not in words but in action – declaratively and through concrete steps – demonstrate that they are ready to irreversibly abandon an anti‑Russian course and to resolve the most critical issues in international security together with us, starting with the elimination of fundamental contradictions and the root causes of the current crisis in interstate relations, and ending with questions of arms control, disarmament, and non‑proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it is important to understand what the nature of the negotiations should be. We have always and continue to insist on a mutually respectful dialogue built on trust and the consideration of all participants’ interests. It is unacceptable for Russia to be subjected to fabricated claims and unsubstantiated demands, or for the discussion to be conducted in the style of an ultimatum. The conversation must be substantive and equal, with both sides fully aware of the danger of rising tension, loss of trust, the degradation of bilateral relations, and of their individual and collective responsibility for humanity’s future.

In the strategic sphere, for us a constructive dialogue aimed at achieving long‑term and indisputable agreements on the entire complex of factors affecting strategic stability is crucial. Removing some specific, extremely technical issues from the interdependent framework of the sector will not help move forward or achieve the required agreements and understandings.

Another important point I would like to emphasize concerns the nature and content of the dialogue: we will never, under any circumstances, start a serious conversation on US terms only to make an effort to address American security issues. The starting point of any strategic‑stability negotiations must be a clear recognition of the inviolability of the principle of equal and indivisible security, and no exceptions can be made from strict adherence to this principle.

RT: Nevertheless, American media outlets are reporting a potential expansion of the number of participants in the program. What risks and threats could such plans create, given that among European countries Poland – and the Baltic states as well – have expressed interest in hosting U.S. weapons?

Andrey Belousov: It is a very important issue from the standpoint of our country’s security, and essentially it concerns maintaining strategic balance and strategic stability. In answering the first question, I already partially addressed your question, which touches on this issue.

The involvement of an ever‑growing number of NATO member states in schemes that envisage the practical use of nuclear weapons against Russia primarily is fully in line with NATO’s nuclear status and the logic of the trans‑Atlantic linkage, whose key element today is precisely nuclear dimension. Securing a nuclear status for NATO is not merely a declaration or a sign lacking substance or implying any action. On the contrary, one must clearly understand that such a status is concrete. It means that nuclear weapons, their possible use, and the concept of nuclear deterrence – as understood by the military‑political establishment of NATO and the European Union states – have become a fundamental means by which westerners ensure their security.

It is important to note that the security views of Europe’s current elites differ sharply from the narratives and concepts we tried to align with the West and jointly implement at the end of the last century and at the beginning of this one. The main distinction lies in our opponents refusal to create a security architecture in Europe together with Russia in favor of attempts to build a regional security system aimed at our country. The results of this radical shift – so to speak – are now evident.

Currently, the minds of our Western opponents, under significant influence, are shaped by a new view of how regional and international security should be ensured, induced by pressure from the United States. The concept of “peace through force,” which seems long out of date and paradoxical at its core but is actively promoted by Washington, has been adopted.

Returning to the question of involving ever more states in joint nuclear missions and expanded, now even advanced, deterrence schemes, we again note that this process fully fits within the logic of the aforementioned approach. More importantly, the “peace through force” concept is in sharp contradiction with the rapidly accelerating and now irreversible process of the emergence of a multipolar world order. Western states collectively, fearing the loss of their leadership and dominant position in the world, strive to preserve it by any means. When political and economic measures fail, they repeatedly resort to the tried‑and‑true method of creating a real military threat to their global competitors, backed by continuous modernization and unrestricted buildup of military potential, developing new means and methods of warfare.

Thus they bet on overwhelming military superiority, which requires mastering and implementing the most advanced scientific‑technical achievements. This is precisely what the United States and its closest allies are doing now. After all, the practice of joint nuclear missions, and indeed the rehearsal of any other combat systems, is no longer carried out with outdated technology or the old algorithms and tactics developed in the 1950s and 60s. It is executed at a completely new technological level that would guarantee indisputable advantages both on the local theater of operations and in large‑scale conflicts.

The drive to obtain overwhelming military advantage largely through the modernization and scaling of nuclear potential – in which NATO states are involved – leads to a breach of strategic balance and creates risks and threats to our country’s defense and security. Accelerated Western implementation of such nuclear plans, with active assistance from allies, will bring about the most severe consequences in the military‑political and strategic spheres. One such consequence could be a new arms race, not limited to nuclear weapons.

RT: What could Russia’s potential response to such actions look like?

Andrey Belousov: Regarding countermeasures, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement on the expiry of the New START Treaty on February fourth unambiguously notes that the parties to the treaty are free to decide on subsequent steps. Yet, our country intends to act responsibly and prudently, charting its line on strategic offensive arms based on a thorough analysis of the overall situation – the analysis of US military policy and the overall strategic environment – which, among other things, includes the actions of American allies.

We are talking about a combination of political‑diplomatic and military‑technical compensatory measures aimed at maintaining strategic balance and mitigating potential additional threats to Russia’s military security.

EU gas storage is now at one of the lowest seasonal levels on record, with the shortfall feeding a “winter panic” among traders amid the Iran war and Brussels’s continued push to phase out Russian energy, according to The Guardian.

EU gas stocks are at around 64% as of Friday, far below the 80% average maintained during this season over the past several years, according to the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG).

For comparison, EU stocks were at about 66% on August 29, 2021, and around 72% on the same date in 2013, although the fill level typically drops much lower in winter months when consumption is high.

As for the country breakdown, German gas storage is only slightly above 50% capacity, while the Netherlands is at around 45% and Belgium around 50%, according to recent GIE readings.

Meanwhile, the UK’s facilities are only at around 30% capacity, although the country has historically relied more on continuous imports than storage.

Amid the crunch, natural gas prices have risen above €66 ($76) per megawatt-hour, more than double from levels earlier in the year, according to the Trading Economics website.

However, now “no one expects it to happen any time soon,” he said, adding: “As a result, the European natural gas market has run into a bit of a winter panic over the past week.”

The immediate pressure comes from the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz that disrupted Qatari LNG exports. While Qatar supplied only 6.6% of LNG to the EU in the first quarter of 2026 – compared to the 57% supplied by the US – the Middle East conflict has intensified competition between European and Asian buyers for energy, prompting a rally in gas prices.

The shortfall also comes as the EU maintains sweeping sanctions on Moscow and has vowed to wean itself of Russian energy. While Russia provided around 45% of EU gas imports in 2021, its share had dropped to only about 12% by 2025.

After the EU imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia in 2022, it endured one of the worst energy crises in decades. Gas prices exploded to more than €300 per megawatt-hour, hitting industry and consumers alike, with EU countries reeling from soaring inflation and costs of living.

When the EU began cutting its dependence on oil and gas from Russia following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that the bloc was on a “suicidal” course and was “shooting itself in the head.”

Warsaw should stop giving Ukraine free weapons as long as it glorifies Nazi collaborators responsible for massacring Poles, a member of the European Parliament has said.

Earlier this week, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky again called upon Kiev’s foreign backers to provide more Patriot missiles, citing an acute shortage of air defense munitions amid intensifying Russian strikes on military-related targets across the country.

Polish Deputy Defense Minister Pawel Zalewski told Ukrainian media on Thursday that Warsaw was ready to cooperate with Kiev on the production of Patriot interceptors for the needs of both NATO and Zelensky’s government.

In a post on X the same day, Zajaczkowska-Hernik expressed her frustration, saying: “More missiles for Patriots for Zelensky for nothing? Let’s stop being suckers for Ukraine!”

“We’re handing them valuable equipment and paying off their loans for them, and they spit in our face with the Banderite pantheon of heroes – what the hell is this?!” the MEP wrote.

Relations between Warsaw and Kiev deteriorated in June after Zelensky granted an active Ukrainian commando unit the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army),” prompting outrage in Poland.

The UPA was the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), led by Stepan Bandera, which collaborated with Nazi Germany during the early stages of its 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. UPA fighters massacred up to 100,000 ethnic Polish civilians in 1943-1944 in what is now western Ukraine, according to Polish estimates.

Warsaw warned Kiev that it will not support its bid to join the EU if it does not change its ways, while Polish President Karol Nawrocki stripped Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week that the neo-Nazi nature of the Ukrainian government had become so visible that even the Polish authorities, who are gripped by Russophobia, cannot help but see it. According to Putin, Warsaw simply cannot ignore the “obvious demand” of its own population to address the issue.

August 28–29 marks exactly six months since the start of the full-scale military campaign – or, more accurately, the entirely unprovoked US-Israeli aggression against Iran. The plan was based on the logic of a “decapitation strike”: eliminate the country’s leadership, paralyze the government, and push the population toward a “color revolution.” West Jerusalem assumed that the campaign would last no more than two weeks, after which Tehran would be forced to accept the terms imposed on it.

That was the rationale behind the effort to eliminate key figures. Ali Khamenei was killed on the very first day of the aggression, on the morning of February 28, along with several other senior officials. On March 17, a strike on the outskirts of Tehran killed Ali Larijani – the former parliament speaker, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, nuclear negotiator, and longtime Khamenei adviser. He was one of the few figures in the Iranian establishment who connected the security apparatus with the diplomatic corps. Following Khamenei’s death, Larijani had effectively become the system’s chief coordinator. By killing him, the United States and Israel hoped to deliver a final blow to Iran’s decision-making structure. Yet the state was not paralyzed.

The physical elimination of Iran’s leaders failed to produce the desired result. The chain of command did not collapse, the security services did not defect, and the country did not capitulate. Authority was quickly redistributed between the Supreme National Security Council and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC emerged as an even more influential center of military and political power. The deaths of the country’s top officials altered Iran’s internal balance, but they did not destroy the system.

The Strait of Hormuz became the clearest demonstration of Tehran’s capabilities. Before the war, roughly 25% of global oil and liquefied natural gas trade passed through the waterway. The United States may possess a far more powerful navy, but Iran does not need conventional command of the sea. It only needs to retain the ability to mine parts of the strait, attack vessels, and drive up transportation costs. Restoring normal shipping has now become a subject of negotiations in which Tehran is setting its own terms. Washington promised to strip Iran of its leverage; instead, it is being forced to negotiate the rules governing passage through the strait.

Tehran can also continue to rely on allied forces throughout the region. The “Axis of Resistance” has suffered losses, but it has not disappeared. Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, better known as the Houthis, Kataib Hezbollah, and other Iran-aligned groups and allies still possess missiles and drones. Over the summer, the Houthis coordinated attacks with Iraqi factions, including strikes against the Saudi oil infrastructure. Kataib Hezbollah remains the most powerful faction within the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. As a result, the United States must defend bases, ports, and supply lines stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.

Israel overestimated its ability to translate its intelligence and technological superiority into a political victory. Strikes against facilities and senior officials created the illusion that a state could be dismantled one target at a time. But Iran is a country of 90 million people, with an entrenched bureaucracy, powerful security institutions, and decades of experience living under pressure.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to secure a swift resolution. Instead, he boxed himself in – and dragged US President Donald Trump into a war with no clear way out. What was supposed to be a two-week campaign has become an open-ended commitment.

Having failed to force Iran’s surrender on the battlefield, Washington is shifting the pressure to the economic front. “Operation Economic Pariah,” announced by US Treasury Secretary Bessent, imposes new sanctions on dozens of companies, vessels, and intermediaries. But Iran has spent decades learning how to survive under restrictions. Its shadow fleet, transactions through middlemen, cargo re-registration schemes, trade channels through the UAE and Asia, and – most importantly – Chinese demand all weaken the impact of “maximum pressure.”

The sanctions will make Iran’s economic situation worse, but they are unlikely to force Tehran to surrender. Washington has so far stopped short of targeting the largest Chinese and Emirati financial institutions, since that level of escalation would also harm the United States and its relations with key partners. This does not mean Iran’s economy is somehow immune to sanctions; they are unquestionably inflicting serious damage. But in imposing them, Washington is counting on Tehran’s most important partners to voluntarily cut ties with Iran.

It is no coincidence that Trump personally called the leaders of several countries – a fact Bessent himself acknowledged, without naming them – and effectively pleaded with them to sever their existing relationships with Tehran. In essence, this points to the decline of US geopolitical influence. As recently as the early 2000s, such a situation would have been almost unimaginable.

The “Mecca Agreement,” concluded by Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan in early August, is a vivid example of this shift. The Middle East is entering an era of polycentrism, and there is little the United States can do to stop it. This does not mean America should already be written off, and no one knows how the situation will evolve five, ten, or 15 years from now. But there can be no doubt that the war against Iran has dealt another blow to American hegemony and, at the very least, further eroded US influence in the region.

Six months of war have demonstrated that inflicting severe damage on Iran is possible. Forcing it to capitulate is not. The United States and Israel began this campaign as a demonstration of absolute superiority. Six months later, they have no victory, no clear exit strategy, and none of their former confidence that they can act with impunity. Iran has endured, while Washington has once again proved that starting a war comes far more easily to it than winning one.

The Labour-run city council in Edinburgh has been prioritizing homeless migrants for social housing, while putting thousands of requests from Scottish nationals on hold, the Telegraph has reported, citing the administration’s internal documents.

The proportion of temporary accommodations provided to migrants in Scotland’s capital has grown from 1% to 16% since 2023, the paper said in an article on Friday.

The foreigners were put atop the waiting line under a policy introduced in April 2025, the report read. Meanwhile, applications from some 31,000 locals remained frozen, it added.

Edinburgh is facing a homelessness crisis, which has been exacerbated by the influx of migrants into Britain, the Telegraph said, citing the council’s internal documents. The number of homeless people in the city has surged by 75% over the last five years, it added.

Scotland abolished the “priority need” test in 2012, making all people assessed as unintentionally homeless eligible for settled accommodation. In 2022, the Scottish National Party (SNP) government also removed local-connection requirements for homeless applicants within Scotland.

Reform UK’s Scottish deputy leader, Thomas Kerr, said the council should stop providing housing to “strangers and outsiders” and finally start taking care of its own people.

“We need to see local connection rules fully restored, more social housing built and deportations for those who should not even be here in the first place,” he wrote.

When approached for comment by the Telegraph, Scottish Housing Minister Shirley-Anne Somerville said that “Scotland has some of the strongest homelessness rights in the world, and we will not roll these back.”

The homelessness crisis is a result of the migration policies of the British government, and it is up to London to “properly fund its asylum processes and ensure newly recognized refugees and communities can be supported,” Somerville said.

Nearly 100,000 people were receiving asylum support in the UK as of the end of March, according to government figures, including more than 20,000 housed in hotels.

A YouGov poll published earlier in August showed that 69% of Britons believe immigration over the past decade has been too high, while 43% said it had been mostly bad for the country, up from 33% in 2016.

The US has threatened to reconsider its stance on Britain’s control of the Falkland Islands to push London to spend substantially more on its military, The Daily Telegraph reported on Friday, citing sources.

The reported attempt to pressure the UK comes amid mounting disagreements between the two long-time allies over defense, Iran, and the strategically vital Chagos Islands.

The UK and Argentina have been at odds over the Falklands for almost 200 years, with the matter coming to a head when Argentina’s military junta ordered an invasion of the islands in 1982. Britain’s Margaret Thatcher dispatched a naval task force and retook them in 74 days of fighting.

Now, according to The Telegraph, the US may oppose Britain’s sovereignty claim unless it hikes defense spending. In this vein, Britain is expected to receive “special attention” in a Pentagon review examining whether NATO members have credible paths toward the bloc’s new spending target.

While Washington sees Britain’s new defense investment plan as a “step in the right direction,” it is not enough, the official told the paper. “Given the scale of challenges facing us and our allies, we need allies like the United Kingdom to step up in major, fundamental ways. Fortunately, some already are. We strongly encourage the UK to do likewise,” he added.

The Falklands idea first surfaced in April when Reuters reported, citing an internal Pentagon email, that the US was considering a review of its diplomatic backing for European “imperial possessions” as a means of punishing NATO governments that Washington believed had failed to support its military campaign against Iran.

Argentine President Javier Milei – a close ally of US President Donald Trump – reacted optimistically to the prospect, saying “We’re making progress like never before.”

Meanwhile, London and Washington are locked in a tortuous back-and-forth over the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, home to a joint US-UK military base. Britain agreed in 2025 to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius while retaining the base under a 99-year lease, but put the plan on hold in April after Trump branded the arrangement a “big mistake.”

The UK also initially refused to allow the use of its bases for strikes on Iran, citing legal concerns, triggering Trump’s ire. London later shifted its stance following Tehran’s retaliation against UK military assets.

The grieving father of Palestinian-American teenager Amer Rabee, who was shot dead by Israeli troops in the West Bank 16 months ago, has accused Washington of abandoning his family after offering little more than condolences.

Speaking to RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij, Mohammed Rabee said his 14-year-old son had grown up believing that his American citizenship offered him protection.

“He was always thinking he’s American, so he’s protected. He’s free,” he said.

Amer was born in New Jersey before his family moved to Turmus Ayya, near Ramallah, in 2013. He continued to split his time between the US and the West Bank.

He was killed on April 6, 2025, in an olive grove outside the village. Two friends were also wounded.

Mohammed told RT that his son had been repeatedly shot. “Many shots. He got 14 shots,” he said, later showing Dubenskij the clothes Amer was wearing when he died.

The US State Department confirmed the death of an American citizen and offered condolences, while Democratic Senators Andy Kim and Cory Booker called for a US-led investigation.

But Mohammed says little has happened since. He dismissed US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee’s recent pledge to “stand for American citizens, whether Israeli or Palestinian” as political theater.

“Till now, no one [is] talking about Amer,” he said. “He’s making a show… to show people that he’s helping American people, but we didn’t see that before.”

Amer’s father has since built a small park in his son’s memory and continues to press for accountability.

Watch Dubenskij’s full report below:

Europe only ranks fourth among Washington’s global security priorities, US envoy to NATO Matthew Whitaker has said, as President Donald Trump pushes the bloc’s members to take greater responsibility for their own defense.

Speaking to Newsmax on Thursday, Whitaker outlined Washington’s priorities under Trump’s national security strategy.

”The defense of the homeland is number one... The Western Hemisphere, where we live, [is] obviously equally important,” he said, followed by the Pacific. “Defending Europe is also a priority, but it’s in fourth place.”

Whitaker said the changing division of responsibilities within NATO would also benefit the US economically.

”Our European allies are taking over the conventional defense of the European continent,” Whitaker said. “And I think that’s good for the American taxpayers.”

The ambassador described NATO as being on a “new trajectory” under Trump, crediting the US president with pressuring other members of the US-led military bloc to dramatically increase defense spending.

At last year’s NATO summit in The Hague, members agreed to raise defense and security-related expenditure to 5% of GDP by 2035. Whitaker contrasted the new commitment with the bloc’s previous 2% target, which many members failed to meet.

”For 77 years our NATO allies have taken advantage of the United States’ strength,” Whitaker told Newsmax. “But now we’re going to be all equally strong.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly demanded that European NATO members shoulder a greater share of their own defense costs. The Pentagon is also reviewing the roughly 80,000 US troops currently stationed in Europe, with officials considering different options for Washington’s future military presence on the continent.

US President Donald Trump’s Marine One helicopter nearly collided with a passenger jet earlier this month after a radio failure prevented air traffic controllers from receiving its takeoff warning, federal investigators said on Thursday.

The August 4 incident occurred near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as Marine One departed the White House area with Trump aboard. An Envoy Air passenger jet was cleared for takeoff at roughly the same time.

The two aircraft came within about 1.5 km horizontally and just 215 meters vertically of each other, triggering an automated collision warning aboard the passenger jet. Marine One’s pilots spotted the aircraft and briefly halted their flight until it had passed.

Under standard procedures, the presidential helicopter was required to notify Reagan airport controllers three minutes before lifting off. Recordings show Marine One made the required call, but the tower did not properly receive it.

Investigators found that the communication problem was already known. Just a week earlier, Marine One pilots and Reagan airport controllers had met to discuss repeated failures by the tower to receive the helicopter’s three-minute takeoff warnings.

Investigators traced the radio problems partly to construction at the White House, which had forced Marine One to use a temporary takeoff site with poor radio coverage. The report did not specify the project, though the White House has been undergoing construction on both a new ballroom and a permanent helipad.

US aviation authorities have since relocated radio equipment at Reagan National to improve communications.

The near-miss came less than two years after an American Airlines regional jet collided with a US Army Black Hawk helicopter near the same airport in January 2025, killing all 67 people aboard the two aircraft.

Following that disaster, US aviation authorities permanently restricted helicopter operations around Reagan National and introduced additional safeguards aimed at preventing commercial aircraft and helicopters from crossing paths.

Under current procedures, commercial flights must also be suspended whenever Marine One operates in the airport’s airspace.

US President Donald Trump has claimed to have more than doubled America’s oil reserves through a sweeping agreement giving Washington majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan crude.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had worked with Venezuelan interim leader Delcy Rodriguez and private businesses to secure “majority US control” of the reserves “at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump announced on Truth Social on Friday.

“The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY!” he declared, claiming the transaction “MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves.”

Adding another 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil would bring the total volume under some form of US control to more than 111 billion barrels, even though that crude would not technically become part of US domestic reserves.

Rubio touted the agreement as a “huge win,” saying it would bring nearly $100 billion in private investment to Venezuela, support thousands of jobs and help lower US gasoline prices.

Rodriguez later confirmed the deal, saying it covers 17 strategic oil fields with a proven potential of 65 billion barrels and envisages more than $100 billion in investment and over $209 billion in tax revenue for Venezuela. She said the fields would be developed with the participation of private operators, but the precise ownership structure remains unclear. Earlier reports suggested Washington had sought century-long development rights.

After the operation, Trump declared that Washington would “run” Venezuela while overseeing a political transition and left open the possibility of further military action if the interim leadership failed to cooperate.

Washington subsequently moved to take “indefinite” control of Venezuelan oil sales and revenues, while Trump ordered proceeds from Venezuelan crude to be held in US Treasury accounts, subject to US restrictions.

The arrangement has drawn fierce criticism over the country’s sovereignty, even from some normally pro-Western opposition voices. Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, called the agreement “unconstitutional,” arguing that Rodriguez heads an illegitimate interim government with no authority to surrender long-term control over the country’s oil resources.

Meanwhile, former vice president and veteran Chavista figure Elias Jaua recently accused Washington more broadly of stripping Venezuela of its sovereignty and taking control of its natural resources.

British conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos has been deported from the US after being detained by immigration authorities in Louisiana for allegedly overstaying his legal status and failing to appear for an immigration hearing.

The 41-year-old former Breitbart editor was returned to the United Kingdom on Friday, just a day after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport in Kenner, Louisiana, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed on Saturday.

“Yiannopoulos legally entered the country on May 14, 2019, through New York City,” DHS said following his arrest, describing him as an “illegal alien” who “chose to overstay his welcome in violation of our nation’s laws.”

An immigration judge issued Yiannopoulos a final order of removal on July 22 after he failed to appear for his hearing, the department said. His deportation was carried out on August 28.

On August 27, ICE arrested Milo Yiannopoulos, an illegal alien from the United Kingdom, at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY) in Kenner, Louisiana. Yiannopoulos legally entered the country on May 14, 2019, through New York City, New York. He chose to… https://t.co/Hk6QBUmGDI pic.twitter.com/DbIhv8Z6PI

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) August 28, 2026

The incident quickly spilled into a bitter feud within the MAGA movement. Conservative activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer celebrated Yiannopoulos’ detention and claimed she had personally alerted authorities to his immigration status. The Daily Caller reported that scrutiny of his status intensified after he began criticizing US President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

Once one of Trump’s most flamboyant online supporters, Yiannopoulos famously referred to him as “Daddy” during the 2016 campaign. Their relationship later deteriorated sharply, with the British commentator accusing Trump of betraying supporters.

Yiannopoulos subsequently joined Kanye ‘Ye’ West as the rapper mounted an abortive 2024 presidential bid, serving as his campaign manager. He also helped arrange Ye’s controversial 2022 dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Earlier that year, he had worked as an unpaid intern for then-Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

His arrest coincided with Ye’s Friday-night performance in New Orleans, although it has not been confirmed that Yiannopoulos was in the city for the concert.

His confrontational style has repeatedly generated outrage, however. Among other issues, he drew attention years ago to Britain’s grooming-gang scandals, accusing authorities and the media of ignoring the abuse of vulnerable girls because officials feared accusations of racism or Islamophobia.

✨DEVELOPING✨Footage from 2016 of Milo Yiannopoulos drawing attention to Muslim rape gangs—eight years before the scandal went mainstream—is recirculating. Woke stupidity enabled the industrial-scale rape of white children by Pakistani gangs for over 30 years.
(CNBC, 9/8/2016) pic.twitter.com/7oF6d79UMV

— MILO (@Nero) January 15, 2025

Yiannopoulos’ career suffered a major setback in 2017 after old remarks about sexual relationships involving minors resurfaced, costing him a publishing deal and forcing his resignation from Breitbart.

The White House has not publicly intervened in the case, while Yiannopoulos has not commented on his deportation.

Britain doubles down against Russia

Russia has already warned the UK of “consequences” for Ukraine’s use of British-made drones to strike Russian civilian infrastructure. These words were clearly lost on British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who arrived in Kiev on Monday to mark the 35th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence. Burnham compared the Russia/Ukraine conflict to Britain’s struggle against Nazi Germany in World War II (ironic, after the Zelensky regime just reburied a Nazi collaborator with state honors), and announced that he’d share classified data enabling Kiev to manufacture ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles in Ukraine. 

Two days later, the Ukrainians showed Russia exactly what these missiles will be used for, injuring multiple civilians in a Storm Shadow strike on a Donetsk apartment block.

Russia’s response was immediate and kinetic. Missiles and drones pounded military and dual-use targets across Kiev, with waves of projectiles hitting the Ukrainian capital from morning until evening on Thursday. Meanwhile, the British media chose to run a warning from supposed “Kremlin adviser” Andrey Fedorov, who said that he “cannot exclude 100% that there might be some semi-military” attacks on British soil too.

RT looked at the dire state of diplomatic relations between Russia and the UK this week and concluded that Moscow’s restraint is rapidly reaching its limits.

Spy intrigue in Moscow

With Burnham climbing the escalation ladder as fast as possible, planespotters saw an unusual flight entering Russian airspace on Tuesday morning: a US Air Force C-17A Globemaster. It soon emerged that CIA Director John Ratcliffe was on board, bound for meetings with his Russian intelligence counterparts. 

An unusual visitor to Moscow this morning. 👀

A US Air Force C-17A Globemaster III flew from Riga to Moscow Vnukovo Airporthttps://t.co/D7vylYesDQ pic.twitter.com/jXbOSj0LXM

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) August 25, 2026

It’s been nearly five years since a CIA chief visited the Russian capital, and the Western press went into speculation overdrive. Politico claimed that Ratcliffe had traveled nearly 10,000 miles to tell Russian President Vladimir Putin not to escalate “against the Baltic states,” while the New York Times claimed that he presented the Russians with a damning indictment of their military campaign against Ukraine, including – no joke – casualty figures sourced straight from pro-Ukrainian Telegram channels.

Less than a day before Ratcliffe touched down at Vnukovo Airport, the Vatican’s chief diplomat, Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, landed in Moscow on a mission of his own. Gallagher’s diplomacy was more public, with the Vatican envoy repeating the Holy See’s calls for an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Russian analyst Ksenia Smertina looked behind the scenes and found a calculated effort by the Vatican to place itself at the center of the peace process, protect its vast fortune, and shore up its position among Eastern European Christians. Her article for RT is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the power politics that have shaped the Church since the days of the Medicis and Borgias.

Ukraine at 35

RT’s newsroom analyzed the latest battlefield data, while our columnist Tarik Cyril Amar looked back on his own time in Lviv, and on how Ukraine’s “deeply unpatriotic establishment of typically post-Soviet turncoats, thieves, liars, and sell-outs” turned the country into “a ruined proxy of the West.”

Landslide disaster in Nepal

Ukraine’s leaders may have chosen their own fate, but some have their fate tragically decided by mother nature. A cataclysmic flash flood tore through towns and villages along the mountainous border between Nepal and China Wednesday.

Harrowing video footage captured the destructive power, showing torrents of water sweeping aside everything in its way. Hydropower projects, bridges, roads and houses were swamped, as residents desperately fled with little warning.

❗Nepal Floods: At Least 7 Dead, Security Personnel Missing 🇳🇵

The worst-hit areas include Timure and Syabrubesi in Rasuwa, where floodwaters have swept away homes, bridges and parts of a key road towards the China border, according to The Kathmandu Post.

Nine Armed Police… https://t.co/OGz6YNAMPx pic.twitter.com/XRGgZGxHj7

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) August 26, 2026

Thousands of people are still missing, and rescue efforts are ongoing as of Friday. Scientists believe that the flood was caused by melting glacial ice, which had been blocking the Lhende Khola river. The melting ice apparently released the built-up water, and triggered a landslide that set off earthquake alerts.

Meta and TikTok dodge trial 

Anyone hoping that Meta may finally be forced to lift the lid on its addictive algorithms was left disappointed on Wednesday, when Mark Zuckerberg’s megacorporation paid $18 billion to settle a landmark lawsuit brought by 29 US states. Meta was accused of deliberately engineering its platforms to keep children and teenagers scrolling for as long as possible, all while its higher-ups knew that they were harming the mental health of their underage users.

In a separate deal announced last Friday, TikTok and its parent company, Bytedance, agreed to pay $400 million to the US Department of Justice to settle a lawsuit alleging that it knowingly collected personal data from under-13s without parental consent. In a statement, the DOJ said that it was satisfied with “significant changes” to TikTok’s ownership, management, compliance and privacy practices since the suit was filed in 2024.

Zuckerberg is not out of the woods yet. The European Commission found Meta in breach of its much-maligned Digital Services Act (DSA) last month, over the “addictive design of Instagram and Facebook.” Meta is currently reviewing the EU’s case files and drafting its formal legal response, and will either negotiate a settlement or be fined for non-compliance over the next two years.

What to watch out for

While we keep an eye on the battlefield in Ukraine and Vladimir Zelensky’s British-enabled missile campaign against Russia, we’ll also be giving you live updates from the 26th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Kyrgyzstan on Monday and Tuesday. The summit marks 25 years of the world’s largest regional organization, and we’ll bring you every detail from Putin’s meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

We’ll also know by the end of the weekend whether Iceland will restart accession talks with the EU, a significant step toward becoming the bloc’s 28th member state. Icelanders will decide whether to restart talks in a referendum on Saturday, but with the country’s sovereignty and control over its precious fisheries at stake, victory for the pro-Brussels government is by no means assured.

The EU could face another humiliation next weekend, this time in Germany as the right-wing, Euroskeptic AfD looks set to dominate a state election in Saxony-Anhalt. Stick with RT.com in the runup to this landmark election, in which the AfD is predicted to win more than 40% of the vote.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said that his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) will stick to its policy of isolating the AfD despite the right-wing party polling at over 40% ahead of regional elections in Saxony-Anhalt. The chancellor claimed that the Alternative for Germany maintains close ties with Russia and thus poses a threat to the “internal and external security of our country.”

The AfD is the largest opposition faction in the Bundestag and the country’s most popular party, with recent surveys indicating that it enjoys the support of 28% of respondents.

The right-wing party campaigns on an anti-immigration platform and is also highly critical of the German government’s support for Ukraine, as well as sanctions against Russia.

Appearing on broadcaster RTL on Thursday, Merz was asked by a businessman from Saxony-Anhalt about the feasibility of the so-called ‘firewall’ policy in a democracy, under which all major parties refuse to cooperate with the AfD. The question came ahead of the regional elections in the eastern region slated for September 6.

The chancellor defended the controversial policy, categorically ruling out a coalition between the CDU and the AfD due to “fundamental” differences.

The chancellor suggested the possibility of forming a minority government in Saxony-Anhalt, pointing to the situation in both Thuringia and Saxony, where the AfD has also been sidelined, despite coming out on top in the regional elections.

Meanwhile, an INSA poll published by Bild earlier this month indicated that support for Germany’s governing CDU/CSU bloc had dipped to the lowest level in almost five years, at 20%.

The survey also showed that 78% of respondents were dissatisfied with Merz’s government.

Comprised of the Christian Democratic CDU/CSU bloc and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the ruling coalition has faced criticism over continued economic stagnation and its failure to deliver on pre-election promises.

The AfD has for years faced significant pressure from regional and federal authorities in Germany. The country’s domestic security agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), has designated the party as a suspected far-right extremist entity – a label that permits government surveillance of the AfD. In several regions, local chapters have been subjected to even wider monitoring by the authorities.

Poland has sent confusing signals regarding the potential deployment of nuclear weaponry on its territory, in what appears to be an attempt to enjoy the fruits of deterrence without hosting foreign munitions.

In recent months, a dozen European NATO members, including Poland, have expressed a desire to either host nuclear weapons or take part in nuclear-sharing initiatives to varying degrees. Apart from existing nuclear sharing within the bloc, which involves hosting US munitions, France has proposed an EU-focused scheme to deploy its own weapons to willing nations.

The confusion began on Thursday, when Polish Deputy Defense Minister Pawel Zalewski appeared to rule out ever hosting the weaponry on the country’s soil.

“I would like to say very clearly and openly: Poland does not want to have nuclear warheads on its territory,” Zalewski told reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels. “We want to participate in NATO nuclear deterrence, [which] does not mean to have a nuclear warhead on our territory.”

“To dispel any doubts: Poland remains steadfastly interested in participating in the NATO Nuclear Sharing program. We are also conducting talks regarding the proposal for participation in the European nuclear protective umbrella. Our government’s stance on these issues is unequivocal,” he wrote on X.

While the minister did not explicitly say whether Warsaw was open to hosting foreign nukes, Zalewski doubled down on his original remarks later in the day. Poland remains committed to participating in “NATO’s nuclear deterrence, [but] without storing nuclear weapons,” the official wrote on X while berating those confused by his statements. “Security requires competence and seriousness. Claiming that Nuclear Sharing [equates to] storing nuclear weapons in Poland is ignorance or deliberate manipulation,” he asserted.

The reported invitation for Iran to join the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement puts a new perspective on what the new alliance might ultimately become.

Mehdi Rahimi, head of the Iranian parliament’s news agency, said that the proposal was under consideration by the country’s leadership and argued that the creation of a regional security umbrella would represent a victory for the Islamic Republic. Shortly afterwards, however, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei stated that Tehran had received no formal invitation, although proposals for dialogue with the pact’s members on collective regional security had indeed been raised. For the moment, this appears to be a political overture intended to test the reactions of the parties rather than the beginning of a formal accession process. Even so, it suggests that the agreement is not intended as an alliance against Tehran, but as the possible foundation of a security system built with Iranian participation.

The Mecca Agreement was signed on August 7 by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Its central provision declares that an armed attack against one member will be regarded as an attack against all. The formula theoretically combines a formidable set of capabilities: Saudi Arabia’s immense financial resources and influence over global energy markets, Türkiye’s large military and sophisticated defence industry, and Pakistan’s substantial military experience and nuclear arsenal. Yet the public statements offer no detailed decision-making procedure and do not specify what action each signatory would be obliged to take during a crisis. At this stage, the pact is only a political declaration of collective deterrence and not a proper military alliance.

Donald Trump welcomed the pact and expressed satisfaction that the states of the region were finally assuming greater responsibility for their own defense. His response was consistent with his longstanding view that Washington’s allies should bear a larger share of military expenditure, allowing the US to reduce its costs and step back from the role of unconditional guarantor of other nations’ security. Seen from this perspective, the agreement might appear to be a success for American policy, since three US partners are establishing an additional mechanism of deterrence without Washington’s direct involvement.

Yet behind this public enthusiasm lies a trend that is far less favorable to the US. The Mecca Pact cannot be described as the first symptom of declining American influence in the Middle East, but it is the clearest institutional sign to date that regional powers no longer regard the American security umbrella as sufficient and have begun constructing autonomous centers of power. Washington retains its military bases, weapons systems, intelligence capabilities and relationships with regional elites, but it is gradually losing its monopoly over the rules by which Middle Eastern security is organized.

The US-Israeli war against Iran accelerated this transformation because it revealed the double-edged nature of American security guarantees. The US military presence may deter adversaries, but it can also draw the Gulf states into conflicts whose timing and objectives are determined without their meaningful participation. Iranian strikes, disruption to maritime trade and threats to energy infrastructure demonstrated that a close partnership with Washington does not insulate regional states from danger and may instead force them to bear the consequences of American policy.

Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan are not abandoning American weapons or political ties, yet they want a mechanism capable of functioning even when Washington’s priorities diverge from their own.

For the pact’s three founding members, the possibility of inviting Iran addresses a problem that might otherwise have become the source of another major conflict. As long as Tehran remained outside the agreement, it could interpret the partnership between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan as an attempt to build a Sunni military bloc directed against the Islamic Republic.

By offering Tehran a place at the table, the pact’s founders have effectively replaced the question of whom the alliance is directed against with the question of which rules the region’s principal powers are prepared to accept. Even if Iran never joins, the dialogue itself reduces the likelihood that the agreement will automatically become an instrument of its isolation. Saudi Arabia gains an opportunity to combine military deterrence with continued diplomatic de-escalation, Türkiye strengthens its role as a mediator, and Pakistan avoids having to choose between its strategic partnership with Riyadh and its relationship with neighboring Iran.

Full Iranian participation could transform the nature of the pact itself. It would cease to be an alliance among states united by similar fears and would instead become a mechanism of mutual restraint in which one member’s security could not be achieved through another’s vulnerability. A declaration of collective defense alone, however, would not be enough. The participants would need emergency communication channels, rules for preventing military incidents, mechanisms for exchanging information on missile launches, guarantees of freedom of navigation and commitments not to support armed action against fellow members.

The most difficult issue would concern the non-state armed groups aligned with Iran. If Tehran joined the pact, it would inevitably be expected to assume political responsibility for the actions of forces receiving Iranian weapons and support. At the same time, the other members would have to refrain from exploiting Iran’s internal divisions as a means of exerting pressure on its leadership. Only such reciprocity could turn an appealing formula into a functioning regional order.

Iran’s potential inclusion could initiate not only a political renaissance but also a major economic advance, since the development of the Middle East has been constrained for decades not by a lack of resources, but by chronic uncertainty. Wars raise shipping insurance costs, compel governments to accumulate weapons, discourage long-term investment and turn transport corridors into instruments of geopolitical bargaining. Even a partial reduction in these risks would release resources currently devoted to preparing for the next crisis.

Saudi capital, Turkish industry, the Pakistani market and Iran’s energy and transit potential could complement one another. Their cooperation could create new routes connecting Central Asia, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, while the security of the Strait of Hormuz could be transformed from an instrument of mutual coercion into a shared interest. A region long seen as mostly a theater of war and foreign intervention would gain an opportunity to become an autonomous economic center within an increasingly multipolar world.

The economic dividend, however, is not guaranteed. Continuing sanctions against Iran, competition over transport routes, clashing Turkish and Saudi ambitions, and Pakistan’s disputes with India could import old conflicts into the new arrangement. The pact’s success will depend on the ability of its members to separate collective security from temporary alignments and to prevent every bilateral confrontation from becoming an obligation for the entire coalition.

Israel’s choice

The most difficult external question concerns the future relationship between the Mecca Pact and Israel. Israel is already uneasy about the agreement, and would likely find the accession of Iran unacceptable, seeing it as the beginning of strategic encirclement.

Even with Iran, however, the pact does not have to become an alliance against Israel. If its members firmly establish the defensive nature of the agreement and offer Israel mechanisms for preventing conflict, it could restrain escalation rather than prepare the ground for it. The problem is that the current Israeli leadership has grown accustomed to pursuing security through the unrestricted use of unilateral force, whereas a regional system requires agreed rules and recognition that neighboring states also possess legitimate security interests.

An opposition victory would not guarantee peace, since a hard line on Iran and national security extends far beyond Netanyahu’s political camp. Nevertheless, a new coalition might choose normalization over the endless expansion of conflict and attempt to incorporate Israel into the emerging regional balance.

The Mecca Agreement is not a new Middle East Order – merely a promise of one. Yet if it manages to accommodate Iran as a member, establish clear rules of mutual restraint and find a form of peaceful coexistence with Israel, the Middle East could for the first time in decades have a security system created primarily by the states of the region. Such a system would not eliminate their differences, but it could allow them to work with and around those differences without constant recourse to an external hegemon and without turning every crisis into a war. The cradle of the Abrahamic faiths might then cease to be consumed by recurring fires and begin its transformation into a strong, interconnected and prosperous region.

After decades outside the bloc’s periphery, Iceland is about to hold a referendum on reopening membership talks with the EU. Is the Viking nation preparing to trade sovereignty for stability? Or is it climbing aboard a sinking ship?

Icelanders go to the polls on Saturday, August 29 to answer a straightforward, yes or no question: “Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?” 

What stage are talks between Iceland and Brussels at?

Iceland applied for EU membership in 2009, in the chaotic aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The country’s three biggest banks, Kaupthing, Landsbanki, and Glitnir, collapsed in the same week, and rather than force taxpayers to cover their balance sheets, Reykjavik washed its hands of the problem and let them fail.

The Icelandic krona plummeted, inflation soared, and center-right Prime Minister Geir Haarde resigned. Amid the meltdown, the newly empowered Social Democrats argued that by joining the EU and adopting the euro, Iceland could shield itself from future shocks – even as Iceland recovered far more quickly than EU members such as Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, which were subjected to crippling austerity measures by Brussels, the World Bank, and the IMF in the wake of the crisis.

The Social Democrats won the argument, convincing their left-wing, Euroskeptic coalition partners to vote for application. The left agreed, with the caveat that the final membership deal would be put to the people in a referendum.

Following a change of government, accession talks were shelved in 2013. Iceland, it was reasoned, had emerged from the financial crisis in good shape, and joining the EU would erode the island nation’s sovereignty, potentially diluting its control of rich fishing grounds, with no tangible benefits in return.

How do the polls stand before the vote?

With less than a day to go, the latest polls suggest that the vote will come down to the wire. A poll by market research firm Maskina published on August 25 shows the referendum passing by 51.3% to 48.7%. Two days later, a Gallup poll showed a near mirror inversion of these results, with the ‘no’ side leading by 51.6% to 48.4%. The result in both surveys was inside the margin of error, making the outcome impossible to predict. However, the ‘no’ side has been steadily closing the gap since July, and if the trend holds, could succeed in putting membership talks on ice for the foreseeable future.

The Yes vote: Safety in numbers

The two major parties in Frostadottir’s coalition – her Social Democrats and Foreign Minister Thorgerdur Katrin Gunnarsdottir’s Reform Party – support EU membership. Their arguments are the same as they were in 2009, with one key addition: Membership would add a layer of defense against any potential attempts by US President Donald Trump to gain control over Iceland, as he is currently threatening Greenland. Although this is an unlikely scenario, the current US ambassador in Reykjavik caused widespread anger in January when he joked “that Iceland will be the 52nd state and he’ll be governor."

Iceland’s six other major parties – from conservatives to centrists to leftists – all oppose membership. In an effort to persuade their voters, Frostadottir has sold the referendum as a zero-risk proposition. A ‘yes’ vote would merely restart talks, she has argued, pointing out that any deal offered by Brussels would still have to pass another referendum. It would also give Icelanders “the option of seeing what an agreement looks like,” she said last month.

Why does the EU want Iceland?

Home to fewer than 400,000 people, Iceland would be the EU’s smallest member state in terms of population. It sits just south of the Arctic Circle between Greenland and the UK, occupying a chokepoint known as the GIUK gap. Russian submarines and naval vessels entering the North Atlantic must pass through the GIUK gap, and with the EU’s foreign policy now bent on confrontation with Moscow, establishing an outpost here is high on Brussels’ list of priorities.

Frostadottir has reportedly warned the European Commission not to interfere in the vote. “The commission never intervenes in national elections or in referenda in any way,” a spokesperson told Euractiv, an outlet that the commission funds. 

RT readers will recall that the European Commission has intervened in every national election in the bloc since 2024. This year alone, Brussels imposed online censorship measures ahead of elections in Bulgaria and Hungary. A US House Judiciary Committee report released in early 2026 alleged that the European Commission pressured social media platforms to censor populist and conservative speech during elections in Romania, France, the Netherlands, and Ireland.

While neither Commission President Ursula von der Leyen nor her chief diplomat Kaja Kallas have made the case for joining the bloc publicly, EU-funded media have filled in the blanks. According to Euronews, a ‘no’ vote would “close off a strategic opportunity to expand [the EU’s] positioning in the North Atlantic and Arctic region for generations.”

Is Iceland already embedded in the Western military nexus?

Despite presenting a “strategic opportunity” for the EU, Iceland is not some neutral territory waiting to be claimed. Iceland is a founding member of NATO, hosts the bloc’s air forces at Naval Air Station Keflavik, in return for which the military bloc financed the country’s major ring road, and has a network of radar stations described by the bloc’s officials as “the eyes and the ears of NATO in the north.”

At exercise Northern Viking in Iceland, I saw firsthand how U.S. and Icelandic forces train alongside fellow @NATO Allies to protect vital sea lanes and secure the Arctic, and how Icelandic technology is giving Allied forces an operational edge. Building our readiness and… pic.twitter.com/ZToq3GiBvH

— U.S. Ambassador to NATO (@USAmbNATO) August 21, 2026

Iceland has no standing army, but is a protectorate of the US under a 1951 defense agreement. The annual US-led ‘Northern Viking’ military exercise is currently underway in Iceland, and concludes on September 4. 

On top of being fully integrated into the Western military camp, Iceland is already a member of the European Economic Area and visa-free Schengen zone, and has incorporated most EU legislation into its domestic laws. 

No: A choice between war and peace

The EU’s militarization has directly harmed the bloc itself, Gunnar Palsson, Iceland’s former ambassador to Brussels, said in August, pointing to the EU’s flatlining economy as a result of its self-imposed embargo on Russian energy.

“The EU is now, for the first time in its history, a direct party to a military conflict in Europe,” Palsson wrote in an op-ed for Iceland’s Morgunbladid newspaper. “The Union’s escalating involvement in the Ukraine war, which is unlikely to lead to an optimal outcome for European countries, has already had a far-reaching impact on their economic situation, their relations with each other and with the outside world.”

‘Left Against the EU’, a social movement founded this year to oppose the referendum, has argued that joining the EU would subjugate Iceland’s foreign policy to the whims of the European Commission, which is “rapidly moving towards militarization.”

“The European Union and NATO have given in to the demands of the arms industry for vastly increased military spending, and it has never been more urgent than now for peace-loving people to withdraw from the warring forces,” reads a policy statement from the group.

“A European army is just around the corner, and Icelanders must seriously ask themselves whether they want to prepare their children and society for the future of serving under the arms of a European military power.”

Should the referendum pass, “Icelanders will become citizens of a union that has a strong political will for militarization and is increasingly involved in conflicts and escalating tensions in Europe,” Haraldur Olafsson, who leads the anti-EU ‘Heimssyn’ movement, warned in May. 

Sovereignty over stocks: Why fish are at the center of the argument

For most Icelandic Euroskeptics, however, the referendum comes down to a simpler issue: fish. Fishing accounts for around 4% of Iceland’s GDP, and a third of the country’s exports. Signing up to the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy risks surrendering control over this vital economic and culturally symbolic sector.

Ireland, another island on the EU’s seaboard, was subjected to these rules when it joined the bloc, and more than five decades later, it is likely that Irish fishermen will demand Icelandic fishermen be treated as they were. 

French trawlers are allowed to catch five times more of certain fish in Irish waters than Irish trawlers. “The other countries are making fun of us for the lack of quota we have in our own waters,” Irish opposition leader Peadar Toibin claimed during a parliamentary debate last year.

Any Icelandic politician who trades away sovereignty over the country’s waters would “be expelled from the country,” Eirikur Bergmann, a professor at Iceland’s Bifrost University, told the BBC.

The ‘yes’ side has claimed that Iceland could negotiate exemptions to the Common Fisheries Policy, but no member state has done so to date, and Euroskeptics are unconvinced. Brussels would not even welcome such a debate, never mind find a workable solution. 

“Contrary to the government’s claims, membership of the European Union is not a tailor-made agreement where each country chooses the parts that suit it and rejects the others,” Independence Party leader Gudrun Hafsteinsdottir argued earlier this year. It is unacceptable, Olafsson declared in May, “for a foreign union to legislate on Icelandic resources for its own benefit.”

The EU’s treaties – Rome, Lisbon, Maastricht – “are non-negotiable,” ‘no’ campaigner Sigridur Maria Egilsdottir warned at a rally on August 27. “We wouldn’t show up to the negotiations alone. Brussels would send its most capable team, loaded with conditions, demands and inescapable assumptions that all EU nations have had to abide by.”

Iran has become stronger while the US has exposed its weakness during the conflict in the Middle East, which is still far from over, experts have told RT on the day marking six months since Washington and Israel attacked the Islamic Republic.

‘US and Israel underestimated resilience of Iranians and Lebanese’

RT’s correspondent in Lebanon, Steve Sweeney, said the Iran war is widely seen in the Middle East as “a strategic defeat for the US and its regional proxy, Israel.”

Israel used Iran as a pretext to launch an invasion of Lebanon, which “wreaked devastation across southern towns and villages, many of them have been destroyed completely,” Sweeney said.

“What Washington has done, what Israel has done is underestimated the resilience of the people on the ground here in Lebanon and also the resilience and the resistance being waged by the Iranians,” he added.

Trump looks like ‘Iranian agent’: Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi

“An alien from outer space might think that Trump has been… sent here as an Iranian agent to confirm the end of the US empire and the end of US power in this region,” Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi suggested.

The 180 days that have passed since February 28 “is not the end of the war,” but “a confirmation that Iran may have to respond... when it comes to retaliation and consequences for the NATO powers bent on their destruction, let alone the destruction of the entire Global South.”

‘If the goal of the operation was to make Israeli territory more secure, then it has been a complete failure’

RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij, reporting from the West Bank, said that since Israel launched its war with the US against Iran, it has opened up additional fronts, including operations in Lebanon and Syria, while the conflict in Gaza continues.

The West Bank, Dubenskij said, has become a “tinderbox,” with nationalist attacks by Israeli settlers taking place on a daily basis. She warned that the rising violence could trigger a backlash from Palestinians.

‘Iran has become a superpower’: DD Geopolitics reporter Christopher Helali

Tehran has become a “super power” over the 180 days that have passed since the attack by Washington and West Jerusalem, according to DD Geopolitics reporter Christopher Helali.

“What we can say unequivocally is that... Iran is not going back to the status quo of February 27 and before that. What has happened since has turned Iran into a major world power that doesn’t possess nuclear weapons, but possesses the Strait of Hormuz, which can bring the global economy to its knees and, of course, force the US and other regional powers to make enormous concessions,” he said.

‘A long, drawn-out conflict only beginning’

Former Pentagon analyst Michael Maloof called the US-Israeli operation “irresponsible,” saying it has resulted in “nothing but chaos, confusion, and greater turmoil and economic and political uncertainty in the world today.”

Half a year has passed since the initial attack on Iran, but “we’re only seeing the beginning of what’s going to be a long, drawn-out conflict,” he argued.

France hopes to line its own arms manufacturers’ pockets with a €90 billion European Union loan to Ukraine by limiting Kiev's ability to procure weapons from outside the bloc, according to Euronews.

After overcoming Hungary’s opposition, the EU member states in April approved the €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan, aimed at propping up Kiev’s war effort in 2026 and 2027; €60 billion of the total sum has been earmarked for arms procurement.

The scheme, which is backed by joint EU borrowing on the capital markets, is premised on the assumption that it would be repaid when Ukraine secures reparations from Russia – a prospect Moscow has dismissed as “unrealistic.”

In an article on Tuesday, Euronews claimed that France is seeking to place a time limit on wavers allowing Ukraine to purchase weapons from outside the EU using EU-backed funds.

At present, Kiev can request an exemption if there is no EU-made system on offer that meets its immediate needs. According to the publication, Ukraine has so far made use of this mechanism on at least two occasions: when sourcing Chinese-made drone components and US-made Patriot interceptor missiles.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict and amid the subsequent EU-wide rearmament drive, a number of European arms manufacturers have seen their profit margins surge.

Shares in Rheinmetall, Europe’s largest defense contractor, for instance, have risen more than tenfold over the past six years. Earlier this month, the company reported a nearly 70% increase in second-quarter revenue at €3.29 billion, having more than doubled its operating profit to €562 million.

RT’s Chay Bowes believes that behind a veneer of self-righteous talk lies ulterior motives, and that France is ultimately looking to funnel billions into its own military industrial complex.

Watch Bowes’s report in full below:

Donald Trump has declared himself the “greatest” president in US history while branding Joe Biden and Barack Obama “failures” in a ranking posted on Truth Social.

Abraham Lincoln, who led the US through the Civil War and abolished slavery, and George Washington, the first US president and a founding father, were placed one tier below Trump.

The US president shared the ranking on Thursday alongside a CNN clip highlighting polling showing his dominance among Republican voters. The graphic divides US presidents into six tiers – ‘The Greatest’, ‘Great’, ‘Near Great’, ‘Average’, ‘Below Average’, and ‘Failures’ – with Trump alone at the top.

Lincoln, Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were placed in the ‘Great’ category. Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, John Adams, and James K. Polk were rated ‘Near Great’, while Bill Clinton was among those deemed ‘Average’.

Biden and Obama were placed at the opposite end of Trump’s chart alongside fellow Democrat Jimmy Carter and former presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding. The list contains 34 presidents and leaves out 11 others, including Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and both George Bushes.

The graphic appears to be an altered version of a ranking published by LIFE magazine in 1948, when Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 experts in American history to classify presidents as ‘great’, ‘near great’, ‘average’, ‘below average’, or ‘failure’. Trump’s version largely retains the original categories but adds himself at the top and several more recent Democratic presidents.

Expert surveys, however, have placed Trump at the opposite end of the scale. The Presidential Greatness Project ranked him last in 2018 with 12.34 points out of 100, versus 95.03 for Lincoln, and put him last again in its 2024 survey of 154 presidential scholars and experts. Lincoln topped both rankings.

Trump’s broader approval has also slumped during his second term. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted August 21-24 put his approval at a record-low 33%, with 65% disapproving. A Marquette survey showed even weaker numbers on the economy, with 30% approving of his handling of it and just 22% backing his record on inflation and the cost of living.

US President Donald Trump is apparently suffering from “schizophrenia” and “delusions” over his claims that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to Washington, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi has said.

The jab came after Trump shared an image on Thursday titled “US Territories” that listed the Strait of Hormuz as “NEW” alongside Puerto Rico, Guam, and other entities.

Writing on X the next day, Gharibabadi took aim at Trump, saying that “schizophrenia is a complex and acute psychotic disorder that manifests with disturbances in thinking and a distorted perception of reality.” He added that common symptoms include hallucinations and delusions, and that “such patients should be under 24-hour supervision and receive treatment.”

It’s not the first time Trump declared that the US “has total control over the Strait of Hormuz.” Earlier this month, he suggested that he “WILL KEEP IT,” while calling the American blockade “A WALL OF STEEL.” He also claimed that Iran had no navy or air force to speak of and signed off: “Praise be to Allah!”

The gap between America’s inability to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and its claim to own it is greater than the 7,000-mile distance between Washington and the Strait itself.
Welcome to the post-American order in the Persian Gulf. pic.twitter.com/nC7VBCPILH

— محسن رضایی (@ir_rezaee) August 18, 2026

Iran has repeatedly stated that it remains in full control of the strait, while Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei argued that Washington’s claim to own the strait was even further from reality than the roughly 7,000 miles separating it from the US capital. “Welcome to the post-American order in the Persian Gulf,” he wrote in mid-August.

Trump has meanwhile stepped back from another major round of strikes on Iran amid reports of critical shortages of long-range guided weapons and air-defense interceptors – something the US president has denied.

Washington has since shifted toward what it described as “an economic onslaught” against Iran to isolate it financially. Tehran has remained defiant, though, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying, “We have seen this movie before. Same bull. Different bullies.”

The US is moving to lock in long-term access to the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves by discussing a 100-year deal with Venezuela, as Caracas plans to leave the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), several outlets have reported.

The idea of quitting OPEC has been discussed during talks with US officials, according to Bloomberg’s sources, although no final decision has been made.

Venezuela was one of five countries that founded OPEC in 1960, alongside Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. It has effectively operated outside the group’s production quota system for years, while decades of US sanctions and domestic economic turmoil have battered its oil industry and diminished its influence within the organization.

A withdrawal from OPEC would mark a major realignment in Caracas following the January 3 US operation that kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Washington has since taken control of Venezuelan oil sales and revenues, with proceeds deposited into US-controlled accounts and Caracas’ access to the funds subject to decisions in Washington.

US pushing for ‘massive’ century-long oil lease

Talk of a potential OPEC exit comes as Washington pushes for a major stake in Venezuela’s oil fields. A deal under discussion could lock in several fields for American companies under a 100-year lease and guarantee the resulting crude supplies to the US.

“This is real and being discussed at the highest levels of the US and Venezuelan governments,” one source told Reuters. A lease is among the legal models under consideration, with individual fields potentially allocated to US producers through auctions or tenders.

A list involved in the negotiations includes 17 fields, spanning undeveloped sites in the vast Orinoco Belt and mature fields around Lake Maracaibo containing roughly 90 billion barrels of proven reserves. Some are currently operated by a small Chinese company under a contract signed during Maduro’s presidency.

‘Donroe Doctrine’

Taking a stake in Venezuela’s reserves would amount to an almost unprecedented US intervention in another country’s economy, Bloomberg noted, while fitting Donald Trump’s so-called “Donroe Doctrine” of expanding American influence across the Western Hemisphere.

Trump has repeatedly asserted US control over Venezuela’s oil since Maduro’s capture in January. Speaking to oil executives that month, he said Washington would decide which companies would rebuild the sector: “You’re dealing with us directly. You’re not dealing with Venezuela at all.” He went further in the spring, publicly floating the idea of turning Venezuela into the “51st state.”

The proposed arrangement could, however, run into legal hurdles. Venezuelan law does not currently provide for leasing oil acreage, while the constitution reserves core industry activities for the state. Recent reforms allow foreign participation through joint ventures and production-sharing contracts, but Caracas has for decades prevented foreign producers from booking Venezuelan reserves as their own.

Another blow to OPEC

Venezuela’s departure would also hand Trump a small victory in his long-running confrontation with OPEC. The US president has repeatedly criticized the group for wielding too much influence over global oil prices and driving up fuel costs for American consumers.

The push comes as the Trump administration faces pressure over high gasoline prices ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Cheaper Venezuelan crude could help ease fuel costs and replenish the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which currently holds around 290 million barrels – about 41% of its capacity.

Other producers have also pushed back against OPEC restrictions. Iraq reportedly threatened to leave in June unless it was allowed to increase output, although Baghdad later said it had no plans to withdraw. Venezuela and Iran remain exempt from OPEC+ production quotas because sanctions have constrained their output.

Moscow trusted in the decency of the West for years, but not anymore, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

In an interview with RBK released on Friday, Lavrov was asked why Russia allowed the US and EU to take advantage of it on numerous occasions in recent decades.

“Deception lies at the foundation of Western diplomacy. And it still does,” he replied.

The minister recalled how the Americans broke their promise not to expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and how France and Germany became guarantors of a deal between democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich and the opposition during the Maidan protests in Kiev in 2014, but proclaimed the rioters as victors after they seized government buildings the next day.

“This reveals something about our psychology – not naivety ingrained by centuries of historical experience, but rather the enduring hope that a scoundrel cannot be a complete scoundrel, to put it simply,” Lavrov explained.

It is in the Russian national character to maintain “faith in people right to the very end. But the end has already come,” he said.

According to the minister, the US and EU “firmly set out on a course of supplying the Nazi Kiev regime with ever more advanced and increasingly deadly offensive weapons” after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.

Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly humiliated and abused a former household worker, at one point calling him an “undeveloped Moroccan,” a new lawsuit claims. The controversy adds to a years-long trail of remarkably similar allegations, painting a picture of intolerable conditions at the residence.

On Tuesday, Ynet reported that Rami Ben-Hamo, who worked at the residence from 2023 to 2025, is seeking 450,000 shekels ($150,000) in a lawsuit filed with the Jerusalem Regional Labor Court. While the complaint has been formally filed against the Prime Minister’s Office, the alleged abuse is overwhelmingly attributed to Sara Netanyahu.

According to Ben-Hamo, he sometimes worked from around 7:30 AM until the early hours of the following morning, clocking 60 to 80 hours of overtime a month. He claims to have “suffered extreme abuse” from the prime minister’s wife, adding that she made him clean her handbag and the soles of her shoes, repeatedly wash his hands between tasks, and endure screaming and humiliation when cleaning or household chores were not performed exactly as she wanted.

The complaint also alleges that Ben-Hamo was kept at work after the start of Shabbat – the weekly Jewish day of rest between Friday and Saturday evenings – despite Netanyahu knowing he observed the tradition. After suffering a cardiac event at work and undergoing catheterization in 2025, Ben-Hamo says her treatment of him became even harsher.

Netanyahu’s office dismissed the allegations as “fake news,” calling it a politically motivated “witch-hunt” ahead of the October elections.

However, the recent controversy fits a pattern of strikingly similar grievances about Sara Netanyahu. Just several weeks ago, former residence worker Yehiel Ohev-Ami, 61, sued her for 300,000 shekels ($100,000), claiming that Netanyahu repeatedly insulted and yelled at him, and “once ordered him to clean the kitchen floor while crawling.” 

In addition, Netanyahu allegedly wished him cancer and death after Ohev-Ami went out on a smoke break, and even “diagnosed” him with autism. The prime minister’s office has denied the accusations.

In May, Israeli media reported that another former employee reached a settlement with her staffing company after alleging repeated humiliation, including an incident in which Sara Netanyahu threw olives and tomatoes at her during breakfast.

In 2016, a Jerusalem labor court awarded former residence caretaker Meni Naftali 170,000 shekels ($57,000) after accepting his claims that Sara Netanyahu’s fostered “abusive employment conditions,” including verbal insults and unreasonable demands.

According to multiple media reports, Sara Netanyahu – a psychologist by training – enjoys immense political influence and essentially has veto powers on appointments to key positions. Earlier this month, former chief of staff Yoav Horowitz suggested that in terms of politics, “Sara Netanyahu and Bibi Netanyahu are one; it’s impossible to separate between them.”

Afghanistan is “undoubtedly” better off five years after the withdrawal of US forces, Taliban chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid has told RT, while acknowledging that the country continues to face serious problems.

In a rare interview with RT India’s Runjhun Sharma, Mujahid argued that the departure of foreign troops has restored Afghanistan’s independence and left Afghans responsible for rebuilding their own country.

The Taliban returned to power in August 2021 as the Western-backed government collapsed and US forces completed their withdrawal after two decades of war. The hardline Islamist movement has since reinstated a strict interpretation of Sharia law, including sweeping restrictions on women and girls that have drawn widespread international criticism.

However, despite the conflict, Mujahid said Kabul now wants normal diplomatic relations with Washington, including the reopening of the US Embassy in Afghanistan and an Afghan mission in the American capital.

He also argued that Western perceptions of the Taliban remain shaped by two decades of war, accusing international media of portraying the group as seeking conflict and instability and posing a threat to the outside world.

He also called for sanctions to be lifted and frozen Afghan assets to be returned, saying the measures would help improve relations.

Commenting on Afghanistan’s relations with Russia, which is currently the only country to recognize the Taliban government, Mujahid described Moscow as an important regional partner and said Kabul wants Russian companies to invest in Afghanistan while expanding cooperation in trade, reconstruction, fuel, and energy.

“Afghanistan has its own beliefs and convictions, has its own religion and faith, has its own internal interests, and has its own laws,” he said. “These should be valued and respected.”

Watch the full interview below.

Nepal and China briefly suspended rescue operations for those missing in Wednesday’s flash flood due to the threat of new onrush of water from a lake that formed on the upper reaches of the Bhote Koshi river.

The lake broke its banks Friday morning and Nepal asked its rescue teams and residents to move to higher ground. Rescue operations resumed soon afterward when the authorities assessed that the risk of flooding was not as severe as initially thought. 

CNN reported, citing a spokesperson for Nepal’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority, that there is no risk of a massive deluge like before. “It is a small amount of water leaking from the dam down into the valley below.”

Chinese officials said the risk of flooding had decreased as the water level in the lake had fallen by about 10 meters, state broadcaster CCTV reported.

Nepal's National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority said that the death toll has reached 547 by Friday evening. Nearly 1,500 are still missing, including police personnel. More than 1,500 people have been rescued, Nepalese police posted online.

China has confirmed 5 deaths so far, with 558 people including 260 foreigners missing. 

The Nepal Army has intensified rescue operations since this morning to find people trapped in the Rasuwa Hydro Power Project (Hydro) tunnel due to flooding. A Nepal Army team, braving challenging terrain and dangerous conditions, has so far safely rescued two people from the… pic.twitter.com/8vlER7VKy7

— Sahil Patel (@SahilpatelCA) August 28, 2026

More than 13,000 army and police personnel are engaged in the search and rescue effort in Nepal. 

Helicopter rescue missions, which have successfully pulled to safety hundreds of people stranded in the mud and buildings in the last 48 hours, also resumed after the pause.

Heroic rescue! A man stranded on an excavator in a fast-flowing, muddy river was saved after brave firefighters threw him a life jacket and safety rope, pulling him through the current to shore. 🌊#Rescue #HeroicRescue #Flood #EmergencyResponse #China pic.twitter.com/Ypbqva2qRG

— Bappy Boks (@bappyboks) August 28, 2026

China also resumed rescue operations at the Gyirong Port, which is now completely buried in mud. The first team of 21 firefighters and a rescue dog reached the border checkpoint around 5 p.m. on Friday, state media reported. 

India's foreign ministery says at least 320 of its nationals are missing.

There is also no information on an 80-member pilgrim group from a spiritual organization in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The group was returning from Mansarovar and had reportedly reached the immigration checkpoint at the border just minutes before the flood leveled the buildings there. The group included people of various nationalities.

British health officials believe that eggs imported from Ukraine could be responsible for a major salmonella outbreak in the UK, The Telegraph has reported, citing a source.

A total of 259 people in the country have been infected with the bacteria over the past year, with one of them dying, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said in a statement on Thursday.

The agency stressed that the exact source of the contaminated products has yet to be established, but added that the outbreak “could all be associated with imported eggs.”

However, a senior official involved in the investigation of a salmonella outbreak in the Netherlands, where over a hundred cases have been registered, told The Telegraph that the “working hypothesis” among his British counterparts is that the unsafe eggs were of Ukrainian origin.

Almost half of the victims, ranging from babies to people in their 90s, required hospitalization, the statement read.

Salmonella causes intestinal infection, typically resulting in diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and abdominal cramps. While most patients recover without specific treatment, the disease can be life-threatening for people with weakened immune systems.

Investigators believe the people were infected after consuming eggs served in “small cafes, restaurants, and takeaway businesses,” rather than eating at home, UKHSA said.

The UK produces most of its eggs at home, with UKHSA assuring that they are perfectly safe. The country imports only 11% of its eggs, with Ukraine being the largest supplier, accounting for almost a third of them.

The exemption from tariffs on Ukrainian eggs exported to Britain, introduced after the escalation between Ukraine and Russia in February 2022, will remain in place until 2028, despite the EU reimposing barriers last year.

In July, EU health authorities linked Ukrainian-made instant noodles to a salmonella outbreak that affected more than 100 people across over a dozen member states.

A few months before that, Azerbaijan’s food safety agency reported discovering the bacteria in a 4.9-ton batch of frozen chicken coming from Ukraine.

A US court has struck down the Pentagon’s blacklisting of Anthropic, ruling that it illegally sanctioned the AI developer for refusing to let its Claude model be used for certain military operations.

In a 59-page ruling issued on Thursday, US District Judge Rita Lin said Secretary of War Pete Hegseth overstepped his authority by designating Anthropic a “supply-chain risk to national security.” She also argued that the move amounted to unlawful retaliation under the First Amendment and deprived Anthropic of due process under the Fifth.

“The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics,” she wrote.
Lin said the government had sought to make a public example of Anthropic for its “arrogance” in criticizing Washington, adding that Hegseth’s supply-chain designation violated the statute invoked by the Pentagon and was “arbitrary and capricious.”

However, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei argued in February that while he supports the use of Claude for military ends, it should not be used for mass domestic surveillance or guiding fully autonomous weapons because its current frontier models are not reliable enough for the latter task.

Anthropic vowed to challenge the designation, saying such treatment had historically only been reserved for US adversaries. It sued in March, alleging that Washington had retaliated against its protected speech and denied it a chance to contest the allegations before imposing the sanctions.

Hegseth, however, stood his ground, comparing Anthropic’s red lines to “Boeing giving us airplanes and telling us who we can shoot at,” and calling Amodei an “ideological lunatic.”

In the ruling, Lin stressed that the Pentagon “is undisputedly free to select the AI vendor of its choice” and remains free to abandon Claude if Anthropic’s conditions do not meet its requirements. Yet the Pentagon itself had been reluctant to lose access to the model, with one defense official telling Axios in February that “the problem for these guys is they are that good.”

A separate lawsuit from Anthropic is also pending in Washington, DC over a supply chain risk designation that could lead to its exclusion from civilian government contracts.

Norway’s King Harald V has died at the age of 89, the royal palace announced on Friday.

The monarch, who had reigned since 1991, died peacefully at an Oslo hospital, the palace said.

Harald will be succeeded by his only son, Haakon VIII, 53, with his wife, Mette-Marit, becoming Norway’s new queen.

The succession comes after the king’s final years were overshadowed by a series of scandals involving members of his family. Mette-Marit faced scrutiny over her past ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while her son from a previous relationship, Marius Borg Hoiby, was convicted of rape.

The king had been hospitalized with a blood disorder on August 17. His health deteriorated during treatment, with the palace describing his condition as “extremely serious” on Thursday.

Members of the royal family canceled their official engagements and gathered at Harald’s bedside during his final days, while members of the public laid flowers outside the palace, according to local media.

Despite the controversies surrounding his family, Harald remained a popular figure in Norway and was credited with helping modernize the monarchy, including by marrying a commoner and increasing transparency around royal spending.

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has argued that he should not be seen as tainted by past association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The billionaire addressed his links with the late financier as a source of reputational baggage in an interview with Axios on Thursday, insisting people should not let the controversy overshadow his current positions on major issues, such as AI and global health.

“I made mistakes. I’ve changed,” Gates said. “I do think the record is clear, and people can just judge me on the record.”

Gates has denied involvement in Epstein’s criminal activity and told Congress that the infamous pedophile later attempted to blackmail him over extramarital affairs.

The tech mogul called his dealings with Epstein a “huge mistake,” insisting they were limited and motivated by an attempt to raise money for philanthropic projects.

This week Gates also released a sweeping essay on the coming “turbulent AI era” and the shift in his attitude to the technology. Artificial intelligence could become either “the greatest equalizer ever invented” or “the worst source of injustice,” he wrote, warning that governments remain dangerously unprepared for the social and economic upheaval ahead.

He acknowledged his “potential bias” and conceded that he has “benefited enormously” from the tech industry, retains financial ties to the sector and works with Microsoft and other AI companies through the Gates Foundation.

Gates is now warning that AI could unleash disruption on an entirely different scale. Unlike previous technological revolutions, he argues, it can substitute directly for human cognition and rapidly replace workers across law, medicine, customer service, software and manufacturing. Without the right policies, he predicts, there will still be some new jobs, but “far fewer than exist today.”

Eventually, Gates cautioned, the danger may come from the machines themselves: increasingly powerful systems “could begin to act against our interests and we could lose control.”

It is not the first time Gates has sounded the alarm about a looming global threat. In a widely viewed 2015 TED talk, he warned that the world was badly unprepared for the next major epidemic.

This time, Gates argues there may be even less room to slow down. While saying he would support a credible international plan to restrain AI development, he concluded that “geopolitical and economic incentives are pushing too hard to go full speed ahead.”

US President Donald Trump has officially renamed Lake Ontario “Lake America” as trade-related tensions between Canada and the United States continue to escalate.

The premier of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, told Trump to “kiss my a**” this week and threatened to cut electricity supplies to the US.

“We’re going to be changing the name of Lake Ontario, effective immediately, to Lake America,” Trump declared in the Oval Office on Thursday before signing an executive order that requires federal agencies to use the new name on government maps, contracts, documents and communications.

The change was swiftly put into effect, with Trump sharing a letter from the US Geological Survey confirming that the federal Geographic Names Information System had already been updated.

The renaming caps a bitter week in which the trade dispute between Washington and Ottawa rapidly descended into personal insults and threats. The confrontation erupted after negotiations collapsed and Washington imposed 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian imports.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford responded almost immediately, threatening to withhold or sharply raise the price of oil, potash and uranium exports and saying Ontario was prepared to revive a surcharge on electricity sent to the US, or even cut power exports altogether.

“Someone should get these clowns to ‘fall in line’ or, the consequences for Canada will be far WORSE!” Trump fired back. Ford, who was holding a press conference at the time, doubled down, saying: “I have a lot of real estate on my ass, so he has a lot of room to kiss my ass.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has insisted that his countrymen will continue to use the historic name, noting that “Ontario” derives from an Indigenous word predating both countries. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has likewise said her state would not adopt “Lake America.”

Washington cannot force Canada or international organizations to recognize the change, but it can dictate terminology across the US federal government.

On his first day back in office in January 2025, Trump similarly ordered the Gulf of Mexico renamed the “Gulf of America” for federal purposes – and suggested Thursday that another geographic rebranding could be next.

“We have a gulf and we have a lake. Now, all we need is an ocean,” he said. “So maybe we’ll have to change the name of the Atlantic and or the Pacific. Maybe we’ll change them both.”

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has instructed its employees not to refer to the 9/11 attacks as “terrorist,” according to several media reports.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. According to the official account, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four passenger airliners, crashing two into the World Trade Center towers in New York City and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, DC. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers and crew attempted to wrest control from the hijackers.

The attacks prompted then-US President George W. Bush to launch the ‘war on terror’ and send American troops into Afghanistan, beginning a conflict that would last two decades.

The Toronto Sun reported on Wednesday that CBC Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust Basem Boshra had circulated a confidential memo instructing reporters and editors not to “refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.”

“The hijackings led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan. The World Trade Center (WTC in second reference) was destroyed,” the memo reportedly stated.

The spokesperson said the memo was a routine reminder of CBC policy on the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’, which journalists may use when attributed to government officials, authorities, experts, or politicians.

CBC News editor in chief and general manager Brodie Fenlon has previously explained that the broadcaster “does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism,” arguing that the terms are so politically and emotionally loaded that they “can end up being impediments to our journalism.”

The reported guidance comes as relations between Canada and the US have deteriorated amid an escalating trade war. On Tuesday, Ottawa announced retaliatory tariffs of up to 50% on around 700 American products after US President Donald Trump imposed a new round of duties on Canada and threatened further punitive measures.

British state broadcaster the BBC this week ran a major story drumming up the alleged Russia threat and supposed looming retaliatory attacks on UK drone factories supplying Ukraine. The chilly warning purportedly came from a top Russian official – except that the individual in question has not been one in over three decades.

At first glance, the piece titled “UK drone factories may face attacks from ‘unknown sources,’ says Kremlin adviser” looked legit, based on comments made on BBC Newsnight by Andrey Fedorov. The broadcaster presented the interviewee as a heavyweight Russian official, describing him as a “Kremlin adviser” and “Russia’s former deputy foreign minister.”

The latter is partially true: Fedorov was the deputy minister in the RSFSR, the Russian republic of the USSR, between October 1990 and October 1991 prior to the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union. The other claim, however, is completely false. Fedorov used to be an adviser to Russia’s vice president until late 1993, the same year the vice president position was abolished, and has not held any public office since. Over the past decade, he has been best known as a political commentator and a media personality, frequenting assorted Russian political talk shows.

BBC tries to hide fake news

The piece survived for around five hours on the BBC website before it was quietly amended. Fedorov was ‘demoted’ to a “pro-Kremlin commentator who frequently appears on Russian television,” yet no official retraction of the initial claim was made. The description, while still debatable, given that Fedorov is known for frequently spelling doom and gloom for Moscow, citing his purported high-ranking sources at home and overseas, is not explicitly untrue.

The BBC also did not do a particularly good job of purging the fake, which survived on several of its platforms. A BBC Newsnight Facebook post on the matter still cryptically describes Fedorov as a “President Putin ally” at the moment of the publication, while its post on X claims the commentator “advises President Putin.”

Fake spills all over British media and beyond

The BBC interview with Fedorov was spread across British media alongside his false depiction as a “Putin adviser.” Unlike the source, outlets that reprinted the fake news never bothered to amend it.

Some outlets even managed to outperform the original. The Express, for instance, described Fedorov simultaneously as a “high-ranking Kremlin official” and “high-level Kremlin insider.”

HuffPost UK also described the political commentator as a “presidential adviser” and even ‘promoted’ him to a “key ally to Vladimir Putin.”

The fake also spread beyond the UK media, making it to Al Jazeera with minimal amendments. Following the BBC, Al Jazeera falsely described Fedorov as “an adviser to the Kremlin and a former deputy foreign minister.” 

It also made it to Ukrainian media, which generally takes its British counterparts at face value and attempts no independent fact-checking.

Are the fakes bound to roll on?

This was actually not the first time the BBC falsely presented the Russian political commentator. In January of this year, Fedorov made remarks to the BBC’s Radio 4 on the US military hunt for the Marinera oil tanker and was presented as a “Kremlin adviser and former Russian deputy foreign minister.”

The comments spread widely across British media at the time, apparently without any fact-checking, and remain readily available in news articles from major outlets such The Times and The Independent.

Dozens of immigrants who disappeared from UK asylum hotels as children in 2023 are still unaccounted for, a parliamentary report released on Thursday has found.

Some 472 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children – some as young as 12 – went missing from Home Office-run accommodation for migrant minors.

According to the Director of Children’s Social Care at the Department for Education, Helen Waite, 432 have since been located, leaving 40 unaccounted for. Most have since turned 18, but two remain underage.

The committee “welcomed” that most had been found but said it remains “extremely concerned” about those still missing. It urged the Home Office to detail efforts to locate them, demanding updates every three months. Angela Eagle, then border security and asylum minister, told the committee last year that some of those found were “located in exploitative situations and may have been trafficked.”

At its peak in June 2023, more than 51,000 asylum seekers were housed in over 400 Home Office hotels across the UK. Human rights groups argued the facilities were unsuitable for children. In 2024, the High Court ruled that placement of unaccompanied minors in hotels was unlawful, and dedicated facilities were subsequently closed.

Immigration has become an increasingly contentious political issue in Britain amid continued Channel crossings, protests over asylum accommodation, high-profile migrant-linked crimes and renewed scrutiny of the country’s grooming-gangs scandal. The controversy contributed to mounting pressure on former Prime Minister Keir Starmer before his resignation earlier this summer. His successor, Andy Burnham, has pledged to stop small-boat crossings but declined to set a deadline.

Pentagon investigators reviewing the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan have uncovered classified documents that they say were deliberately hidden from previous probes. The discovery comes amid long-running accusations that the administration of former US President Joe Biden concealed failures surrounding the operation.

Sean Parnell, chairman of the Afghanistan Withdrawal Special Review Panel, said on Wednesday that his team had recovered “highly relevant classified documents” that “should have been disclosed.”

The material had been “stashed and hidden away in safes where they would not be found,” Parnell said in a video statement on X, five years after the deadly bombing of the Abbey Gate entrance to Kabul airport.

“After the team reviewed these documents, it became clear why someone tried to hide them,” he said.

Parnell did not disclose what the documents actually contain, who allegedly concealed them, or whether they relate to any specific decisions made by Biden or his officials.

However, he said his panel would follow the evidence “wherever it leads and to whoever it touches,” and promised veterans and the families of those killed “the full picture” of how and why decisions were made during the disastrous withdrawal.

Images of desperate Afghans clinging to a departing US military aircraft became emblematic of the withdrawal, which ended a 20-year American military presence with the Taliban back in power.

Republicans have since repeatedly accused Biden officials of ignoring or downplaying warnings that a complete US withdrawal could trigger the rapid collapse of the Afghan government and security forces, and of waiting too long to launch a full-scale evacuation.

House investigators have also consistently raised concerns that potentially relevant photographs, video, and other material from the evacuation were missing, deleted, or otherwise unavailable during subsequent probes. They have accused Biden-era officials of withholding information and frustrating congressional attempts to establish exactly how key decisions were made.

Biden administration officials have denied any cover-up and argued that the unexpectedly rapid collapse of the Afghan government severely complicated the evacuation.

Denmark will pay around $47,000 to each Greenlandic woman who can attest to having been implanted with a contraceptive device without consent while Copenhagen controlled the island’s healthcare system. Around 4,500 women may qualify under the scheme.

The Danish parliament approved the payout of 300,000 kroner by a large majority on Thursday, with the compensation to be made tax-free regardless of the contraceptive method used or the number of incidents.

To receive the money, the claimant should make a sworn statement and provide enough detail to make the incident plausible under the scheme. Providing medical records is not required because many of the alleged incidents occurred decades ago and the relevant documentation may no longer exist.

The inquiry also collected testimony from 354 women describing 488 contraceptive incidents. Of 410 IUD incidents in those testimonies, 300 involved either no consent or no clear consent, 47 involved consent, and 63 contained insufficient information. The testimony also included 185 girls who had been under 18 at the time.

According to the inquiry, another reason for the “spiral scandal” was Denmark’s drive to impose its ideas about family planning on Greenlandic society. While Denmark has favored small nuclear families, Greenlandic society has to a large extent relied on large family and kin networks.

Greenland’s former Prime Minister Mute Inequnaaluk Bourup Egede has described Denmark’s actions as “genocide.” While Copenhagen has not agreed with the characterization, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen apologized on Denmark’s behalf last year, admitting that Greenlandic girls and women had suffered “systematic discrimination” because they were Greenlanders while calling the controversy a “dark chapter” in the country’s history.

The US has announced Operation Economic Outcast, which it calls “an unprecedented, whole-of-government, economic campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran” and compares to D-Day in its effort to end “the Iranian threat.”

The US Treasury has expanded the scope of potential secondary sanctions across five areas of the Iranian economy, including digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping. At the same time, the Office of Foreign Assets Control has added nearly 60 companies, individuals, and vessels to its sanctions lists over alleged links to Iranian oil revenue, procurement for missile and nuclear programs, cyberoperations, and the activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Five tankers have been designated as blocked property, while several licenses covering certain remittances and educational and cultural exchanges have been suspended.

Despite the forceful rhetoric accompanying the announcement, Washington has not imposed a comprehensive ban on all trade with Iran. The new sectoral determinations do not mean that every foreign company conducting a transaction with an Iranian counterpart will automatically be sanctioned. Rather, they provide the US administration with legal grounds for future enforcement, while specific penalties will continue to be imposed selectively. Washington is building a mechanism for more sustained pressure and preparing to direct that mechanism increasingly against Tehran’s foreign partners.

At the same time, the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program has renewed attention to its offer of up to $10 million dollars for information on senior IRGC leaders and associated members of the Iranian establishment, including Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. The reward was first announced in March 2026 and has now become part of a revived psychological and intelligence campaign against Iran’s leadership and security apparatus.

The turn towards economic warfare comes after nearly six months of fighting. American and Israeli strikes inflicted substantial damage on Iran, destroyed parts of its military infrastructure and weakened elements of its regional network, but they failed to force Tehran to surrender or change its policies. Iran has retained missile and drone capabilities, the ability to threaten installations across the Gulf, and, most importantly, considerable influence over maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

The military campaign has imposed a heavy cost on the US. According to the Pentagon, direct expenditure had reached at least $37.5 billion dollars by July. Sources and estimates by American analysts suggest that the US expended around 65% of its Patriot interceptor stockpile during the first five months of the war, while the number of available THAAD interceptors fell by at least 38% and the use of Tomahawk cruise missiles approached half of the national inventory. Domestic support for the war, meanwhile, remained low at approximately 35%.

With this in mind, the economic offensive doesn’t look like a demonstration of Washington’s confidence anymore – rather, it is an acknowledgement that further military action is getting unsustainable. The US needs time to rebuild its weapons stocks, reduce domestic political costs, and find an instrument capable of sustaining pressure without another expensive air campaign. Sanctions offer such an instrument because much of their immediate burden falls on foreign companies and the Iranian population, while Washington retains the ability to raise or lower the pressure at will.

Iran understands this as well. If Tehran concludes that a prolonged pause will allow the US to close its commercial and financial channels one by one, the Iranian leadership may attempt to deny Washington the time it needs through limited military escalation, renewed pressure on shipping or further strikes against regional infrastructure. Such a decision would carry enormous risks because it could once again unite the Gulf states against Iran, yet retaining control over the tempo of the crisis remains one of Tehran’s most important advantages.

Many Iranian organizations are already isolated by previous rounds of sanctions, and the new operation’s threat is directed mostly at Iran’s foreign partners. Companies and banks involved in the five designated sectors could face the freezing of assets under US jurisdiction, prohibitions on transactions with American citizens and entities, restrictions on correspondent accounts, and effective exclusion from the dollar clearing system. For an international bank, that threat can be more dangerous than a direct fine because losing access to dollar infrastructure could paralyze a substantial share of its global business.

China, however, throws a wrench into the American model. In 2025, Chinese buyers imported an average of around 1.38 million barrels of Iranian oil per day, accounting for more than 80% of Iran’s seaborne oil exports. The trade has been sustained through independent refineries with limited exposure to the US, intermediaries, yuan settlements, and schemes that obscure the origin of individual cargoes. By August 2026, deliveries had fallen to approximately 534,000 barrels per day from 1.57 million in February, although this decline resulted more from the war and naval blockade than from Beijing’s voluntary compliance with American sanctions.

Washington has already sanctioned individual Chinese technology suppliers and smaller refiners, but the new package does not target China’s largest banks. Sanctioning them could disrupt US-China negotiations, provoke retaliation, interfere with supplies of critical goods, and accelerate the movement of bilateral trade into payment systems beyond the dollar. The answer to the question of secondary sanctions against China is deeply contradictory. The US threatens Beijing with consequences, but it remains reluctant to adopt measures capable of inflicting comparable damage on the American economy itself.

Iran’s other partners do not form a united front. The United Arab Emirates, which accounted for roughly 30 percent of Iranian imports worth about $21 billion in 2024, has already suspended financial and commercial dealings with Tehran. Türkiye, however, whose annual trade with Iran amounts to around $5 to $6 billion, has given no indication that it intends to sever economic relations, particularly since Iran provides approximately 13% of Türkiye’s gas imports. Trade between Iran and Iraq exceeded $10 billion in 2025, while Baghdad pays Tehran an estimated $4 to $5 billion annually for natural gas used in electricity generation. Abandoning these supplies quickly would risk serious domestic disruption.

Pakistan and Oman are also important. Informal trade between Iran and Pakistan is estimated at approximately $4 billion, while the two governments have set a target of $10 billion. Trade with Oman reached around $1.5 billion in 2025. India has reduced its turnover with Iran to $1.63 billion, although most of that trade consists of food and other goods that New Delhi considers humanitarian. These countries may reduce overt operations and their banks will become more cautious, but they are unlikely to abandon commerce that supports energy security, supplies border regions, and preserves strategically important transport links.

Iran began preparing for prolonged isolation long before the current war, building its response around a gradual dispersal of trade and logistics. In the oil sector, the Goreh-Jask pipeline is particularly important because it carries crude to the Gulf of Oman and permits exports without passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Its designed capacity is 1 million barrels per day, although its effective capacity is estimated at closer to 300,000 barrels and actual shipments through Jask remained far lower before the war. The route cannot yet replace the terminals of the Persian Gulf, but it can preserve a portion of Iranian exports during a blockade.

The port of Chabahar provides access to the Arabian Sea for non-oil trade, while overland crossings connect Iran with Iraq, Türkiye, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. After the crisis began, Pakistan opened six designated road routes linking its cities of Karachi and Gwadar, as well as Port Qasim, with the Iranian border crossings at Gabd and Taftan. Gas pipelines to Türkiye and Iraq allow part of Iran’s energy exports to continue without tankers, while border trade, barter, and settlements in national currencies reduce dependence on major international banks.

Maritime exports are simultaneously moving deeper into the grey economy. The methods include ship-to-ship transfers, the disabling of automatic identification systems, repeated changes of flags and ownership, the relabeling of crude oil, and long chains of intermediary companies. Digital assets and gold cannot support the entire foreign trade of a large country, but they can be used for individual payments, component procurement, and the preservation of reserves. The new sanctions will increase the cost of every such operation, but they are unlikely to eliminate a system that has been developing for decades.

When economic coercion undermines its own foundation

America’s capacity to impose secondary sanctions rests on the central role of the dollar in global trade. According to the International Monetary Fund, the dollar accounted for 57.13% of disclosed global foreign exchange reserves in the first quarter of 2026. Neither the yuan, the euro nor the existing BRICS platforms currently provide a comparable combination of liquidity, legal infrastructure and financial market depth.

Yet the dominance of a currency is not invulnerable, especially when access to it is increasingly used as an instrument of coercion. Every new threat against a foreign bank, tariff imposed on a trading partner, or attempt to force a third country to abandon an economically necessary contract increases the value of alternative mechanisms. Settlements in national currencies, central bank digital currencies, gold, regional clearing arrangements, and projects such as BRICS Pay remain fragmented, but sanctions are giving them both a political purpose and growing commercial demand.

The resilience of Iranian society, shaped by the war with Iraq, more than four decades of sanctions, repeated currency crises, and the constant threat of external pressure, should not be discounted either. Iranians have learned to adapt economic life to inflation, shortages, and instability, while the state has developed mechanisms for allocating scarce resources, using informal markets, and transferring much of the burden onto the private sector.

This does not mean that the new sanctions will be painless. They may accelerate inflation, reduce employment, restrict access to technology, and deepen public discontent. Yet declining living standards will not automatically lead to political revolt. External pressure often strengthens the authorities’ narrative, allows them to attribute the crisis to a foreign enemy, and increases the population’s dependence on state-controlled systems of distribution.

Even if implemented with maximum severity, Operation Economic Outcast is unlikely to weaken Iran rapidly or provoke an immediate mass uprising against its leadership. A prolonged struggle is far more probable, with Washington raising the cost of Tehran’s foreign relations while Iran expands alternative routes, exerts pressure in the Strait of Hormuz, and encourages its partners to adopt new settlement mechanisms.

Residents of the Spanish North African enclave of Ceuta tore down makeshift migrant shelters as police fired rubber bullets during escalating protests over the migration crisis, videos posted online purport to show. Thousands of migrants remain in the territory nearly a month after a record mass crossing from neighboring Morocco, with many seeking asylum in the EU.

The crisis erupted in late July, when around 72,000 people crossed or attempted to cross into Ceuta, many by swimming around border barriers. Most were returned, but Spanish Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska has said around 5,000 remain. Ceuta President Juan Jesus Vivas has put the figure as high as 9,000.

Thousands of residents took to the streets on Wednesday for a second day of protests, demanding faster deportations and criticizing Madrid’s handling of the crisis. Demonstrators carrying Spanish flags marched toward government buildings chanting “No invasion – expulsion.”

Protesters later headed toward El Trampolin beach, where migrants had erected makeshift shelters. Police intervened to keep the groups apart and fired rubber bullets as tensions escalated, according to media reports. Several shelters were torn down during the confrontation.

The influx has strained the resources of the tiny Spanish territory with a population of roughly 84,000 people, with thousands sleeping on beaches, in forests, and on the streets. Local authorities have struggled to provide accommodation, food, and sanitation while processing asylum claims and determining who can be returned.

Ceuta’s government has accused Madrid of failing to do enough to resolve the crisis. Police cleared about 1,500 migrants from a beach last Thursday and transferred them to temporary facilities, but hundreds reportedly returned within hours amid fears of deportation.

The mass crossing has also left scores of migrants dead. At least 88 bodies recovered following the influx were being buried at Ceuta’s Muslim cemetery last week, with only nine identified, according to media.

Ceuta, along with Melilla, forms the EU’s only land border with Africa and has long been a destination for migrants seeking to reach Europe. The latest influx was fueled by economic hardship in Morocco and viral claims that Spain had effectively opened its border.

Spanish and Moroccan authorities have blamed smugglers and online misinformation for encouraging the crossings. Morocco has since reinforced security around Ceuta, while Madrid has moved to speed up asylum decisions and the return of migrants with no right to remain.

A Turkish-owned cargo vessel carrying fresh vegetables to Russia has been struck by drones in the Black Sea, leaving five crew members injured, according to Turkish media.

Ukraine intensified drone attacks on Russian commercial traffic in the Black Sea last month as part of a failed campaign intended to exert economic pressure on Moscow and force it to accept Kiev’s terms in the conflict.

The Cameroon-flagged Lider Bordo Mavi was struck by three drones off the Russian port of Tuapse, sparking a fire on board, according to Turkish media reports. Some news outlets suggested the overnight strikes were part of Kiev’s campaign against Russian maritime trade.

The ship belongs to a ten-vessel fleet operated by the Trabzon-based shipping company Lider Gida and departed the Turkish city port of Samsun on Tuesday. It was carrying fresh vegetables and had diverted to Tuapse from its original destination, the Russian port of Novorossiysk.

Türkiye “tested” by attacks on cargo ships

Erkut Celebi, head of the Trabzon Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the incident was the latest in a string of drone attacks on Turkish commercial vessels in the Black Sea and called on Ankara to provide financial support to affected companies.

“Türkiye is clearly being tested,” Celebi told reporters, warning that the attacks were threatening Black Sea trade and placing mounting pressure on Turkish exporters and shipowners.

Türkiye has remained largely neutral in the Ukraine conflict and maintained commercial ties with both Russia and Ukraine, drawing criticism from Kiev’s Western backers.

Ankara played a major role in negotiating safe passage for ships through the Black Sea since the escalation of the conflict in 2022. The arrangement largely held, despite occasional attacks on vessels in neutral waters that Moscow attributed to Ukrainian operations.

Russian officials warned that Kiev was playing with fire by attacking other countries’ commercial vessels. After the latest escalation, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Kiev of opening Pandora’s box. Russian retaliatory strikes have effectively cut off shipments through Ukrainian Black Sea ports. Moscow has indicated that it does not intend to restore the previous arrangement.

“Our Turkish colleagues are once again proposing that some form of agreement be reached so that shipping is not subjected to attacks. Yet it was not us who initiated these hostilities,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

A catastrophic flash flood on Wednesday morning wreaked massive destruction upon Nepal’s northern mountainous region, bordering China. The torrent of water, rock, and mud wiped out entire villages, washed away roads and destroyed power infrastructure and dams.

Thousands of people are missing, Nepalese Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal has said, among them pilgrims to Mansarovar in Tibet, a sacred site for Hindus. “Town after town has been wiped out within hours,” he said. Nearly 400 of the 579 tourists missing are Indians.  

Nepal’s army has pressed in helicopters to rescue people trapped in mud and in buildings that survived the deluge, and deliver emergency supplies. More than 100 people have been rescued so far, including foreigners. 

In China, where the border customs post at Gyirong Port was wiped out by the rushing water and rocks, 558 people are missing – 260 of them foreigners. However, rescue efforts are hindered because of the lack of road connectivity and the thick mud covering the area.

Iranian businesses are increasingly turning to discounts and installment payments to keep customers shopping, as sanctions and the economic fallout from the US-Israeli war squeeze household budgets, RT’s Salman Khujuri reports.

The trend comes nearly six months after the US and Israel launched the war against Iran in late February. Large-scale fighting has subsided under a series of temporary agreements, but efforts to reach a lasting settlement have stalled as Washington ramps up economic pressure on Tehran.

Businesses in the Iranian capital are adapting to soaring prices and falling purchasing power, with some allowing customers to spread purchases over several payments.

Bobak Shirpour, who runs a large clothing retail business in Tehran, told RT on Thursday that worsening economic conditions after the war and years of sanctions prompted his company to seek suppliers offering better prices and quality. With many larger families unable to pay in cash, the retailer also introduced discounts and installment plans.

Shoppers interviewed by RT said installment plans have become increasingly useful as household budgets come under pressure. “They allow people to buy things they can’t afford to pay for in cash and pay in four installments instead. It gives people some peace of mind and helps them meet some of their basic needs despite these difficult circumstances,” one customer said.

Iranian households have been cutting spending on food and other essentials as inflation and the falling rial erode purchasing power, according to recent media reports. Installment shopping has also expanded to Iranian companies offering deferred-payment services as consumers struggle with the rising cost of living, the Financial Times reported earlier this month. 

Watch RT’s full report below:

Two employees at Germany’s Frankfurt Airport have died in a rare malaria outbreak caused by infected mosquitoes believed to have been accidentally brought in by plane from a malaria-endemic country.

The outbreak began in early July, according to the Frankfurt Public Health Department. The first worker died shortly afterward, with the malaria diagnosis confirmed posthumously. Authorities traced the outbreak to the airport, where operator Fraport set traps and captured several mosquitoes, sending them for genetic analysis to determine their origin. Staff were advised to seek medical attention if symptoms developed.

In mid-July, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal disease-control agency, confirmed four cases among airport employees.

“The affected individuals fell ill between July 4 and 6, 2026,” the RKI wrote in its Epidemiological Bulletin. “It is assumed that the infection was transmitted by an infected Anopheles mosquito imported by plane.”

On Wednesday, Frankfurt health authorities announced that a second infected worker had died. They insisted, however, that “for the population of Frankfurt, the risk is considered very, very low.”

“The disease is not transmissible from person to person but is always transmitted by mosquitoes,” the authorities said in a statement to German media. They did not confirm the total number of cases but said those affected were receiving treatment.

Frankfurt health chief Peter Tinnemann similarly sought to reassure residents, telling DPA news agency that “the risk to the Frankfurt population is insignificant.”

The disease is concentrated mainly in tropical regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa. The latest WHO data shows an estimated 610,000 people died from malaria worldwide in 2024 out of roughly 282 million cases – around 9 million more infections than the previous year. More than half of the deaths occurred in Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Niger.

The Landesweingut Kloster Pforta, one of Germany’s oldest wineries, faces insolvency by 2027, according to an expert report commissioned by the state government. Its troubles, from an unsustainable business model to high staffing costs, come amid a wider German wine slump driven by falling consumption and cheaper imports.

Owned by Saxony-Anhalt, Kloster Pforta is one of Europe’s oldest continuously operating wineries. Cistercian monks founded the monastery in 1137 and planted the Pfortenser Koeppelberg vineyard in 1154. The state took ownership after German reunification in 1993, but the estate still grows rare historic varieties, including Weisser Heunisch and White Elbling, alongside Riesling, Pinot Blanc, and Pinot Gris.

An independent report by auditing firm Ecovis, cited by the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung on Tuesday, found that the winery can no longer secure credit or maintain liquidity on its own.

Auditors blamed high payroll costs, inefficient vineyard use, and weak sales and marketing, compounded by a disastrous 2024 harvest and the wider wine-market slump. To avoid bankruptcy, Kloster Pforta now plans to halve its vineyards, cut staff, and receive a €2 million injection under a four-year restructuring plan.

German wine has been in decline for years. German Wine Institute (DWI) data earlier this year showed that annual consumption fell from a Covid-era peak of 24.3 liters per adult to 21.5 liters – below pre-pandemic levels.

Cheap imports add to the squeeze: Spanish bulk wine, for example, enters Germany at just €0.91 ($1.06) per liter, making it difficult for domestic producers to compete at the €1-to-€3-per-bottle end of the market.

Wine woes mirror Germany’s wider slump

The winery’s troubles come amid a broader German slump, with near-zero growth, high energy costs, and business insolvencies at a 20-year high. Since moving away from Russian energy in 2022, Germany has turned to costlier supplies, while major manufacturers have closed factories amid weaker demand.

Germany is considering pouring funds into Britain’s nuclear program as European NATO nations grow increasingly hesitant to rely on the US nuclear umbrella, the Daily Telegraph reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

German officials are discussing financial and industrial support for Britain’s Trident submarine nuclear weapons program rather than pursuing a national arsenal, with one source citing Germany’s World War II guilt as a factor, the newspaper said.

“We have a very strong interest that the existing nuclear powers in Europe extend their capabilities,” one well-placed source told the newspaper.

Berlin is reportedly exploring whether German money or industry could contribute to the next generation of British nuclear submarines, missiles, or uranium enrichment for future warheads. One British defense source, however, questioned whether German companies possess the highly specialized experience needed to build and maintain Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet, which has been reeling under maintenance and manpower issues.

“Policymakers are waking up each morning and asking themselves what the hell the Americans are going to do tomorrow,” a German diplomatic source told The Telegraph.

Rather than respond by seeking a national nuclear weapon, Berlin has increasingly looked for ways to bind Germany into the British and French deterrents, the article says.

Germany remains a non-nuclear-weapon state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is formally barred from manufacturing or controlling atomic weapons. The 1990 Two Plus Four Treaty, which paved the way for German reunification, also prohibited foreign nuclear weapons and their carriers from being stationed in the territory of the former East Germany.

Berlin nevertheless already takes part in NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements and is believed to store 20 US B61 bombs at Buchel Air Base in western Germany under US custody, with German aircraft assigned a potential role in delivering them during a potential NATO nuclear operation.

Last month, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) reported that at least one NATO country raised “concern about the active research and development work being carried out in Germany that has a nuclear weapons focus.”

It added that NATO specialists believe Germany could produce the necessary fissile material “within one to three months” and build a functioning nuclear explosive device “within a year” without conducting a full-scale test.

Moscow has warned that any NATO plans to buttress its nuclear umbrella are a “direct strategic threat” to Russia.

The US-Canada trade war is reaching the bathroom, with tariffs on paper products threatening to push up prices for toilet paper and other everyday essentials for Americans.

Trade talks between the two neighbors collapsed last Friday, with both sides accusing the other of making last-minute changes to a proposed comprehensive deal. US President Donald Trump immediately imposed 50% tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian imports, including wine, cement, plywood, and clothing. Not to be outdone, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed to respond “dollar for dollar,” with Ottawa announcing duties of up to 50% on around 700 American products on Tuesday.

Paper products are among the hardest hit, with Canada targeting toilet paper and facial tissue with 25% duties, along with paper towels and napkins at 50%. Chemical wood pulp used to make such products also faces a 50% tariff.

Canada is the main source of US toilet paper imports, supplying $383.4 million worth in 2025 – about two-thirds of the imported total – according to US International Trade Commission data. Mexico was a distant second at $63 million. Canada is also the main foreign supplier of wood pulp to the US, including northern bleached softwood kraft pulp (NBSK), a key material in toilet paper and paper towels. Canadian pulp reportedly accounts for around 30% of US toilet paper and 50% of paper towel production.

Toilet paper is far from the only potential casualty of the trade war. Canada’s measures mirror many products targeted by Washington, with higher duties covering everything from fish, cheese, clothing, and cosmetics to steel and aluminum goods, motorcycles, smartphones, and exercise equipment. Canadian Industry Minister Melanie Joly said that the counter-tariffs were aimed primarily at protecting businesses while also applying political pressure ahead of the November 3 US midterm elections.

“That gives us this week. It gives us next week,” Christopher Sands, head of the Center for US-Canada Studies at Johns Hopkins University, told AP on Wednesday. “Time to take a breather and talk about how to avert an all-out trade war.”

The US has accused Chinese hackers it described as “state-backed” of breaking into NASA, the Federal Reserve, and other sensitive government networks, just weeks before Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected in Washington for talks with President Donald Trump.

Beijing rejected the allegations. The Chinese Embassy in Washington said China “opposes and combats all forms of cyberattacks” and urged the US to “stop using cybersecurity issues to smear or discredit China.”

The Justice Department and FBI announced on Wednesday that they seized three internet domains linked to two hacking platforms allegedly operated by a Chinese group known as QTFY. The US authorities claimed the operation targeted NASA, the Federal Reserve, the Senate, and several government departments, as well as hospitals, telecommunications providers, power companies, financial institutions, and defense contractors.

The latest accusations come little more than a month after Trump accused Beijing of meddling in US elections, claiming China illicitly acquired 220 million American voter files during the 2020 election cycle in what he called the “largest compromise” of election data in US history.

China dismissed that allegation as “groundless” and “entirely fabricated.” Trump’s assertions of election hacking were met with skepticism even among some of his supporters, as the documents released by the White House only showed Chinese interest in collecting publicly available or commercially obtainable American voter information.

“We spy like hell on them too,” Trump told reporters. “We do a lot of stuff to you that you don’t know about,” Trump said he told Xi, describing the two countries’ espionage activities as a “double-edged sword.”

Beijing has made similar accusations against Washington, claiming last October that the NSA conducted a years-long cyberattack on China’s National Time Service Center, which supports critical sectors including finance, energy, transportation, and defense. The NSA did not confirm or deny the allegation.

The renewed cyber accusations come ahead of Xi’s expected visit to the US on September 24. Trump said he plans to host the Chinese leader following their talks in May in Beijing, as the two sides seek to manage disputes over trade, technology, and cybersecurity, as well as the sanctions threats against nations that continue trading with Iran.

Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters has warned that AI and social media are eroding people’s ability to think and feel, while powerful interests exploit technology, politics, and war for profit.

Speaking to RT on Wednesday, the legendary musician welcomed Australia’s decision to bar fully AI-generated songs from its music charts, saying streaming platforms have already gutted musicians’ livelihoods with minuscule royalties while concentrating ownership and profits in the hands of Big Tech.

“So that piracy has almost destroyed everything. But if they are then allowed to use AI to produce fodder for their very tame audience who pays so much a month to get any music that they want from anywhere… Unfortunately, we know that a large number of that audience won’t be able to tell the difference between AI and Pink Floyd, or Neil Young, or Bob Dylan, or The Beatles or anything else.”

“It reduces the size of your brain and your capacity to think and your capacity to feel,” Waters said. “In fact, it reduces everything human about anybody who goes in that direction.”

“So where do you draw the line? I’m not sure,” he added. “Wouldn’t it be great if we had a factual, you know, a sort of fact-based library, if that’s all there was? But it’s not. It’s controlling our political motivations and our feelings and our emotions, and also releasing dopamine.”

“We live in a world that is controlled now by gangsterism,” he said. He cited Israel’s destruction of Palestinian communities in Gaza and the occupied territories, as one example, while accusing Washington of openly stealing Venezuela’s oil wealth through coercion.

Turning to Ukraine, Waters blamed the failure to implement the Minsk agreements and the collapse of the 2022 Istanbul peace talks, accusing Western governments of preventing a negotiated settlement.

Waters warned that the Ukraine conflict has since escalated “in a very, very dangerous way” and increasingly resembles the future of warfare, dominated by drones and missiles.

“Just who gets killed, nobody cares anymore,” Waters said, “because all they’re interested in is making money.”

Watch the full interview below

Iran has praised China for rejecting US threats to impose sanctions on countries that continue to trade with the Islamic Republic, with Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf saying on Wednesday that Tehran’s strategic partnership with Beijing “needs no one’s permission.”

Ghalibaf welcomed China’s “principled statement” rejecting “illegal sanctions against Iran” in a post on X.

“The Iran-China comprehensive strategic partnership is rooted in mutual respect, win-win cooperation, and a shared vision for a multipolar world,” he wrote. “This relationship needs no one’s permission.”

His remarks came after Beijing strongly rejected Washington’s threat of secondary sanctions against countries and companies that continue doing business with Iran. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that Beijing firmly opposes sanctions that have no basis in international law or authorization from the UN Security Council.

Washington unveiled a new round of economic measures against Tehran on Monday as part of what the Trump administration described as an effort to further isolate Iran from the global economy. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced sanctions against nearly 60 individuals, entities, and vessels and warned foreign countries and companies that they could face penalties for maintaining financial ties with Tehran.

The measures targeted companies based in mainland China and Hong Kong but stopped short of sanctioning major Chinese financial institutions. Beijing has been the biggest buyer of Iranian oil for years, although flows have been severely curtailed since Washington resumed its blockade of Iranian ports in mid-July.

Iran has denounced the expanded sanctions as a violation of international law and argued that Washington’s attempt to force other countries to sever economic relations with Tehran amounts to interference in their sovereignty.

The US has labeled Palestine Action a terrorist group, marking the first time that a British left-wing organization has been targeted by US terrorism sanctions. The US Treasury also blacklisted two other left-wing groups.

Palestine Action was added to the US’ list of Specially Designated ​Global Terrorist organizations on Wednesday, according to a statement posted online by the US Treasury Department. Under the department’s sanctions, the group will have any of its bank accounts or property in the US frozen, while its members could be barred from entering the country.

Formed in the UK in 2020, Palestine Action’s stated goal is to end “global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime.” Its members have vandalized British military aircraft and factories owned by or linked to Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapons manufacturer.

The British government declared Palestine Action a terrorist organization last July. Since the designation, four of its members have been sentenced as terrorists for causing criminal damage to an Elbit Systems plant, while more than 3,500 of its supporters have been arrested and 480 charged with terror offenses for endorsing the group.

Today, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control took action to counter the growing threat posed by violent far-left terrorist groups. Globally networked and politically motivated terrorists—particularly far-left terrorists—are increasingly embracing organized, deadly violence…

— Treasury Department (@USTreasury) August 26, 2026

“Today’s action complements the UK’s proscription,” the Treasury Department stated, adding that Palestine Action was being sanctioned “for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of, an act of terrorism.”

The Treasury also sanctioned Masar Badil, a Palestinian revolutionary movement allegedly run by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and Autistici Inventati, described by the department as “an Italy-based entity that supplies specialized digital architecture, tools, and services for Antifa cells and other violent far-left extremists.”

The 2026 US Counterterrorism Strategy identifies “Violent Left-Wing Extremists, including Anarchists and Anti-Fascists” as one of the top three terror threats facing the US, along with transnational drug cartels and Islamist terrorists. In late 2025, the US State Department designated four European ‘Antifa’ groups – including a German group that attacked right-wingers with hammers in Budapest in 2023 – as terrorist organizations.

Meta has reached a settlement in a landmark lawsuit filed by multiple US states that accused it of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to addict children and teenagers.

The social media giant has faced allegations of encouraging compulsive use among young people, misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms, and improperly collecting personal data from children under 13.

Meta previously estimated that the claims could have exposed it to penalties of as much as $1.4 trillion, while the states were also seeking sweeping changes to how Facebook and Instagram operate.

On Wednesday, the social media giant announced that it had reached an approximately $18 billion settlement with 52 attorneys general across US states, territories, and the District of Columbia, effectively ending the case without a jury ruling on the allegations and without Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg taking the stand.

Teens will face a two-hour daily limit across both apps unless a parent allows them more time, while access will be blocked from midnight to 6 AM and most notifications muted during school hours.

Meta said it will also offer teenagers the option of a non-algorithmic feed, allow autoplay to be disabled, hide like counts by default, and strengthen age checks and parental controls. Most of the measures will remain in place for ten years.

The tech giant has further demanded that rival tech giants TikTok and YouTube also face certain restrictions. Meta said it would pay out 30% of the settlement, or $5.3 billion, only if the two companies adopt similar safeguards and make matching payments.

The settlement came during the second week of a federal trial in Oakland, California involving claims brought by 29 states, which based their accusations on Meta’s own internal research and communications.

Internal messages revealed that some of the figures were deliberately removed from a presentation to company leadership, following advice from Meta’s lawyers, to avoid creating a paper trail back to Meta’s top brass. Instagram product design director Francesco Fogu admitted that he agreed to scrub the statistics from the presentation because “at the end of the day, I didn’t care.”

Meta has denied wrongdoing throughout the case, insisting that it has worked to protect children and teenagers online. It has also rejected the idea that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately made addictive, arguing that “social media addiction” is not even a recognized psychiatric condition.

Despite the settlement, Meta, along with other social media companies, continues to face thousands of separate lawsuits from individuals, families, and school districts over alleged harm to young users.

Hungary considers Russia a “threat to Hungary, Europe and the global order,” according to a foreign policy directive published by the country’s new pro-EU government. The statement marks a dramatic shift from the pragmatic relations pursued by former Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Signed by Prime Minister Peter Magyar on Tuesday, the document states that “Hungary condemns Russian military aggression and fully supports Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, and recognizes Ukraine’s right to self-defense.”

“Russia’s behavior poses a threat to Hungary, Europe and the global order, and also puts the Hungarian minority living in Transcarpathia in serious danger, therefore we support all efforts aimed at initiating negotiations towards sustainable peace and long-term security guarantees,” it continued.

Hungary had not formally designated Russia a “threat” at any point since 1945.

Since taking office in May, Magyar has worked to align Budapest’s foreign policy with Brussels’. He has ended Hungary’s opposition to EU accession talks with Ukraine, backed the bloc’s 21st package of anti-Russian sanctions, and lifted Budapest’s veto on a €90 billion loan package to Kiev.

Magyar’s predecessor, Viktor Orban, condemned Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. However, he also condemned the “war policies” of the West that provoked the conflict, and refused to help arm Kiev, arguing that Ukraine cannot hope to defeat Russia and should seek an imperfect peace deal instead. Orban argued that the EU’s self-imposed embargo on Russian energy would “kill off the European economy,” and lent support to its sanctions packages only after securing exemptions that would allow Hungary to continue purchasing Russian oil, gas, and nuclear fuel.

Hungary still imports energy from Russia under Magyar. Andrey Kolesnik, a member of Russia’s State Duma committee on defense, Andrei Kolesnik, suggested that Russia could cut these supplies in response. 

Orban’s government viewed Kiev, not Moscow, as the most pressing threat to Ukraine’s Hungarian minority. Under Vladimir Zelensky’s rule, ethnic Hungarians in Transcarpathia have had their language rights restricted and been subjected to brutal forced conscription. 

In June, Magyar struck what he called a “formal agreement” with Zelensky to protect the rights of Ukraine’s ethnic Hungarians. However, no documents concerning the agreement have been published to date, making it completely unclear what protections Zelensky has agreed to.

AP and Reuters have demanded answers from Israel over last year’s strike on Nasser Hospital in Gaza, which killed more than 20 people, including five journalists.

In a joint statement on Tuesday, marking the first anniversary of the August 25, 2025 attack, the news agencies said Israel had yet to provide the “clear answers and accountability that an incident of this gravity requires.” They stressed that the journalists were killed at a hospital, a site protected under international law and a key location for news coverage from Gaza.

The victims included Reuters cameraman Hussam al-Masri, visual journalist Mariam Dagga, who worked for AP and other outlets, and Moaz Abu Taha, a freelancer who collaborated with Reuters. The other two reporters slain in the attack were Al Jazeera photographer Mohammad Salama and Ahmed Abu Aziz, who worked for the Quds Feed Network and several other media outlets.

Reuters also renewed its demand for an explanation over the October 2023 death of visuals journalist Issam Abdallah, who was killed by Israeli tank fire while reporting in southern Lebanon.

The IDF acknowledged carrying out the ‘double-tap’ strike on Nasser Hospital. It later said it regretted harm to “uninvolved individuals,” denied deliberately targeting journalists, and promised an inquiry.

The attack came two weeks after four Al Jazeera journalists were killed in an Israeli strike near al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.

Israel has repeatedly faced accusations of targeting reporters since launching its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza in October 2023.

In February, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said Israel was responsible for two-thirds of the 129 journalists and media workers killed worldwide in 2025. It described Gaza as the deadliest assignment for journalists since the organization began collecting data in 1992.

CPJ also said that Israel had conducted few transparent investigations and that no one had been held accountable in the cases it examined.

The IDF has “strongly” rejected the allegations that it intentionally targets journalists or their families.

Palestinians in the West Bank village of Madama say they fear further violence after Israeli MP Zvi Sukkot smashed a local memorial with a sledgehammer as IDF soldiers stood by. The military later insisted the incident was neither authorized nor anticipated.

A far-right lawmaker known for confrontations with Palestinians and a member of the ultranationalist Religious Zionist party, Sukkot traveled to Madama, south of the city of Nablus, on Tuesday, ostensibly for a tour.

Videos he later posted online instead showed him pulling out a sledgehammer and defacing a memorial to Palestinians killed in conflicts over the past century. He claimed the memorial “glorified terrorism” and “must be removed,” arguing that children who grow up seeing it could be encouraged to become terrorists themselves. His IDF escort could be seen standing meters away and not intervening as he struck the memorial.

Locals, however, reject the suggestion that the soldiers were innocent bystanders, pointing to repeated confrontations with Israeli troops and settlers. One said army patrols had passed through Madama just hours before Sukkot arrived, firing tear gas and stun grenades and waking residents.

RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij spoke to Madama residents about why they dispute the IDF’s account and what they fear could come next. Watch her full report below.

Israeli forces shot and wounded a Palestinian teen during a raid on a UN-run training center in East Jerusalem, local officials have reported.

The moment the boy was shot was caught on camera, with footage published by Middle East Eye and other media outlets on Tuesday showing him collapsing as gunfire rings out.

The Jerusalem Governorate said the boy sustained a minor gunshot wound to the shoulder from live ammunition as Israeli forces raided and seized the Qalandiya Training Centre, a key UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) facility in Kafr Aqab in East Jerusalem.

VIDEO | The moment a Palestinian child was struck by live ammunition fired by Israeli occupation forces after they raided and seized the Qalandiya Training Centre, a key facility operated by the UNRWA, in the town of Kafr Aqab, in occupied Jerusalem. pic.twitter.com/D8xRucHqp1

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) August 25, 2026

More than 50 Israeli security personnel and at least four armored vehicles entered the facility while around 20 UNRWA employees were inside, according to the agency. Staff were forced from the premises during the operation.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir joined the raid, saying “there is no place for the agency in Jerusalem and Israel.” He later posted an image from the compound on X declaring: “UNRWA in our hands.”

UNRWA “unequivocally” condemned the raid, saying the center is UN property protected under international law. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also hit out at the “unlawful” entry and said Tuesday’s operation was the fifth unauthorized Israeli incursion into the facility since May.

The incident comes amid rising violence in the Palestinian territories. Days earlier, Israeli settlers shot dead 17-year-old Karim Sanad Shalaldeh near Hebron, while Israeli troops killed 58-year-old Fathi Khazem in Jenin in a separate incident. The IDF said Khazem had attempted to attack a soldier with a knife.

Russia has repeatedly said a negotiated two-state solution is the only viable way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moscow supports an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, coexisting peacefully with Israel.

Israel will continue building illegal settlements in the West Bank in preparation for a “major” wave of Jewish immigration, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said. Israel’s most recent settlement expansion triggered rebukes from its Arab neighbors and Western partners.

“Today, many of our brothers and sisters around the world understand: This is our land and it will remain ours,” Netanyahu said in Jerusalem on Tuesday. “And when I say our land, every Jewish man and every Jewish woman, the door is open. We are waiting for you. We are preparing the door for major Aliyah (Jewish immigration to Israel).” 

It is unclear whether the “major Aliyah” predicted by Netanyahu is actually coming. Israelis have emigrated in growing numbers since Hamas’ 2023 attack and the subsequent war on Gaza. More than 150,000 Israelis left the country from 2024 to 2025, according to a report by 972 magazine.

The Israeli prime minister spoke at an event organized by the Binyamin Regional Council, which governs 47 Jewish settlements in the West Bank. All of these settlements, which are located outside Israel’s 1967 borders, are considered illegal by the UN, and Israel’s transfer of population to them has been deemed a breach of the Geneva Convention by the International Criminal Court.

“It isn’t easy, it’s never easy,” he continued. “The land of Israel is acquired through suffering. Sometimes also through smiles, sometimes also through arguments, but it is being acquired by us. We are not giving up, we have a vision, this is our land, and it will remain ours.”

Last week, Israel opened bidding for the construction of more than 1,200 homes in the E1 settlement project, located east of Jerusalem. Named after its designation on Israeli planning maps, the project will comprise more than 3,400 homes, and was green-lit by Netanyahu’s government last year.

The E1 plan will establish a land corridor between East Jerusalem and the existing settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, both of which are built on Palestinian land. It will also sever road links between the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem, located to the north and south of Jerusalem, respectively. 

“The E1 settlement will undermine the prospect of the two-state solution by driving a wedge through the West Bank,” they said in a statement last Thursday. “At a time of grave instability in the West Bank with unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians, and serious restrictions on the Palestinian economy, this decision is even more concerning.”

Netanyahu has suggested for years that he intends to annex the entirety of the West Bank, describing the option as “on the table” even as he signed peace accords with Arab states in 2020. Netanyahu’s hardline coalition partners have been more explicit, with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich urging the prime minister in June to “apply sovereignty here in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] before the elections” in October.

US President Donald Trump has reportedly submitted a landmark nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia for congressional review and renewed demands that Riyadh normalize relations with Israel as part of the deal.

According to US media outlets, citing unnamed administration and congressional sources, the document was sent to Congress on Monday. The White House has yet to publicly confirm the move.

Lawmakers now have 90 session days to review the US-Saudi pact. If they attempt to block it, Trump is expected to use his veto powers to push it through. A two-thirds majority in both chambers would be required to overrule the president.

The agreement was originally signed last month and aims to allow American companies to play a major role in developing Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear energy program. The 30-year deal is expected to involve the construction of US-designed nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia and could be worth tens of billions of dollars.

Riyadh says it wants nuclear power to meet the growing domestic energy demand, reduce the amount of oil consumed at home, and free up more crude for export.

However, the deal has raised concerns over nuclear proliferation. Unlike a similar US deal with the United Arab Emirates, the pact does not permanently bar the kingdom from reprocessing nuclear fuel or enrichment, which could potentially be used to make weapons.

Trump has also tied the nuclear agreement to Saudi Arabia formally joining the Abraham Accords and establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. The condition was unexpectedly announced by Trump late last month after the agreement had already been negotiated and signed.

An administration official cited by Reuters on Wednesday said Trump’s position on the issue “has not changed.”

The Abraham Accords, brokered during Trump’s first term, established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab and Muslim-majority countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco.

The US has also pushed for Saudi-Israeli normalization, but the efforts have stalled since the outbreak of the Gaza war in 2023. Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said it will not normalize relations with Israel without an irreversible path toward the creation of a Palestinian state.

Russian President Vladimir Putin set foot on Iturup Island, the largest of the Kuril Archipelago and known in Japan as Etorofu, on August 13 and walked its length as if he were simply visiting home.

He toured a local fish plant, spoke with residents who praised the island’s clean air, friendly neighbors and quiet charm, and smiled for the cameras.

Japan, which has claimed ownership over the islands since they were incorporated into the USSR after World War II, reacted swiftly and sharply. The Russian ambassador was summoned to receive a formal protest, while Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi called the visit “absolutely unacceptable” and said it had hurt the feelings of the Japanese people. Moscow answered in kind by summoning Japan’s ambassador in Russia.

The diplomatic exchange, while predictable, revealed how little room remains for compromise between the two countries right now.

Ukraine and the Kuril red line

The deterioration of relations cannot be separated from Japan’s full-throated support for Ukraine after 2022. Tokyo adopted Western sanctions, revoked Russia’s most-favored-nation trade status and has increasingly discussed ways of supporting Ukraine’s military effort. From Moscow’s perspective, this is not simply an expression of Japanese solidarity with Kiev, but part of a wider alignment against Russia.

Putin’s visit served as a direct and measured response. It showed that while Japan supports Ukraine and participates in the pressure campaign against Russia, Moscow has no intention of making territorial concessions to Tokyo with regards to the Kurils.

Interestingly, Tokyo’s current confrontational stance, while symbolically forceful, has not produced a corresponding escalation of concrete measures over the territorial dispute itself. That restraint may reflect two realities. Washington has little incentive to become directly involved in a bilateral quarrel with Moscow, while Tokyo must also consider the consequences of pushing Russia, China and North Korea into even closer alignment.

The disputed territories have considerable practical value. They provide access to rich fishing grounds that once sustained extensive bilateral economic activity and may contain valuable mineral resources.

The Kurils also occupy a strategically critical position in the North Pacific. For Russia, control of the island chain provides a natural defensive buffer and helps protect access routes for its Pacific Fleet, energy infrastructure and maritime trade. For Japan, meanwhile, Russian control of the territories represents the unresolved legacy of the Second World War and an enduring challenge to its territorial claims.

The fishing issue illustrates just how complicated this relationship has been. Tokyo until relatively recently paid Russia for access to fishing grounds around the disputed islands. Whatever the legal and political arguments surrounding sovereignty, such arrangements demonstrated a degree of practical recognition of Russian administrative control and jurisdiction.

Today, those same waters remain economically important to Russian coastal communities.

That practical reality helps explain why Moscow sees the Kurils not simply as bargaining chips but as part of its national security perimeter.

A warning about militarization

Putin’s visit came against the backdrop of Japan’s military buildup and Tokyo’s increasing involvement in supporting Ukraine’s war efforts.

From Moscow’s perspective, these developments reinforce longstanding fears of strategic encirclement. Japan’s proximity to Russia’s Far East makes its military posture particularly sensitive to Russian planners. Moscow sees military exercises, missile deployments and discussions about providing military assistance to Ukraine as part of a pattern.

The Kremlin’s response has likewise included naval drills and missile exercises in the region, moves that Tokyo has condemned as provocative.

Overall, Putin’s visit wasn’t some new threat aimed at Japan – it was a public reaffirmation of an existing position and realities on the ground.

During the 2010s, parallel negotiations under Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe created genuine expectations that the two countries might finally resolve their territorial dispute and conclude a formal peace treaty.

Neither side approached those negotiations as a simple exercise in defending maximalist claims. Both governments understood that a compromise would require concessions and that a durable settlement could produce economic and strategic benefits.

The 1956 Moscow Declaration had already established the basic framework for one possible compromise: Moscow agreed in principle to transfer the islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan after the conclusion of a peace treaty, while leaving the larger islands of Etorofu and Kunashiri under Soviet control.

For a time, it seemed that formula could become the foundation for a settlement. However, the political environment has since changed dramatically.

Why the Kurils are only one thread in a complicated story

The territorial dispute is a symptom of deeper tensions that have shaped Russo-Japanese relations since the 19th century.

The 1855 Treaty of Shimoda established a border between Etorofu and the island of Urup, also part of the archipelago. The 1875 Treaty of St. Petersburg subsequently transferred the entire Kuril chain to Japan in exchange for Japanese recognition of Russian control over Sakhalin. The 1905 Treaty of Portsmouth then reshaped the regional balance following the Russo-Japanese War.

These agreements demonstrate that sovereignty over the islands has never existed outside a shifting regional balance of power.

The events of 1945 transformed that balance again. Amid the ongoing war in the Pacific in 1945, the Soviet Union acted with the blessing of the United States as far as the Kuril islands were concerned. Under the secret Project Hula – launched in 1945 – American warships and training helped the Soviets take control over the Kurils.

This history provides Russia with a strong historical argument: the islands were taken from Imperial Japan with allied consent. Japan’s postwar renunciation did not bind Moscow, and decades of Soviet and now Russian administration have simply created a fait accompli.

Tokyo, however, maintains a fundamentally different interpretation of the postwar settlement and continues to describe the southern Kurils as its ‘Northern Territories’.

The result is a dispute in which both sides possess deeply rooted historical narratives – and neither is prepared to abandon them easily.

The Kuril dispute is not inherently insoluble. What makes it appear so today is the wider deterioration of the relationship.

The experience of the 2010s showed that negotiations can advance when both governments regard compromise as more valuable than rhetorical victory. It also showed that progress requires political courage: neither side can expect to obtain everything it wants.

Japan’s position has hardened alongside its Ukraine policy. Russia, meanwhile, has become increasingly resistant to territorial negotiations with states it regards as participating in an adversarial Western coalition.

That leaves the two countries trapped in a familiar cycle. Japan demands recognition of its territorial claims. Russia responds by emphasizing its sovereignty and military presence. Each side then interprets the other’s position as evidence that compromise is impossible.

But this need not be permanent. A future settlement would require Japan to reconsider whether confrontation over Ukraine and maximalist positions on the Kurils are advancing its long-term interests. Russia, for its part, would have to recognize that a stable relationship with Japan could offer benefits that perpetual confrontation cannot.

A statement of reality

Putin’s visit to Iturup was not, in itself, a threat. It was a statement of fact as Moscow sees it: Russia controls the islands, considers them strategically vital, and has no intention of surrendering them under political pressure. Japan is equally clear that it has not abandoned its claims.

The choice facing both countries is therefore not between victory and defeat, but between permanent paralysis and pragmatic diplomacy.

The unresolved dispute over the Kurils remains one of the most visible in the Pacific. But it also presents an opportunity. The same pragmatic approach that once brought Moscow and Tokyo to the negotiating table could do so again – if both sides decide that managing their differences is more valuable than allowing the wider geopolitical confrontation to define their entire relationship.

At least fourteen newborn babies have been killed after a fire tore through a nursery at a major government hospital in Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, according to the city administration and hospital officials.  

The fire broke out at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) early on Wednesday on the third floor of PIMS’ Mother and Child Health ward. Rescue officials said it began at around 6:45am local time after the compressor of an air-conditioning unit apparently exploded inside the nursery, although the precise cause has not yet been established. Firefighters brought the blaze under control and began cooling operations.  

Initial reports gave conflicting casualty figures, with Reuters citing Geo TV as saying 15 of 16 newborns had died. The Islamabad administration later confirmed 14 deaths, while PIMS said 15 babies had been in the nursery. 

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif ordered an immediate investigation and called for anyone found responsible to face punishment. “A tragedy involving children is an irreparable loss,” he said, adding that those responsible should be identified and face the “strictest possible action.”  

A fact-finding committee has been set up to determine the cause of the fire and examine whether the hospital’s safety systems and emergency response were adequate.  

The blaze comes months after authorities identified widespread fire-safety shortcomings across Islamabad and follows another recent tragedy involving children. In June, 14 children were killed when the roof of a tutoring center collapsed outside Lahore.  

The Capital Development Authority said in January that most of the 6,500 public and private buildings it inspected lacked approved fire-safety plans or relevant certificates. The survey covered 300 government buildings.

Scientists at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIU) have developed a way to make 3D-printed cookies using genetically engineered yeast to produce protein and nutrients from plastic and agricultural waste.

The project aims to tackle two of the planet’s crises: plastic waste accumulation and food insecurity.

The team first set out to develop ways to make use of waste plastics, Lahiru Jayakody, an associate professor of microbiology at Southern Illinois University said in an interview with the American Chemical Society (ACS) published on Monday.

“We thought, why not focus on making food? Because plastic is carbon and food is carbon,” he said.

The process starts by breaking down plastic and plant waste with water and oxygen under high temperature and pressure. Genetically engineered yeasts then consume the resulting compounds and produce proteins, fats, and acids. With the addition of fiber, starch, and sweetener, the resulting mix is fed into a 3D printer which molds the paste into any desired shape.

With this technology, the scientists created small protein-rich cookies they dubbed “µBites” or “microbites.” They are waiting for the safety go-ahead from their university to actually taste-test them, however.

The novel technology could be useful in hostile environments, according to Jayakody.

SIU researchers have been developing the technology since 2021, when their µBites concept was selected for NASA’s Deep Space Food Challenge.

The news comes as scientists are paying closer attention to how plastic already unintentionally enters the human food chain.

The particles could pose health risks, with studies linking exposure to inflammation, oxidative stress, cell death, and disruptions to metabolism and immune function. However, researchers say more evidence is needed to determine the effects of long-term exposure in humans.

Darline Graham has won South Carolina’s Republican Senate primary runoff, putting the political novice in a strong position to secure a full six-year term in the seat held for more than two decades by her hawkish late brother, Lindsey Graham.

Graham defeated five-term Congressman Ralph Norman on Tuesday, taking 52% of the vote against his 48%, according to preliminary results. She will face Democratic nominee Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, in the November 3 general election. Republicans are heavily favored in South Carolina, which has not elected a Democratic US senator since 1998.

The 62-year-old was appointed to the Senate by South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster in July following her brother’s sudden death, which came just hours after the veteran lawmaker returned from a visit to Kiev.

She had never held elected office before, previously serving as commissioner of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind and in a communications role at the state Vocational Rehabilitation Department.

Graham finished first in the initial ten-candidate Republican primary on August 11 with around 33% of the vote, while Norman took 25%, forcing Tuesday’s head-to-head contest because neither secured a majority.

Her victory came despite an awkward debate performance last week that raised questions about her readiness for the Senate. Asked whether Taiwan and the South China Sea constitute national security issues for Washington, Graham struggled to answer before acknowledging that she is “not that informed on national security.”

The admission presented a striking contrast with Lindsey Graham, who made foreign policy one of the defining features of his 23 years in the Senate. He was a vocal supporter of Kiev, pushed for sweeping sanctions against Russia, and advocated an aggressive US posture toward Iran and other foreign adversaries. At his funeral last month, Trump described Graham as “extremely hawkish,” adding that the senator “never saw a war that he didn’t like.”

Trump’s endorsement proved decisive in the runoff, overcoming attacks from Norman and his allies, who questioned Graham’s experience and accused her candidacy of amounting to political nepotism.

A US Army Black Hawk went down during a training flight in Colorado on Tuesday, just a day after CNN reported that Apache attack helicopters are crashing at a historically high rate amid persistent mechanical problems.

The Black Hawk went down on the east side of Thorodin Mountain in Gilpin County, west of Denver and near Golden Gate Canyon State Park. Four people were aboard, but no injuries were reported. Emergency crews also found no fuel leak or fire and said there was no danger to the surrounding community.

Footage and aerial images from the scene show the helicopter sitting upright among trees with its rotor blades heavily damaged.

A U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter has crashed in Colorado while carrying four crew members. The status of the crew and the cause of the crash are currently unknown. pic.twitter.com/0EWyqvLMqD

— OSINTWarfare (@OSINTWarfare) August 25, 2026

The Black Hawk had flown from Fort Campbell, Kentucky and belongs to the Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, known as the Night Stalkers. The Army described the incident as an “aviation mishap” during routine training operations and said an investigation is underway.

The unit suffered a deadly crash last September, when an MH-60M Black Hawk went down during nighttime training near Summit Lake in Washington state, killing all four soldiers aboard.

A far more devastating Black Hawk disaster thrust Army aviation into the national spotlight on January 29, 2025, when an Army UH-60L Black Hawk collided with American Airlines Flight 5342 as the passenger jet approached Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Both aircraft plunged into the Potomac River, killing all 64 people aboard the airliner and all three soldiers in the helicopter.

More recent Army data suggests that the problem has not gone away. On Monday, CNN reported that AH-64 Apache attack helicopters are crashing at a historically high rate, with five Class A flight mishaps recorded so far in fiscal 2026. Based on internal Army safety data and flight-hour figures supplied by the service, the outlet calculated a rate of around 6.24 major crashes per 100,000 flying hours.

Global fertility may have fallen below replacement level for the first time in human history, putting the world population on course for decline within roughly one generation, a new study has warned.

The paper, Terra Incognita: The Economics of a Shrinking World, published earlier this month by economics professor Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde of the University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern University researcher Patrick Norrick, warns that prolonged low fertility could shrink workforces, rapidly age societies, and strain economies and welfare systems.

The researchers estimate that humanity is likely already below replacement fertility – the average number of children per woman needed for each generation to replace itself. The global threshold is around 2.2, while the study puts the current rate at no higher than 2.19, suggesting the world may have only just crossed it.

The analysis covers 236 countries and territories from 1950 to 2023, with fertility declining in 219. On average, countries have lost around 0.062 births per woman annually, and there is little evidence the trend is leveling off, authors note.

The global population is not shrinking yet because large generations born in previous decades are still having children, but the researchers estimate this effect could sustain growth for only another three decades, with population peaking at around 9 billion in 2056 before declining.

The economic consequences of the looming population decline could be far-reaching, the study warns. Smaller generations mean fewer workers supporting growing elderly populations, straining pensions, healthcare, and public finances while slowing growth. In the US, the authors estimate that 2% annual productivity growth combined with a 0.5% contraction in the workforce would reduce long-term GDP growth to roughly 1.5%.

The world’s population crossed the 8 billion mark in 2022, according to UN estimates, and currently stands at approximately 8.3 billion.

Musk weighs in

US tech billionaire Elon Musk, who has repeatedly warned about falling birth rates, reacted to the study after an X user described its findings as an “existential crisis.” “I’ve been warning about this for years,” he wrote.

I’ve been warning about this for years https://t.co/kHFPFjNkE7

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 23, 2026

Musk, who has 13 children, has repeatedly described declining birth rates as one of the greatest threats to civilization. In 2022, he wrote that “population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming.” Last year, he warned that “Low birth rates will end civilization” and called for the issue to be treated as a national emergency, while suggesting Europe could “die out” unless birth rates recover.

Last weekend, commenting on a paper outlining ancient Rome’s attempts to boost its population, Musk wrote: “The reason Rome fell was because they stopped making Romans.”

Russia’s demographic challenge

Russian officials have long warned about the country’s demographic challenges. According to state statistics agency Rosstat, Russia’s total fertility rate fell to around 1.305-1.374 children per woman last year, alongside some of the lowest monthly and quarterly birth figures in modern Russian history. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed the importance of improving economic and social conditions in order to promote larger families and make parenthood a widely supported choice. He has backed a national family support service and established a presidential council on family and demographic policy in 2024.

Two people have died of measles in Pennsylvania, decades after the disease was considered eradicated. Measles is currently making a resurgence in the US, with cases at a 35-year high.

The two victims were residents of Lancaster County, a largely rural county west of Philadelphia, state health officials announced on Tuesday. No additional details were provided, except that neither victim was vaccinated.

Fatal cases of measles are exceedingly rare in the US, but infections are rising. 2,289 cases of the disease were recorded in 2025, the highest number since 1991, when 9,643 cases were recorded. Last year’s number was surpassed by this July, and as of August 20, 2,777 cases have been recorded this year, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Outbreaks have occurred in 47 US states and territories, with 94% of cases occurring among the unvaccinated.

Dr. Adam Ratner, an adviser to the CDC, told the JAMA medical journal last year that skepticism about Covid-19 vaccines has “bled over” into other vaccines, due to the Covid shots becoming “this insanely polarized political thing” from 2020 onwards. 

“Once there was that kind of hesitancy out there and that kind of divisiveness, it’s not surprising that it has bled over into people thinking about vaccine mandates and childhood vaccines in general,” Rather said.

US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, has vouched for the safety of the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, but noted “the decision to vaccinate is a personal one.”

A vaccination rate of around 95% is required to prevent measles outbreaks. In November, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), will meet to determine whether the US and Mexico can still claim to be “measles free” after recent outbreaks.

The trial of six members of a Pakistani ‘grooming gang’ has quietly restarted in Manchester. The retrial hasn’t made the headlines, and looking at the sordid details of the case, it’s clear the British establishment wants to keep it that way.

The six suspects were alleged members of the Rochdale grooming gang – a group of Muslim men, predominantly Pakistani, who trafficked, sexually abused, and raped underage white British girls in the northern English town between the 1980s and 2010s. More than 75 men have been charged and 53 convicted since Greater Manchester Police began investigating the gang in 2010.

What are the men accused of?

The suspects have been charged with 46 counts of rape, sexual assault, and ‘assault by penetration’, with two of the men facing more than a dozen charges each.

• Tahrir Rashid, 53, 12 counts of rape, 3 counts of indecent assault, 1 count of assault by penetration

• Mohammed Saleem, 46, 8 counts of rape

• Sucklane Shah, 46, 2 counts of rape

• Itfaq Hussain, 45, 3 counts of rape

• Arshad Mohammed, 55, 5 counts of rape

• Amjad Mahmood, 53, 12 counts of rape, 2 counts of indecency with a child, 1 count of indecent assault, 2 counts of assault by penetration

All of the suspects’ alleged offenses took place between 2003 and 2008, and involved two girls who were as young as 13 when they were “passed around” between the gang, according to prosecutors. Rashid, the alleged ringleader, is also accused of raping a 12-year-old girl in the 1980s.

What happened in the first trial?

The six men were tried last year, but the trial collapsed with no explanation in December. When reporting restrictions were lifted a month later, it was revealed that the jurors had formed a WhatsApp group to discuss the case, and had shared documentaries on the subject of grooming gangs. 

Before the trial collapsed, the court heard how the group abused two girls in the “most humiliating and degrading way imaginable.” One of the victims, identified only as ‘Girl C’, was collected from school by Rashid, plied with alcohol, and raped repeatedly by the gang. ‘Girl C’ was raped a dozen times by Shah over several months, prosecutors alleged.

Mohammed told the other victim, ‘Girl A’, that he ran a modeling agency as a ruse to take nude photographs of her. She was allegedly raped by at least three members of the gang.

Both girls were described by the prosecution as “very vulnerable children with chaotic home lives,” which made them “easy prey for men with an unhealthy interest in having sex with children.” All six suspects pleaded not guilty.

Why do the British authorities want this kept quiet?

The proliferation of grooming gangs – or ‘rape gangs’, as right-wing politicians label them – is a national embarrassment for all levels of the British state. Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Police were warned of the gang’s activity in Rochdale as far back as 2007, but refused to investigate allegations of organized rape by Pakistani gangs until 2012, for fear “of being tarnished with a race brush,” according to an independent review published in 2024.

A 2014 report on rape gangs in Rotherham found that social workers, youth workers, and police officers ignored reports that 1,400 children had been abused by the gangs, partly for fear of being seen as racist. A nationwide audit published this year concluded that authorities in 50 towns and cities were reluctant to investigate the gangs due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani origin.

The most shocking report, funded by Restore Britain MP Rupert Lowe and published in June, found that Pakistani rape gangs operated in 149 of the UK’s 317 municipalities. The report determined that a “bare minimum” of 250,000 women and girls had been raped by grooming gangs since the year 2000, and that senior politicians helped the gangs escape prosecution. 

In Parliament, reading the testimonies of rape gang survivors provided to our inquiry.

Please watch, listen and understand. pic.twitter.com/C7dyIL46ga

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) June 17, 2026

These politicians included London Mayor Sadiq Khan, of Pakistani descent, who denied the existence of grooming gangs in the British capital, despite having evidence proving otherwise, and former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who as director of public prosecutions between 2008 and 2013, let 13,000 pedophiles off with warning letters instead of prosecuting them.

It detailed a litany of crimes committed against white girls, with one victim “raped by between six and seven hundred different men over the course of three years,” and others raped by dogs, cut with knives, and “subjected to penetration with objects.” Lowe’s report, and earlier government-backed reports, found that some children were trafficked to Pakistan by the gangs.

Starmer’s ruling Labour Party voted en masse against a Conservative motion calling for a national statutory inquiry into the gangs last year. Starmer’s party eventually backed down under public pressure and opened a probe earlier this year, which is ongoing.

Are there more trials to come?

The six suspects currently on trial were charged in 2023 as part of Greater Manchester Police’s ‘Operation Lytton’. Active since 2015, Operation Lytton is aimed at arresting and prosecuting suspects who were overlooked by earlier investigations. The operation has resulted in 32 convictions to date.

#JAILED | Seven men jailed for 174 years after grooming two girls in #Rochdale (2001–2006).

Thanks to survivor bravery & GMP’s CSE team, justice has been served.

Op Lytton: 32 offenders jailed for 474 years so far.

Time is no barrier to justice.

More: https://t.co/SzwzGHTode pic.twitter.com/DolFSd1kBv

— Greater Manchester Police (@gmpolice) October 1, 2025

Fourteen suspects are currently awaiting trial, according to the most recent information from Greater Manchester Police.

Outside the greater Manchester area, six other large-scale grooming gang trials resulted in convictions this year. In Bradford, where 20% of all residents are of Pakistani descent, 15 men were sentenced in June for 88 rape offenses against the same 14-year-old girl. 

Eight men in south Wales have been charged with raping eight children, with their trial due to begin in early 2028.

A far-right Israeli MP smashed a memorial to Palestinians killed in the conflict with Israel in the occupied West Bank on Tuesday. He committed the act under IDF escort, which has been condemned by the army and politicians in Israel.

Zvi Sukkot, a member of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s ultranationalist Religious Zionist party, said he went to the West Bank village of Madama to remove a monument that “glorified murderers of Jews.”

Video of the incident circulating online shows Sukkot and one other man taking sledgehammers to the monument while an Israeli soldier with an assault rifle watches nearby.

Footage of the aftermath captured by an RT correspondent shows the memorial defaced, with tiles around its stone base partially smashed.

The IDF said Sukkot had received permission to conduct a military-escorted “tour of monuments” in the West Bank, but “acted deceptively” and without authorization in damaging the monument.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office stressed that “taking the law into one’s own hands, particularly by public figures, is unacceptable.” The statement did not mention Sukkot by name.

“He lied to and misled the IDF and its commanders, harmed security, and tarnished the State of Israel as a whole,” the former military chief said on X.

Sukkot’s ultranationalist Religious Zionist party has been at the forefront of Israel’s recent push for more settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law by the UN and most of the international community.

Last week, West Jerusalem opened bidding for the construction of more than 1,200 new homes in the area as part the settlement expansion, which was unveiled in July. Critics stress that the project threatens to effectively cut the West Bank in two if completed.

The settlement push has been condemned internationally, with the leaders of more than a dozen European countries denouncing it as “unacceptable” in a joint statement on Thursday.

Earlier this month, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia called on Israel to cease its “creeping expansion” into the occupied Palestinian territories and to take measures to “curb settler violence.” Moscow has long said that the only way to put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to rest is to implement a two-state solution.

The Canadian government has announced that it will impose retaliatory tariffs of up to 50% on around 700 American products, after US President Donald Trump hit Canada with a round of tariffs and threatened further increases. 

American steel and aluminum will be tariffed at 50%, according to a statement on the Canadian Finance Department’s website, while other goods – including dairy products, appliances, and farm equipment – will face tariffs of 25%. The measures will cover around $20 billion in US imports, and will come into effect on September 8, the statement added.

“Canada will match the United States’ tariffs dollar for dollar, rate for rate,” Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said at a press conference on Tuesday. The tariffs, he added “are designed primarily to provide protection for Canadian industry impacted by US tariffs.”

Trade talks between the US and Canada collapsed on Friday, with both sides accusing the other of making last-minute changes to a proposed comprehensive trade agreement. Trump immediately imposed 50% tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian imports, including wine, cement, plywood, clothing, and hockey equipment.

Trump accused Canada of “ripping off the United States of America for years,” highlighting Ottawa’s protectionist tariffs on American agricultural produce. The system, he said, is “not sustainable.”

“On January First, 2027, Tariffs on all Cars, Trucks, both large and small, Automotive Parts, and Steel, will be increased to 50%,” Trump announced. The move will double the current 25% tariff on Canadian auto imports. “Build in the US and there are ZERO TARIFFS,” the president added, saying Canada would no longer be treated “like a State” and calling it “among the worst nations in the world to deal with.”

At the core of Trump’s grievance is the trade deficit with Canada. He claims this figure stands at $60 billion, but Trump’s own trade representative puts it at $48.3 billion. While Trump views this deficit as evidence that Canada is taking advantage of the US, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has argued that the deficit only exists because the US imports so much oil, gas, and electricity from Canada. “I don’t think they want us to stop sending it,” he commented in an address on Saturday.

Trade tensions between Washington and Ottawa date back to Trump’s first term, but reignited when he returned to office last year and launched a sweeping tariff campaign against major trade partners, including China, the EU, Japan, and Mexico.

“We’ve been under no illusions,” Carney said on Saturday, referring to his dealings with Trump. “We recognized from the start that America has changed.”

The administration of US President Donald Trump is preparing to revoke the visas of up to 200,000 foreigners, AP reported on Tuesday, citing State Department documents and two US officials familiar with the plan. The reported move, which targets business and tourism applicants who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum, could be the largest mass visa revocation in US history.

US President Donald Trump has pursued a sweeping immigration crackdown since returning to office in January 2025, including increased deportations, expanded detention efforts, and tighter restrictions on visa applicants.

The visa revocation process, which has not yet been finalized and could be challenged in court, is expected to begin in the coming weeks and would target B1 business and B2 tourist visas issued since 2016, AP said.

“We are coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the US claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott told AP.

Pigott did not provide an estimate of how many visas could be affected, adding that the process would remain ongoing and the number of cases could change.

As part of its broader immigration campaign, the Trump administration has taken a series of measures to tighten controls on foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the US.

Earlier this month, the State Department said it revoked more than 175,000 visas since Trump returned to office. The affected individuals include people who violated visa terms or were accused or convicted of crimes. AP reported that the total also includes people who have publicly criticized US policies.

In January, the department imposed an indefinite pause on immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries while it reassessed screening and vetting procedures.

The Trump administration has also moved to tighten rules for work visas for highly skilled professionals. A new DHS proposal would impose an additional $103,265 fee on cap-subject H-1B petitions filed by US employers. DHS estimates that around 85,000 petitions annually would be subject to the proposed fee.

A rare and violent tornado has run rampant through the village of Pomas in southern France, injuring 39 people, including two critically, and damaging around 300 homes, according to the local authorities.

The tornado struck the village in the Aude department on Monday evening, with footage showing a large funnel swirling over the settlement, with gusts of violent winds wreaking havoc, ripping apart roofs, and smashing windows.

Interior Minister Laurent Nunez called it a “tornado of rare intensity” while praising firefighters, security forces, and volunteers involved in the response.

Rescue operations continued through the night, the prefecture said on Tuesday, with 75 firefighters deployed alongside specialist reinforcements to check damaged buildings and search affected areas.

Residents forced from their homes were sheltered in a multi-purpose hall with help from the Red Cross, while others were temporarily relocated with relatives or to neighboring communes.

🌪️Eyewitness footage recorded from the village of #Verzeille captured a #tornado forming and swirling beneath a violent supercell thunderstorm south of the southern French city of #Carcassonne. https://t.co/tL5GfNBnxLpic.twitter.com/oGurjJdrxi
📌Authorities reported at least 26… pic.twitter.com/U5AVlVP0iw

— ⚡️🌎 World News 🌐⚡️ (@ferozwala) August 25, 2026

While no people were reported killed or missing, among the injured was a pregnant woman who was hurt when her house collapsed on her, according to AFP.

The storm also battered electricity infrastructure across southern France. Grid operator Enedis said about 21,000 households were without power across the south on Tuesday morning, including around 1,600 in Aude. The prefecture later put the number still without electricity locally at about 1,400.

The tornado appears unusually powerful by French standards. Emmanuel Wesolek, president of the Keraunos severe-weather observatory, told HuffPost that an initial assessment indicated “gusts of more than 200 kph” and potentially as high as 240 kph.

The tornado would likely rate somewhere between the upper end of EF2 and the lower end of EF3 on the Enhanced Fujita scale, he added.

According to Meteo-France, while not as frequent as in the US, a few dozen tornadoes occur in mainland France in an average year, and most are of low intensity. According to figures cited by HuffPost, EF2 tornadoes occur only once or twice annually, while an EF3 is recorded roughly once every four years.

The EU is highly reluctant to revive plans to steal more than $200 billion in frozen Russian sovereign reserves and hand them over to cash-strapped Ukraine, EurActiv reported on Tuesday, citing sources.

On Monday, European leaders flocked to Kiev in a show of solidarity for Ukraine, which marked its 35th Independence Day, but the talks quickly turned to the country’s numerous issues, including a substantial budgetary deficit. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky told European officials that his government still faces a €23.5 billion ($27.4 billion) shortfall on top of EU funding already promised and urged Brussels to accelerate the next instalment of its €90 billion support loan.

According to EurActiv, while the EU’s attention once again pivoted to the idea of confiscating around €210 billion of Russian funds immobilized in EU institutions, mostly in the Belgian-based Euroclear, “there is little sign the issue is about to return to the table in Brussels.”

Russia has condemned the asset freeze as “theft,” ruled out paying any reparations to Ukraine, and has warned the EU of harsh retaliation if it confiscates the funds one way or another.

However, the scheme – which was championed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – met fierce opposition from a number of EU members, most notably Belgium. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever argued that the plan would leave it uniquely exposed to legal and financial pushback from Russia.

“Taking [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s money and leaving the risks with [Belgium]. That’s not going to happen,” he said last year.
Euroclear also vehemently opposed the seizure plot, at one point warning that it could sue the EU if the bloc tries to confiscate the assets. Several other EU leaders also raised concerns that confiscating Russian assets would erode international law and tarnish the bloc’s reputation and standing among investors.

Gaza rescue crews have been searching the enclave’s ruins for thousands of Palestinians believed to remain buried beneath buildings destroyed in Israeli strikes, some dating back to the first months of the war.

Recovery work continues amid a fragile ceasefire and an unresolved dispute over a peace roadmap unveiled last month by US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, which calls for Hamas to relinquish control of Gaza in exchange for Israel withdrawing from the enclave. Israel has rejected the proposal, insisting Hamas must first disarm, while Israeli strikes have continued, further complicating recovery operations.

Gaza’s Civil Defense estimates that around 8,000 Palestinians killed during the war remain buried beneath the rubble. A chronic shortage of excavators and other heavy machinery has hampered recovery efforts, often forcing crews to search collapsed buildings with basic tools. Some families have waited years for the remains of relatives to be recovered for burial.

Watch Almughari’s full report on the recovery struggle below.

Norway will continue developing oil and gas fields in the Arctic, Energy Minister Terje Aasland has said, despite EU calls for a moratorium on drilling in the region. The bloc should no longer see his country as Europe’s “green battery,” he added.

EU Arctic policy aims to keep fossil fuels in the ground, cut black carbon and accelerate the green transition, citing claims of the region’s unusually rapid warming.

Brussels seeks to influence energy policy in Norway, which is not a member of the EU, but is the bloc’s largest gas supplier following the decision to reject cheap gas from Russia.

“In today’s geopolitical and security environment, and given the resource situation, I believe continued activity in the Barents Sea serves both Norwegian and European interests,” Aasland said in a Reuters interview on Monday, the opening day of ONS, Norway’s four-day energy conference in Stavanger.

The minister explained that Norway would develop the areas, but leave it to the EU to decide whether to impose a moratorium on buying the resulting oil and gas. He added that Norway aims to maintain petroleum production and exports at roughly the current levels until at least 2035, with production in the Barents Sea key to that goal.

Aasland called the long-standing idea of Norway serving as “the green battery” of Europe “flawed,” stressing that “the Arctic must be part of that discussion” if the country “is to remain a long-term supplier of oil and gas to Europe.”

According to the European Commission, Norway has supplied roughly 30% of the EU’s gas imports in recent years after Brussels rejected Russian energy in the wake of the Ukraine conflict. The country’s petroleum revenues have since reached record levels, boosted by its growing share of the European gas market and a surge in oil and gas prices after the loss of Russian supplies.

In 2025, the country’s gas production remained near the previous year’s record high, while oil output reached its highest level since 2009. Official Norwegian forecasts, however, show output could fall sharply after 2030 unless new fields are developed.

Fifteen years ago, it appeared that Russia-Japan relations were improving to the extent that Japan could become, for Russia, an eastern version of Germany as a former enemy turning into a major economic partner in a relationship where Russian resources were traded for the other partner’s investment and advanced technologies. With frequent and seemingly productive summit meetings between Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, it appeared that the issues remaining after World War II would finally be resolved and that a firm and lasting foundation would be laid for a qualitatively new relationship between what were sometimes called distant neighbors.

Over the years, the Russo-Japanese negotiations on a peace treaty to finally draw a line under the war had advanced considerably. However, there was still one stumbling block that refused to go away, and that was Tokyo’s defense and foreign policy subservience to Washington. Moscow simply could’t trust the Japanese to stand up to American political and military demands, given the US overlordship of Japan. That attitude proved prudent, because when the Ukraine crisis came, Tokyo had to fall in line with its senior ally. Germany, one might add, did even worse, given Berlin meekly allowed its economy to be deprived of the unique advantage it had enjoyed, cheap Russian gas, and watched its vast and lucrative business relationship with Russia be destroyed.

The cases of Japan and Germany taught Russians an important lesson. Countries that are US allies cannot be regarded as genuinely sovereign, since Washington has enough leverage to make them follow the American lead. Of course, Germany and Japan are more dependent on the US than some other allies, given the long and continuing military occupation of both and the wholesale Americanization of their elites and societies, but the general finding is still true in that an alliance with America is a form of bondage.

Japan isn’t there yet, but its Defense White Paper has already named Russia as a threat, while Tokyo’s already impressive defense budget is on the rise and restrictions on its naval activities are being eased, as are the rules governing Japan’s military exports. At the same time, US missile deployments in Japan threaten not only China and North Korea, but Russia as well. Tokyo is also strengthening its ties with NATO, so, as a result, Russia has to pay more attention to its Far Eastern flank. President Putin’s recent visit to Russian Pacific Fleet maneuvers and his trip to the island of Iturup in the South Kurils testify to that.

There are also other useful lessons to be learned from Northeast Asia. North Korea stands out as an example of a medium-sized and largely isolated country that has been able to ensure its sovereignty and security in a complex and challenging environment. All the talk of an impending collapse of the regime in Pyongyang, so common for years, has long since ceased. Unlike many other countries, the nuclear-armed DPRK is being courted, not threatened, by the US. For Moscow, Pyongyang has become a valuable military ally whose soldiers actually fight alongside their Russian comrades. The Russia-DPRK alliance substantially complements the Moscow-Beijing strategic partnership in bolstering security in the region.

There’s no question that the Republic of Korea is intently observing these developments and considering their implications. President Donald Trump’s recent abrupt decision to cut short joint military exercises to put pressure on Seoul over trade and investment issues has also been a useful warning. At the end of the day, South Korea’s security lies in its own hands. That security doesn’t rest solely on military and technological power, considerable as it is, and, thus, investing more in diplomacy with neighboring countries, including China and Russia, should be a priority. 

US President Donald Trump has warned schools across the country against promoting gender identity and transition, touting his administration’s efforts to purge what he calls “transgender ideology” and “far-left extremism” from classrooms.

Speaking at a White House back-to-school event on Monday, Trump said schools could face legal and financial consequences for telling children they are “trapped in the wrong body.”

“Every public school in America is now on notice that if they tell a child that they’re trapped in the wrong body, they are committing child abuse,” he said.

The president accused his predecessor Joe Biden’s administration of “weaponizing” education and imposing “extreme ideologies,” including critical race theory and “transgender insanity,” on children as young as four or five. He said schools had neglected basic education for gender identity issues, leaving the US near the bottom among leading nations despite spending “more money on education than any other country in the world by double.”

President Trump just issued a MAJOR WARNING to American schools:

"Every public school in America is now on notice that if they tell a child that they're trapped in the wrong body, they are committing child abuse"

🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/bls7ASN6FS

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 24, 2026

Trump stated his return to office meant reversing course, citing his measures targeting transgender policies and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices in education.

Speaking alongside Trump, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the administration had cut billions in DEI funding at schools and universities, redirecting it toward teachers, classrooms, and academic efforts, including workforce training. She warned that schools that continue promoting gender-related changes could lose funding altogether.

“If they subject children to radical experiments and sideline parents, they will lose their federal funding,” McMahon stated. “Children belong to their parents, not the federal government.”

Trump attacked the promotion of gender transition even before returning for his second term, vowing to “stop” gender-affirming care for minors, which he equated with “child sexual mutilation.”

Trump has also pursued a broader DEI crackdown, which his administration views as discriminatory and incompatible with merit-based policies. He ordered federal agencies to dismantle DEI programs, including in the military and Foreign Service, and reversed Biden-era workforce equity initiatives. The campaign has extended beyond government, with DEI funding cut and federal contractors and other institutions pressured to abandon race- and gender-conscious policies.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is trying to “neutralize” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio by establishing a direct channel with President Donald Trump, CNN Brasil reported on Monday, citing sources.

Rubio previously excluded Brazil from the group of countries he described as friendly and attacked Lula over trade. The Brazilian president accused him of being “anti-Latin America.”

Tensions between the US and Latin America’s largest economy have been soaring for months, as Trump fiercely backed former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro during his trial over a plot to overturn his 2022 election defeat and keep himself in power.

The two countries are also locked in a trade dispute. The US imposed an additional 25% tariff on certain Brazilian goods in July after a trade investigation accused Brazil of a litany of unreasonable practices.

According to CNN, Lula complained for weeks about Rubio, a vocal critic of Brazil’s government, before calling Trump and seeking to weaken the secretary’s influence over bilateral relations. During a call last week, Lula reportedly told Trump that contact should proceed “without intermediaries.”

Following the conversation, Lula said talks with Trump were “very civilized and very respectful,” while lamenting that the “second tier” of the US government was taking “unthinkable” actions. “I sometimes get the impression that Trump is much better at political relations than his advisers.” 

Rubio also accused Lula of failing to negotiate in good faith, and said he “put his own ego” ahead of securing a trade deal, adding that the tariffs were “the price for that.” Lula has called Rubio “anti-Latin America” and “a mortal enemy of Cuba and several Latin American countries.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that Iran attempted to assassinate one of his sons, making the explosive allegation without saying which of his children was targeted, when the supposed plot took place, or how close it came to being carried out.

The bombshell came almost in passing during a telephone interview with Israel’s Channel 14 on Monday about security arrangements for Netanyahu’s political rival, Gadi Eisenkot, a former Israeli military chief who is challenging him ahead of the October 27 general election.

“This is an unbelievable case. Iran targeted one of my sons. Iran tried to murder him, tried to murder one of my sons,” Netanyahu said, arguing that round-the-clock protection for Eisenkot was “not a luxury” and warning that without it, the Iranians “will succeed.”

Netanyahu has two sons, Yair and Avner. He did not identify which one he was referring to, nor did he say where or how Iran planned to attack him.

The claim comes as Netanyahu faces a difficult reelection campaign. Successive surveys have put his governing bloc short of the 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority, while polls have shown Eisenkot competing closely with or overtaking Netanyahu and his Likud party. Reuters reported in July that surveys were pointing to a defeat for Netanyahu’s coalition, although the fragmented opposition also lacks a straightforward path to forming a government.

US President Donald Trump also claimed that Tehran has tried to kill him – even before the initial salvo of US-Israeli strikes on February 28 killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

During the NATO summit in Türkiye in July, Trump was secretly removed from Air Force One and transferred inside a catering truck to another military aircraft after Israel relayed intelligence about another alleged Iranian assassination threat. The extraordinary operation was concealed even from some members of his traveling party.

US intelligence reportedly assessed the Israeli-supplied information with “low confidence,” while Tehran has denied broader accusations that it sought to assassinate Trump or other American officials.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has threatened to cut electricity and critical minerals to the US if President Donald Trump continues to escalate his trade war with Canada, drawing an angry response from Trump.

The exchange came hours after Trump announced that tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks, auto parts, and steel would rise to 50% on January 1, 2027. The move followed the collapse of trade talks last week and a separate 50% tariff that took effect Saturday on around $20 billion worth of Canadian imports.

“Everything’s on the table. I’ll do whatever it takes,” Ford told AP on Monday, saying Ontario could raise electricity prices or halt exports altogether.

“We power 1.5 million homes and businesses,” he added, warning that if Trump keeps trying to dismantle Canadian manufacturing, “he better have a pack of batteries.”

Trump fired back on Truth Social, dismissing Ford’s comments as “bluster” and personally attacking the premier before warning Canadian leaders to “fall in line.”

“Someone should get these clowns to ‘fall in line’ or, the consequences for Canada will be far WORSE!” Trump wrote, again referring to Prime Minister Mark Carney as “Governor Carney.” He said the US is “far bigger, richer, and stronger” and claimed that Canada “couldn’t survive” without its southern neighbor.

“I have a lot of real estate on my ass, so he has a lot of room to kiss my ass,” Ford shot back at a press conference on Monday.

Canada's Ontario Premier Doug Ford on Trump:

I have a lot of real estate on my ass, so Trump has a lot of room to kiss my ass. pic.twitter.com/nP8MLVxfbI

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 24, 2026

Ford said Ottawa should consider progressively stronger retaliation, including restrictions on oil, potash, and strategic minerals. Quebec Premier Christine Frechette, whose province is a major hydroelectricity supplier, said she is not currently pursuing Ford’s approach but would not exclude it as Canada enters a “new phase” of the dispute.

However, the exposure is far more concentrated in border states such as New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, where a stable supply of Canadian power can be particularly important during periods of peak demand.

Meanwhile, the AI boom is placing additional pressure on regional power grids as tech companies race to build massive, power-hungry hyperscale data centers. In July 2026, New York imposed a one-year moratorium on state discretionary environmental permits for new hyperscale facilities while it develops new regulations intended in part to protect grid stability and ratepayers.

Ontario has used the electricity threat before. In March 2025, Ford imposed a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to the three states before suspending it after Trump threatened to double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum.

Appointing Darline Graham to simply finish her brother Lindsey’s Senate term was one thing, but having her run for the next term, with Donald Trump’s support, is simply bonkers. Or does Trump know something we don’t?

Darline’s political inexperience was on full display during last week’s debate against her run-off opponent, Rep. Ralph Norman, when she was unable to answer an elementary question on national security involving China and Taiwan.

Graham was simply asked if Taiwan and the South China Sea are national security issues for the US. Incredibly, she even failed to at least respond with a “yes” or “no.”

Clearly unprepared for the big night, Graham began by requesting for the question to be repeated. It didn’t help her. Following the second reading she admitted defeat, saying, “I’m just going to be honest here – I’m not, on national security, that – I’m not that informed on national security. So...”

After her voice quivered for a moment amid rumbling from the debate audience, Graham dug her hole deeper with a non sequitur: “But I do support the military. My brother was in the Air Force for 33 years, so I will do everything I can to support the military. My dad was in the army.”

Following Sen. Lindsey Graham’s sudden death on July 11, Gov. Henry McMaster appointed his sister Darline to finish up the remaining months of his tenure. What began as a sentimental gesture inexplicably morphed into a White House endorsement, with Trump pushing the inexperienced woman to enter the primary race with a chance at serving a six-year term that will begin in January. Feelings for her brother aside, Darline Graham has never held an elected office. Until this summer, she was commissioner of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, and earlier held a communications role in the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department.

Trump’s endorsement notwithstanding, Graham only received 33% of the vote in the special August 11 ballot, forcing her into an August 26 runoff against Ralph Norman, who came in second place with 25% of the vote. “Her lackluster showing reflected South Carolina Republicans’ deep unease with Trump trying to turn one of their Senate seats into an inheritance for someone with a joke of a political resume,” ZeroHedge quipped.

Darline’s egregious debate failure drew comparisons to Miss South Carolina’s famous response to a question in the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant.

The question she was asked to answer went as follows: “Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can’t locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?”

It is an apt comparison and it would be funny if we weren’t dealing with a position that has the power to actually influence America’s foreign policy.

Having driven her own performance off a cliff, the next day Graham attempted to cover her losses by admitting to Trump attack dog Sean Hannity that she “tripped up on one question.” Brushing aside the importance of her inability to answer the question, Graham told Hannity, “I’m not a politician, certainly not a career politician, I don’t speak politician.”

In a separate interview with reporters, Graham said: “I tripped up on one question last night, regarding Taiwan. I don’t speak politician. I was just honest. Of course, Taiwan is our friend. But I think people in South Carolina are more worried about boys in girls’ sports.” Too bad Darline didn’t say that on the debate stage.

Thus, perhaps it can be argued that Darline Graham’s embarrassing lack of knowledge over foreign affairs might be just what the MAGA camp wants – a lot less Lindsey and much more Darline. They may be willing to forgive Darline’s inability to find Taiwan on a map so long as she focuses congressional attention on critical domestic issues, like LGBTQ curricula in schools, soaring costs, and crumbling infrastructure.  

On Tuesday, South Carolina Republicans will cast a vote that either continues in the blood-soaked shoes of Lindsey Graham or opts for a change in the person of his sister that keeps the attention on the American homeland.

The International Chess Federation (FIDE) has barred Russian teams from returning to the Chess Olympiad next month, prompting prominent names in Russian chess to accuse its leadership of politicizing the sport and making “Russophobic” decisions.

FIDE suspended the Russian and Belarusian national teams from its competitions in 2022, although players from both countries were allowed to compete individually under neutral status. The federation lifted all restrictions on Belarusian athletes last month.

On Sunday, the FIDE Council ruled that Russian teams would remain excluded from the 46th Chess Olympiad, which is scheduled to take place in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, from September 16 to 27.

Russian Chess Federation chief Aleksandr Tkachev said the decision had undermined FIDE’s own motto, “We are one family,” and accused members of the Council of putting their personal interests ahead of chess. Since 1991, Russian players  have won six gold medals in the Open Chess Olympiad (and multiple silver and bronze medals), and three gold medals in the Women’s Chess Olympiad. 

“There are people who prioritize the game over politics and don’t worry about their own careers. But there are also people who prioritize personal interests, and they currently predominate on the Council. This time, they prevailed,” Tkachev told TASS on Monday.

He claimed the decision had been initiated by acting FIDE President Viswanathan Anand, who took over last month after his Russian predecessor, Arkady Dvorkovich, was forced to step aside after he was placed under EU sanctions.

“There is only one explanation for this decision – the FIDE leadership has gotten out of control. The decisions being made are Russophobic,” Karpov told TASS. “Let’s hope the situation changes after the elections in September.”

FIDE is due to hold its presidential election in Uzbekistan on September 26-27, alongside the closing stages of the Olympiad.

The ruling means Russia will miss its third consecutive over-the-board Olympiad after being absent from Chennai in 2022 and Budapest in 2024.

Russian players nevertheless remain prominent internationally under the FIDE flag. They won four medals – one gold, two silvers and one bronze – at the Asian rapid and blitz championships in Hong Kong last month.

Moscow has repeatedly condemned restrictions imposed on Russian athletes by international sporting bodies as politically motivated. President Vladimir Putin has argued that comparable measures have not been applied to athletes from other countries involved in armed conflicts.

Russia just pulled its ambassador to the UK, as British Prime Minister Andy Burnham doubles down on open involvement in the Ukraine conflict. The risk of open war has never been higher, but Burnham is writing checks that he can’t cash.

Relations between Russia and the UK are at an “unprecedentedly low level,” Moscow’s embassy in London said in a statement on Sunday, after it emerged that ambassador Andrey Kelin had left his post in late July and would not be immediately replaced. In a follow-up statement to the Sunday Times, an embassy spokesperson said that Kelin had made “considerable efforts to preserve contacts and channels of communication” between the UK and Russia, but the UK had clearly chosen a “path of confrontation.”

☝️ Russia-UK relations across all areas have deteriorated to an unprecedentedly low level entirely on London's initiative.https://t.co/ddib4uE1B4 pic.twitter.com/BrdJAyk4bO

— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) August 23, 2026

“He left Britain in the hope that a more constructive and respectful dialogue could eventually be restored, should the UK reconsider its policies towards our country,” the spokesman added.

How did Russia-UK relations get this bad?

Well, firstly, Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, and of course David Cameron and their anglophonic media bullhorns. 

On August 17, the Russian Embassy in London warned Britain that “the deeper its involvement in the conflict and the greater its support for Kiev’s terrorist machinery, the higher the price it will pay.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov added that Moscow has “every right to regard the proudly proclaimed direct involvement of British missile forces in strikes against Russia as participation in the war, with all the consequences that entails.”

Neither statement seems to have deterred Burnham. Later that day, the British PM proclaimed that the UK would continue “to support Ukraine 100%.” Six days later, his office announced that it would provide Ukraine with classified information enabling it to produce Storm Shadow cruise missiles on Ukrainian soil. Burnham followed this up with a visit to Kiev on Monday, where he compared the conflict to Britain’s struggle against Nazi Germany in World War II, and promised to supply Ukraine with anti-air missiles to repel Russian strikes on its energy infrastructure.

Is pulling the ambassador a sign of war?

The withdrawal of Kelin is an unprecedented move. Diplomatic relations between Moscow and London have been strained on multiple occasions during the post-Soviet period, Russia’s response has typically been restrained. When FSB agents caught British spies hiding a listening device outside the Russian Embassy in 2006, the Kremlin named and condemned the agents responsible. When the UK expelled four Russian diplomats after Moscow refused to extradite a suspect in the alleged poisoning of double agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2007, Russia responded in kind. 

At no point during these incidents did Russia withdraw – or threaten to withdraw – its ambassador. However, with relations already in the gutter since 2022, Moscow’s lack of urgency in replacing Kelin most likely does not herald military action against the UK. Instead, it is an acknowledgement of just how badly relations have deteriorated.

What will Russia do to neutralize the UK’s Ukraine missile threat?

Russia’s kinetic response to Burnham’s missile data sharing plan is straightforward. In a statement to reporters on August 24, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that “our armed forces are carrying out the relevant work and obtaining the necessary data in order to identify the production sites for such missiles and other military equipment, and are taking measures to destroy these locations.”

Destroying missile production sites in Ukraine is a far easier task for Russia now than at any point since 2022. Ukraine has no ammunition for its Patriot air defense batteries left, nor does Kiev have any money to buy more. In a post on X on Sunday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky admitted that his military used all of its 2026 budget in the first six months of the year buying and building drones to attack civilian infrastructure in Russia. 

As a result, Russia has been dismantling weapons plants, ports and ships used to import arms, and energy targets across Ukraine with impunity since July.

How far can Britain escalate against Russia?

Burnham has little more to offer. The US is unwilling to share its dwindling stocks of Patriot missiles with Ukraine, even if the UK offers to buy. Three out of five weapons packages donated by the UK to Ukraine this year included other models of defense missiles – a total of more than 2,500 missiles – but these have apparently been used up by Kiev’s forces.

Given the potential consequences, some figures within the British defense establishment have called for restraint. Former Chief of the Defense Staff Tony Radakin – who once urged Britain to prepare to fight Russia in space – and his successor, Richard Knighton, have both reportedly sought contact with Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov in order to limit the threat of naval escalation. Another former British defense chief, Field Marshal Lord David Richards, has called for peace talks with Russia since 2022, arguing last year that Ukraine “cannot win” the conflict with anything short of full-scale NATO intervention.

Even former defense attache John Foreman – who has encouraged Ukraine to strike Russia with British-made missiles – told The Times on August 15 that Britain should reopen “strategic dialog” with Russia, calling London’s suspension of military-to-military communications in 2024 “daft.”

'Good to speak to @edvaizey today about the need to hold our noses and re-establish mil to mil ties.

We can continue to support Ukraine. But at the same time, we can talk to the Russians'. Cutting military communication with Russia was a 'daft decision'.

With Russian forces…

— John Foreman CBE (@John_ForemanCBE) August 15, 2026

These calls have also come from the UK’s typically hawkish circuit of ‘Russia experts’. Among this group is Mark Galeotti, an academic with rumored links to British intelligence. In an interview with former British diplomat Ian Proud in mid-August, Galeotti conceded that “behind closed doors,” many British diplomatic and security officials now believe that “we’ve reached the stage where we need to be pushing both sides to some kind of resolution.”

“After years of spouting these empty mantras of ‘as much as it takes, for as long as it takes’, etc etc, who’s going to turn around and say ‘actually, come to think of it, this is not in our interests’,” he told Proud. 

Will Burnham step back?

After his speech in Kiev on Monday, Burnham chaired a meeting of the ‘coalition of the willing’ – a 34-nation group put together to pool military aid for Ukraine. In his opening remarks, Burnham called on the UK’s allies to “dig into our own stocks and help others dig into their stocks” to keep the Ukrainian military fighting.

However, should the UK continue supplying long-range missiles and drones to Ukraine, and should these munitions be used to kill Russian civilians, Russia is running out of diplomatic means of deterring London.

Britain has scoffed at every polite warning from Moscow to date, but with Kelin’s office vacant, there are fewer civilized options available to Russia. The “consequences” threatened by Lavrov could be far more catastrophic than a formal demarche.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced new sanctions against Iran, and threatened to boot any country dealing financially with Tehran out of the US dollar system, in a bid to make Iran an “economic outcast.”

The new sanctions target nearly 60 entities, individuals, and vessels in multiple jurisdictions that allegedly trade in “illicit nuclear and missile technology” with Iran, aid Iran’s “cyber operations,” and move Iranian oil, the US Treasury Department said in a statement on Monday. More than a third of the sanctioned entities and individuals – 21 – are based in China.

The Treasury also said it had identified digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping as areas for potential secondary sanctions.

Speaking at a press conference later on Monday, Bessent went further, announcing the beginning of “Operation Economic Outcast,” which he described as “an economic onslaught against Iran’s financial connections around the globe.”

In the Second World War, D-Day marked the historic beginning of a campaign with our allies to target and drive the enemy from its positions, including those in third countries. Today, in that same spirit, we are launching an economic onslaught against Iran’s financial connections… pic.twitter.com/1fLyobUucu

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) August 24, 2026

Bessent explained that the US would penalize any country refusing to sever its economic ties with Tehran. “Any entity that facilitates money laundering on behalf of Iran will be removed from the US dollar system,” he said, adding “the clock just started ticking.” 

Iran exports goods to 147 countries, and imports from 114, according to the most recent data from the World Bank. Asked how the US intends to force three quarters of the world’s nations to cease trade with Iran, Bessent said that US President Donald Trump phoned multiple world leaders over the weekend “with specific requests to cease their interactions” with Iran, and that every country had been given “a defined timeline” to comply with his demands. 

“We find that the best way to engage with countries is through quiet diplomacy. And we are level-setting with every country to tell them our expectations. We know who they are. They know who they are,” he replied, adding “no-one is above the reach of US sanctions.”

Bessent’s threats were shrugged off in Tehran. “Americans know that no one buys their bombast,” senior Iranian negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf wrote on X after the treasury secretary's press conference.

“The United States is not in an economic position to further restrict its relations with other countries,”he explained. “Iran’s trading partners, both in the media and through messages sent to us, have made it clear that they don’t take these statements into account anywhere.”

Mohsen Rezaei, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, warned on Sunday that “not a single drop of oil will leave the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz” if the Gulf states join the US’ economic pressure campaign. If US President Donald Trump “wants to do something, we will retaliate in a seismic manner,” Rezaei added.

Last week, Trump threatened to inflict what he called “Economic D-Day” on Iran, after a 60-day window for negotiating peace with Tehran expired with no breakthrough. Trump ruled out a return to negotiations, but Pakistani Chief of Defense Forces Asim Munir arrived in Tehran on Monday in an attempt to revive the talks. 

The massive influx of migrants into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta has shown that Germany would be better off outside the Schengen zone, Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-chair Alice Weidel has said.

The EU’s “borderless” travel system poses a threat to Germany as long as the bloc’s external borders remain largely unprotected, the leader of Germany’s most popular party told ZDF broadcaster on Sunday.

Some 72,000 people illegally entered Ceuta, a Spanish enclave on the North African coast, within hours in late July. The influx led to severe overcrowding and inadequate sanitation, with local authorities reporting a subsequent outbreak of disease.

At least 15 rape cases were also reported in the migrant-swamped enclave. Although most of the arrivals were quickly sent back, city authorities estimated that as many as 10,000 remained in Ceuta as of last week.

“When I see something like what’s happening in Ceuta, then [I say] we’re leaving Schengen,” Weidel said. “We have to start [acting] preventively, we can’t just let everyone in unchecked.”

Germany must “close” its borders because the EU is failing to uphold its commitments on external border security, she argued.

“We will leave Schengen so that people like those from Ceuta can no longer come to us,” she added.

The AfD holds just over 23% of seats in the Bundestag, making it the largest opposition faction. However, it remains largely unable to influence legislation because of the so-called “firewall” policy, under which Germany’s other major parties refuse to cooperate with it.

Weidel has argued that this could change after the next parliamentary elections, scheduled for 2029, which she believes the AfD could win.

The Ceuta crisis has already sent shockwaves through the EU. Several European leaders have called for Spain to be excluded from the Schengen zone, while Italy introduced temporary border checks on travelers arriving from Spain on August 1. Madrid responded with reciprocal measures.

Germany has long been the EU’s leading destination for asylum seekers. It received more than 163,000 applications in 2025, accounting for roughly one in five claims across the bloc’s 27 member states, according to the EU Agency for Asylum.

The country also has the EU’s largest foreign-born population in absolute terms, with nearly 17 million people born abroad, or around 20% of the population.

Berlin has already expanded checks along its borders with other EU countries and increased the number of migrants turned away in an effort to curb illegal migration.

US President Donald Trump has announced a 50% tariff on Canadian cars, trucks and auto parts starting next year, escalating a bitter trade war with Ottawa after negotiations collapsed last week.

In a post on Truth Social on Monday, Trump accused Canada of “ripping off the United States of America for years” and imposing excessive tariffs on American farmers. He claimed that bilateral trade has left the US with a “$60 billion deficit.”

“Not sustainable, and NOT ANYMORE! On January First, 2027, Tariffs on all Cars, Trucks, both large and small, Automotive Parts, and Steel, will be increased to 50%,” Trump announced. The move will double the current 25% tariff on Canadian auto imports.

“Build in the U.S. and there are ZERO TARIFFS,” Trump added, saying Canada would no longer be treated “like a State” and calling it “among the worst nations in the world to deal with.”

“WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US!” he wrote.

The announcement comes just two days after a separate package of 50% US tariffs took effect on around $20 billion worth of Canadian imports, including wine, cement, plywood, clothing and hockey equipment.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called the US terms “unfair” and “uneconomic” and pledged to match Washington’s tariffs “dollar for dollar” to protect Canadian workers and businesses.

Ottawa’s retaliatory measures, which are set to take effect on September 8, will target US goods including steel, dairy products, appliances, and electronics.

Trade tensions between Washington and Ottawa, which date back to Trump’s first term, reignited after he returned to office last year and launched a sweeping tariff campaign against major US trade partners. These include Canada, Mexico, China, the EU, and Japan, who Trump has accused of unfairly benefiting from access to the US market.

There is one feeling I often recall from having lived and worked in Ukraine – to be precise, in its most nationalist, full-of-itself city, Lviv – for a total of five years in the 2000s: Thank God, at least there’s no violence!

That is what I, some other foreigners, and quite a few Ukrainians, too, were thinking and even saying then. The country was politically and even culturally polarized, extremely corrupt, and a sham ‘democracy’ even more fake than most of the rest.

It was dominated and bled dry by a greedy, hypocritical, and – despite all the cheap talk, the pious singing-of-anthems-hand-on-heart, and the cheesy peasant braids and stitched shirts – deeply unpatriotic establishment of typically post-Soviet turncoats, thieves, liars, and sell-outs. There was no rule of law, the courts were a bad joke, and the police was a racket.

And yet, while the usual business-crime complex took its toll and there was the occasional state murder of a journalist, there was no large-scale violence. There was bitter grumbling galore, including about Crimea, all the time. But there was no civil war – as the almighty US intelligence services had infamously as good as predicted in the even darker 1990s – and no one was reaching for a gun either to leave an unbearable country or keep others in it by force.   

While the Americans were busy thinking about the possibility – and perhaps opportunities – of Ukrainians killing each other in large numbers, their British cousins were considering another kind of doom. For them, more than three decades ago, the most interesting question was whether Ukraine and Russia would go to war, specifically over Crimea. There, British spooks back then warned with unusual honesty, “most of the population is Russian,” and things might become less than cordial if Kiev didn’t watch its steps.

They literally hunt and, in effect, sell their subjects as cannon fodder, so that they can profit and the West can have its slaughterhouse war against Russia, in an insane, evil, and futile attempt to eliminate Moscow as a power to be reckoned with. This is the reality of “busification,” and nothing remotely like it happened before Zelensky and his accomplices took over. Those who do not readily submit to being treated as combat cattle regularly die mysteriously from ‘falls’ or maybe just blowing their nose.

The Ukrainian mass media have never been remotely clean, objective, or reliable. But the zombified and self-zombifying propaganda machine created under Zelensky is unprecedentedly awful. Those who openly resist the national brainwashing are incarcerated by kangaroo courts, tortured, and killed.

Or consider basic demography: Ukraine’s real population has almost halved since the end of the Soviet Union, and the future looks even worse. And while part of this catastrophe is due to the current war, much of it has been produced by the ceaseless class-war-from-above of injustice, exploitation, and hopelessness that Ukraine’s ‘elites’ have waged on their own subjects for a third of a century while blabbing sanctimoniously about nation this and nation that.

Yet it was not. Indeed, Ukraine’s short post-Soviet history is, among other sad things, a record of at least sleepwalking and, more frequently, proactively provoking this twin catastrophe. But Ukrainians – or rather their rotten establishment – did have plenty of help in getting it so wrong. Take, for instance, the mean-spirited and asinine obsession with suppressing the Russian language to eradicate Ukraine’s windfall advantages as a mostly bilingual country of Russian and Ukrainian speakers.

That perverse and self-harming pursuit – recalling Freud’s hunch about nationalism as neurosis – was obstinately cultivated by both a narrow-minded but hyperactive and arrogant minority of ukrainier-than-though nationalists at home and descendants of run-away World War II nationalists, mass murderers of Poles, and Nazi collaborators from the West who were eager to infest post-Soviet Ukraine with their hoary bigotry.

Personally, I remember being naïve enough back then in the 2000s to ask Lviv acquaintances why Ukraine couldn’t just codify its own variant of Russian (comparable to the way American English is different from British English) and also promote Ukrainian (I know both languages, as it happens), and then focus on actually important matters. Blank stares were the answer, at best.

Entitled, patronizing exile nationalists projecting their selfish tunnel-vision fantasies on, and throwing their Western hard currency at, desperate people freshly shell-shocked by ultra-predatory ‘transition’ capitalism were one noxious outside influence vitiating Ukraine’s post-Soviet trajectory. But it was far from the only one. Indeed, as time went on, the West as a whole – its politicians, intellectuals, and mainstream media – became ever more interested in and vastly detrimental to Ukraine.   

To be fair, the first yet already extremely harmful steps the West took to, ultimately, ruin Ukraine had very little to do with it: When Washington decided – not once but repeatedly – to cheat and humiliate Russia and break clear promises not to expand NATO eastward, it was first Germany, then multiple Eastern European countries that were at the center of attention, but not Ukraine. Yet, ironically, even while neglecting it, the West’s reckless expansion already set the stage for phase two of putting Ukraine in the crosshairs.

That was reached in 2008, when, at an infamous summit in Bucharest, the high and mighty of the West, led by the indispensably destructive US, artfully maneuvered Ukraine into the very worst position imaginable: by making a promise of NATO membership for Ukraine sometime in the future, they inevitably poked Russia in the eye once too often. By keeping the reckless promise vague, they left Ukraine completely exposed, as if baiting Moscow to intervene. The whole mad scheme took willfully ignoring the clear warnings issued by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Munich one year before and multiple equally explicit warnings produced by not Russians but widely acknowledged Westerners such as George Kennan and, back then, even William ‘Bill’ Burns.

Indeed, it doubled down on it. If only the West had dropped Ukraine the way it dropped Georgia in 2008, many Ukrainians would still be alive and the country would have lost none or far less territory. Instead, the West got involved ever more deeply, offering a poisonous EU association agreement and the shaping a regime-change coup in 2014. After that, it bound Ukraine so closely into official and black-ops NATO structures that formal membership looked increasingly irrelevant, while helping Kiev sabotage the last realistic chance to return to peace and avoid large-scale war, the Minsk II agreement of 2015. Meanwhile, demagogic public intellectuals, such as Tim Snyder and Anne Applebaum did their worst to pour oil into the fire by a mix of silly nationalism-by-proxy and nasty Russophobia.

Finally, the West almost nonchalantly refused to seriously consider Moscow’s, as it turned out, last pre-February-2022 offer to return to substantial diplomacy and compromise. Once the war had greatly escalated, the West sent Britain’s most evil clown to kill an excellent opportunity to make peace quickly produced by the Istanbul talks of spring 2022.

Since then, since locking Ukraine into a devastating, perfectly unnecessary, and futile yet deliberately provoked war to weaken Russia, things have only gotten worse and worse, and there seems no end in sight. Indeed, as a remarkably sane former German general has just explained, Kiev is still eager to drag all of Western Europe (at least) into an open shooting war with Russia. In Europe, many establishment figures seem all too willing to go along. Ukraine has become the outstanding example of how the West risked and then destroyed the opportunities of the post-Cold War period. Ukraine could have been a prosperous country profiting from links to both East and West. Instead it’s a ruin.

The joint statement issued by the foreign ministers of eight Arab and Muslim countries was one of the clearest diplomatic signals of recent weeks. Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Pakistan, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates did more than condemn Israel’s E1 settlement project. They demanded that the plan be halted, the decisions approving it reversed, and sanctions considered against individuals and entities involved in settlement expansion. The signatories also reaffirmed that an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, remains the only viable path toward a lasting settlement, according to an official statement released by the UAE Foreign Ministry.

This was not just another communiqué intended to register concern over unfolding events. The reference to possible sanctions suggests that even the region’s more cautious governments are beginning to adopt a tougher stance. Israeli leaders apparently assume that normalization with certain Arab countries has become irreversible and that their objections can therefore be safely ignored. The E1 project, however, may reveal just how badly mistaken that calculation is.

The plan calls for the construction of more than 3,400 homes in the strategically important corridor between East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Ma’ale Adumim. If implemented, it would effectively split the West Bank into northern and southern sections while cutting East Jerusalem off from the main territory of any future Palestinian state. In other words, E1 would reshape not only the demographic but also the political geography of the conflict. This is not a routine expansion of an existing settlement. It is a step that could deprive the “two states for two peoples” formula of its territorial foundation.

Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, has made no attempt to conceal the project’s political purpose, openly presenting it as a way to finally “bury” the idea of Palestinian statehood. E1 received final approval in 2025, and the publication of construction tenders in 2026 transformed it from a political threat into a plan moving toward practical implementation.

It is still too early to suggest that Abu Dhabi is abandoning the Abraham Accords. Rather, the UAE is changing the terms on which it is prepared to support normalization and reminding Israel that establishing diplomatic relations did not amount to endorsing every subsequent action taken by the Israeli government. For the Emirates, normalization has always been an instrument of statecraft – not a commitment to follow Israel unconditionally.

The annexation of Palestinian territory is a matter of principle for the UAE leadership. In 2020, Abu Dhabi justified its decision to normalize relations by arguing that its agreement with Israel had halted the annexation of Palestinian land and preserved the possibility of a two-state solution. This was intended to reassure Arab audiences that the Emirates had not abandoned the Palestinian cause but had instead chosen a different way of influencing Israel: direct dialogue rather than a boycott. The latest demarche should therefore be seen not as a repudiation of that earlier policy, but as an attempt to restore the Abraham Accords to their originally stated purpose.

The Israeli government’s actions, however, are steadily making that argument harder to sustain. If normalization does not restrain annexation, halt settlement expansion, or preserve the prospect of Palestinian statehood, it becomes increasingly difficult for Abu Dhabi to explain what political purpose its special relationship with Israel actually serves.

There is also a broader strategic calculation at work. Israel is becoming politically toxic even for Arab governments that embraced normalization only a few years ago. The problem is not Israel’s existence or the need to maintain working relations with it. What has become toxic is the course pursued by the current Israeli government, which openly rejects Palestinian statehood, continues to expand settlements, and expects its Arab partners to quietly accept the new reality.

Put bluntly, the Israeli leadership has lost its sense of proportion. It behaves as though the economic and defense interests of Arab countries allow it to disregard their position on Palestine indefinitely. But there are limits to that approach. Israel cannot expect to deepen its relations with the Arab world while systematically destroying the possibility of a Palestinian state.

For the UAE, association with this policy carries growing reputational costs. Abu Dhabi has no intention of sacrificing its standing in the Arab and Muslim world to pay for the radicalism of members of the Israeli cabinet. The Emirates understand that, as the regional order is reshaped, they must maintain stable relations first and foremost with their neighbors and the leading powers of the Islamic world.

The presence of Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan in this group is particularly important. Shortly before the statement was issued, the three countries formed the Mecca Defense Pact, which has already been described as a prototype for a “Muslim NATO.” The UAE did not join the alliance, and it would be wrong to portray it as a member. Yet the joint demarche over E1 shows that Abu Dhabi does not want to find itself outside the emerging Arab-Islamic political alignment. The Emirates are signaling that they can coordinate their position with the core members of the Mecca alliance while continuing to cooperate with Israel and the United States.

At the same time, the criticism of Israel was carefully calibrated. The eight countries cited not only international law and UN resolutions, but also Donald Trump’s peace plan and its rejection of West Bank annexation. This framed the Israeli government’s actions as a challenge not only to the demands of Arab countries but also to Washington’s own stated position. It allows the UAE to increase pressure on Israel without turning its demarche into an anti-American gesture.

For now, it is difficult to imagine Abu Dhabi opting for a complete break with Israel, although that possibility cannot be ruled out entirely. The cooperation built since the signing of the Abraham Accords has proved too valuable to the Emirates, particularly in the economic, technological, and security spheres.

At its core, the latest demarche is a warning, not a rupture. The UAE is making clear that normalization is not a blank check and does not give Israel the right to ignore the interests of the Arab world. The Israeli leadership has become far too confident that economic cooperation has permanently separated the Palestinian issue from its relations with Arab governments.

The E1 project proves otherwise. Normalization has political limits, and the Israeli government is moving dangerously close to crossing them.

Iran has denied reports that it has been invited to join the Mecca defense pact comprising Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan, while confirming that proposals have been made for talks with the three countries on regional security.

The clarification comes after Mehdi Rahimi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s Khaneh Mellat news agency, told Al Mayadeen on Saturday that Tehran had received an invitation to become a member of the Mecca pact and was considering it.

On Monday, however, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei rejected the claim, stating that no formal invitation had been received in Tehran. At the same time, he said that discussions with the pact members concerning broader regional security have been proposed and are under consideration.

The three founding members of the pact had previously repeatedly said the alliance could eventually expand to include other regional states, with Egypt being publicly mentioned as a possible candidate. Pakistan has also said it would have no objection to Iran joining.

The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, which was signed on August 7, brings together Türkiye, which possesses one of NATO’s largest militaries and a rapidly growing defense industry, Saudi Arabia, which features enormous financial resources and ambitions to shape the Arab political order, and Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state with one of the largest militaries in the Muslim world.

Tehran initially said it had “no reason for concern” over the agreement, with spokesman Baghaei noting that its creation reflected a growing desire among regional states to develop their own security mechanisms.

Some observers have dubbed the new grouping an “Islamic NATO,” although experts have cautioned against treating it as a fully-fledged military bloc. Gulf Research Center chairman Abdulaziz Sager has said the pact could strengthen the members’ combined diplomatic and defense weight and contribute to a more regionally driven security system.

Israel, meanwhile, has responded to the pact with alarm, raising concerns that a bloc built around Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and nuclear-armed Pakistan could emerge as a counterweight to its own military dominance in the region.

The Mecca pact members, however, insist that the agreement is defensive, is open to other countries in the region, and is not directed against any other states.

Singapore has launched the world’s first independently operated data center using living human brain cells for some computing tasks, the medical school of the National University of Singapore (NUS Medicine) has said. The system consumes a fraction of the power of traditional computing hardware. The neurons are fed every three days and sustained by dedicated life-support equipment.  

NUS Medicine announced the prototype earlier this month in partnership with Singapore-based data center operator DayOne and Australian biotech firm Cortical Labs. Housed at the university, the system is described by its developers as the world’s first independently operated biologically integrated server rack.  

Cortical Labs founder and CEO Hon Weng Chong said the prototype moves biological computing “from research to commercial application,” arguing it could complement AI where “data is sparse” and conditions change. He pointed to potential uses in drug discovery, humanoid robotics, cybersecurity and fraud detection.  

Unlike conventional data centers packed with power-hungry servers and cooling systems, biological computers could operate on a fraction of the electricity by harnessing the natural processing capabilities of living neural networks.  

Keeping the “computers” running looks more like maintaining a laboratory than a server room. Technicians feed the cells a mixture of sugar, micronutrients and pH buffers every three days, while a gas system supplies carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen.  

The power difference is particularly relevant for Singapore, which temporarily halted construction of new data centers in 2019 because of concerns over their electricity and water consumption. Data centers accounted for around 7% of the country’s electricity use in 2020.  

The technology is not intended to replace silicon, which Chong said remains “far superior” for the fast, repeatable calculations behind large language models such as ChatGPT. Biological systems, however, can learn from fewer examples and adapt to changing conditions.

Japan does not plan to supply Ukraine with weapons, Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara has said. At a press briefing on Monday, he told reporters that Tokyo “is not considering any deliveries” of defensive or offensive weapons “at this time.”

Kihara was responding to Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergey Koretsky, who asked Japan on Sunday for anti-ballistic missiles, in an interview with Kyodo News.

“I would like to kindly ask one and only thing... anti-ballistic missiles,” he was cited as saying. “It’s the most important thing we need... I very much hope and count on your country.”

Koretsky took office in July and was reportedly close to disgraced businessman Timur Mindich, a close associate of Vladimir Zelensky who fled to Israel amid a corruption scandal.

“At this time, the government does not consider transferring weapons under the Self-Defense Forces Law to Ukraine,” Kihara said, referring to an overhaul in April of Japan’s defense-export policy that lifted restrictions limiting transfers to non-lethal categories and opened the door to lethal weapons exports.

Japan’s stance on the Ukraine conflict has been marked by contradiction. Tokyo has publicly sided with Kiev, condemning Russia’s military operation and taking part in the Western sanctions. However, it has stopped short of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine, and unlike some Western nations, has retained stakes in key Russian energy projects, citing their importance to domestic energy security.

Over the past few months, Ukraine has increasingly sought new military hardware from its Western backers to counter severe battlefield shortages amid the steady advance of Russian forces. Last month, Russia announced the capture of the key Ukrainian stronghold of Konstantinovka in northwestern Donbass before launching an offensive toward the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration, the last two major cities in the region still under Ukrainian control. Over the past week, Russia has liberated six settlements in Donbass.

Russia has long accused Western weapons suppliers of enabling Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign. A Sunday Times report last week claimed that Ukraine has used British-made drones for long-range attacks inside Russia over the past six months. Moscow maintains that this aid makes Kiev’s foreign backers direct participants in the hostilities and only serves to prolong the conflict. Earlier this month, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that Russia will adopt “much harsher methods to destroy everything that enables the West to fuel Kiev’s war machine.”

UN special rapporteur for Palestine Francesca Albanese has called for the deployment of an international protection force in the Palestinian territories in response to a rise in attacks by Israeli settlers.

“An International Protection Presence in West Bank/east Jerusalem and Gaza is absolutely URGENT,” Albanese wrote in a post on X on Monday.

“Third states have an obligation, per the ICJ, to act to end Israel’s unlawful occupation,” she said, using the acronym for the Hague-based International Court of Justice. She called on the offices of the UN secretary-general and the General Assembly to help bypass the “paralysis” of the organization’s Security Council, where the US has vetoed a number of resolutions critical of Israel.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal under international law by the UN and most of the international community. Israel disputes this. The settlements are also widely viewed as an obstacle to establishing a viable Palestinian state. In 2024, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion saying Israel should end its occupation of Palestinian territory “as rapidly as possible.”

Israel has taken an increasingly hawkish stance since the war in Gaza began with a Hamas attack in October 2023, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying last year that “there will be no Palestinian state to the west of the Jordan River.”

More Israeli outposts have since been approved in the West Bank, which far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich hailed as “a revolution” in settlement expansion.

Settler violence has also surged. There were around 190 attacks against Palestinians per month in the first months of 2026, according to UN data cited by The Guardian. A 17-year-old Palestinian was killed and another wounded by gunfire on Friday during an altercation with settlers.

Britain is directly participating in the Ukraine conflict and actively working to prolong it, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, after London announced it would grant Kiev access to classified technical information needed to assemble long-range cruise missiles domestically.

The UK government has authorized European defense manufacturer MBDA to release classified information concerning British-made components for SCALP, the French-produced version of Britain’s Storm Shadow. The air-launched missiles use shared French and British technology and have a range exceeding 250 km.

The move was confirmed by Downing Street on Monday and by Prime Minister Andy Burnham personally during his visit to the Ukrainian capital on the same day.

“The UK was the first to gift long-range weapons to Ukraine back in 2023,” he said, referring to deliveries of Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles. “I am pleased to confirm today that I have approved” Kiev’s request to share the missile-production technology as well, the prime minister added.

Responding to the announcement, Peskov said Britain is “participating in this war on the side of the Kiev regime” and is “methodically and regularly adding fuel to the fire and scheming to prevent any development of the peace settlement process.”

London said the decision to release the information would allow “the French and Ukrainians to move forward with the Ukrainian assembly of the missile.”

“The Ukrainian people should be in no doubt: The UK is behind you today and for as long as it takes,” Burnham said ahead of his visit to the Ukrainian capital, where he met with Vladimir Zelensky and chaired his first meeting of the ‘coalition of the willing’, established by Britain and France under his predecessor, Keir Starmer.

Moscow has maintained that the UK and other suppliers of weapons to Kiev are directly responsible for the deep-strike campaign, which it says has frequently hit civilians.

In a statement last week, the Russian Embassy in London called the UK “an accomplice and co-perpetrator of the bloody crimes and terrorist attacks” committed by Ukraine. It warned that “the deeper its involvement in the conflict and the greater its support for Kiev’s terrorist machinery, the higher the price it will pay.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that London will face consequences if it continues supplying drones used by Ukraine for strikes deep inside Russia.

“We have every right to regard the proudly proclaimed direct involvement of British missile forces in strikes against Russia as participation in the war, with all the consequences that entails,” Lavrov said.

A rapidly spreading human-caused wildfire in Nevada has injured at least six people and forced around 42,000 people to evacuate; tens of thousands more have been warned to prepare to leave.

The Hawk Fire broke out northwest of Reno on Saturday and had spread across more than 15,000 acres (61 square kilometers) by the following day. Three civilians and three first responders were injured, and several structures were destroyed.

The ‘GO NOW’ evacuation zone has expanded to the edge of the University of Nevada, Reno, and another 45,000 people in an adjacent ‘GET SET’ zone have been urged to leave and prepare to stay away for several days.

WATCH: Human-caused Hawk Fire explodes to 10,500 acres near Reno, Nevada; 42,000 evacuated pic.twitter.com/d95enUHNKM

— Rapid Report (@RapidReport2025) August 23, 2026

Shifting and strengthening winds caused the fire to change direction rapidly and reportedly jump over fire trucks, preventing crews from reaching some hot spots as people attempted to flee.

“It was extremely confusing,” Washoe County Sheriff Darin Balaam said, describing how the winds repeatedly sent the flames in different directions and urging residents in evacuation-warning zones to leave. “Please get out if you can right now,” he added.

The Hawk Fire has consumed most of Mount Peavine here in Reno, NV. Many people in the north valleys area lost their homes and businesses were destroyed including a Copart warehouse and storage facility. I am located roughly 1.8 miles from the evacuation zone.@nyprepper1 pic.twitter.com/ifR9GXjpG4

— Mopar🇺🇲Man1152 (@SSecurity93929) August 23, 2026

Officials have determined that the fire was human-caused but have not disclosed how it started or whether it was accidental or deliberate, saying the precise cause remains under investigation.

VIDEO: Nevada Army Guard drops water on Hawk Fire, Aug. 23, 2026. #hawkfire pic.twitter.com/aDSQzeleK9

— Nevada Guard (@NVNationalGuard) August 23, 2026

Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo has declared a state of emergency in Washoe County. The National Guard has sent two helicopter crews and 60 troops to support firefighting operations and protect evacuated neighborhoods. Two hospitals have moved patients to safety, and the authorities are monitoring whether the county jail will also need to be evacuated.

JUST IN: Human-caused Hawk Fire spreads toward neighborhoods in northwest Reno, Nevada, burning homes and injuring at least 6 people, according to press conference. pic.twitter.com/rLJ16jK6wt

— Scope Report (@ScopeReport_) August 23, 2026

Nearly 60,000 customers initially lost electricity, although that figure had fallen to around 10,000 by Sunday. Parts of US Route 395 were also closed.

The Hawk Fire comes as months of dry weather and record-low snowfall last winter fuel fires across the western US. Fifteen new fires erupted across Nevada on Saturday alone. Earlier this month, wildfires near Spokane, Washington forced around 60,000 people to evacuate, while three separate fires north of Reno displaced more than 13,000 people.

A Turkish sailor who survived a drone attack on one cargo ship was killed when the vessel that rescued him was struck as well, near Russia’s Black Sea coast. Ukraine has been escalating long-range strikes against Russian ports and civilian logistics.

According to multiple Turkish news reports on Saturday, Ilker Lazoglu was the cook on the San Marino-flagged bulker Necibe. The vessel was reportedly struck by drones at Russia’s Black Sea port of Tuapse on Tuesday, where it was scheduled to load 20,000 tons of wheat.

Along with 17 other crew members, he was evacuated to the Ural, a Turkish-owned and Cameroon-flagged vessel, Türkiye Today and Hurriyet reported. However, that ship was reportedly hit near Novorossiysk, which has faced numerous attacks by Ukrainian drones in recent months.

For several months, Ukrainian long-range strikes have been targeting Russian ports and international shipping that Kiev suspects of transporting Russian cargoes. Russian officials have warned that Ukraine is “playing with fire” by attacking other countries’ civilian ships in the Black Sea and have condemned the strikes as terrorist acts.

Moscow has retaliated by targeting Ukraine’s key Black Sea ports and shipping it says are handling imports for the Ukrainian military, effectively cutting off the country’s main export route.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was booed on Saturday during a visit to North Rhine-Westphalia, which had been hit by devastating wildfires. The heckling comes as Merz’s approval rating has fallen to a historic low amid growing public dissatisfaction with his performance.

The wildfire in Germany’s Eifel region was described as the largest in the region’s history and prompted the evacuation of around 2,000 people. Firefighting efforts, completed earlier this week, were complicated by the presence of possible unexploded World War II ordnance.

Merz’s speech, in which he thanked emergency services for bringing the fires under control, was repeatedly interrupted by shouts and whistles from some of those gathered, while several farmers also honked their tractors’ horns.

Bild reported later in the day that around 200 people attended the event, with some holding signs bearing slogans critical of Merz. The gathering marked the chancellor’s return to the public eye after a 23-day vacation; he last appeared in public on July 29, the tabloid noted.

Mit Buhrufen und Pfiffen ist Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz (CDU) am Samstag in Hürtgenwald-Gey empfangen worden. Merz reagierte gelassen: Er lasse sich von denen, die herumschreien, nicht beeindrucken. pic.twitter.com/XIo6Hzw5oT

— WDR (@WDRaktuell) August 22, 2026

Approval ratings for Merz’s coalition, comprising the Christian Democratic CDU/CSU bloc and the Social Democratic Party, have declined steadily since it took office in May 2025. The government has faced criticism over continued economic stagnation and its failure to deliver on pre-election promises.

On Sunday, the German Press Agency (dpa) reported, citing the latest YouGov poll, that most Germans expect the chancellor to be replaced before the next scheduled election in 2029.

Last month, Der Spiegel cited sources as saying that CDU was discussing Merz’s possible departure as chancellor amid a botched cabinet reshuffle and growing discontent within the party.

A small-scale British power plant was taken offline because of a cyber attack, with UK authorities blaming an Iranian-linked hacking group, The Telegraph reported on Saturday.

In the UK, dozens of small-scale power plants are connected to the national grid, many of them gas-fired facilities that operate for just a few hours a week.

The newspaper did not specify which facility was targeted but noted that it was out of operation for four days in July.

The authorities reportedly notified the National Cyber Security Centre, a public-facing branch of the Government Communications Headquarters, held emergency briefings for energy company executives and sent businesses guidance on strengthening security measures.

According to The Telegraph, the incident coincided with a series of cyberattacks targeting water infrastructure in the US that affected facilities in 12 states. Earlier this month, CBS News cited sources as saying that more than 30 community water systems had been impacted and that the attacks might be linked to Iran-backed hackers.

Western intelligence agencies have repeatedly claimed that critical national infrastructure and government bodies face a constant threat from hackers in Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia – allegations that the authorities in each country have dismissed. Moscow says that the West habitually cites the supposed threat of external aggression to justify a massive military buildup and the development of offensive cyber capabilities.

A US court has overturned a Trump administration rule that suspended the issuing of immigrant visas to people from 75 countries.

The State Department announced the restrictions in Janurary, which did not apply to tourist or student visas, saying they were needed to prevent the entry of those who would “take welfare and public benefits.” Russia, Brazil, Colombia, Albania, Egypt, Haiti, Somalia, and Pakistan were among the nations covered by the policy.

Judge Jeannette Vargas of Manhattan said in her ruling on Friday that US consular staff had been ordered to reject visas for all applicants from the blacklisted countries even if they were able to support themselves.

Under American laws, an immigrant’s application can only be turned down if the person is determined likely to become a “public charge” by a review of their finances, health, and skills.

Vargas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, also found that Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not have the authority to impose the visa ban.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups, along with applicants for immigrant visas and American citizens whose relatives had been denied visas to the country. The Trump administration can still appeal.

A sweeping clampdown on immigration, which the White House says is needed to improve domestic security, led to nationwide protests after the fatal shootings of two US citizens by federal agents in Minnesota in January.

Besides imposing visa restrictions, the US government has stepped up deportation of illegal aliens, with Guatemalan President Bernardo Arevalo saying earlier this week that some 2,300 Mexican nationals had been flown to his country from the US since the start of year, despite objections by Mexico.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) also faces scrutiny over conditions in its detention centers. At least 52 people died in the agency’s custody during the first 500 days of Trump’s second term, according to a report by Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights.

Iran has said that not “a single drop of oil” will leave the Persian Gulf and threatened to attack alternative export routes if neighboring states take part in the US economic pressure campaign against Tehran.

The warning comes after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday called on Washington’s allies and other countries to choose sides and stop doing business with Iran, as the US prepares what he touted as “the greatest coordinated economic isolation in the history of the world.”

In an interview with state broadcaster IRIB which aired on Saturday, Mohsen Rezaei, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, urged other countries not to participate “in the economic war with America,” saying that otherwise Tehran would treat them as enemies.

“If the countries surrounding Iran join the Americans in the economic war, not a single drop of oil will leave the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and we will also target other routes through which oil is exported from the Persian Gulf,” he said.

On Thursday, Trump announced what he called the “most crushing economic operation against Iran,” describing it as an “Economic D-Day” and calling on US allies “to stand with the United States of America to isolate and defeat the Iran threat.”

The announcement came after a 60-day window for negotiating a peace agreement with Tehran expired on Monday without a breakthrough, prompting Trump to declare that the talks had ended.

Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, which handles around a quarter of global seaborne oil and LNG trade, shortly after the US and Israel launched their joint bombing campaign against the Islamic Republic on February 28. The US Navy imposed its own blockade on Iranian ports in April and has since been guiding ships along routes that Tehran considers illegal.

Nearly 200 ships navigated the strait last week, up from 150 the previous week and just 40 two weeks earlier, bringing traffic to around 20% of pre-war levels, according to the UK Maritime Trade Operations Center.

Kpler data showed that more than 80% of liquid cargo vessels crossing the strait over the past two weeks either used a US-backed route through Omani waters that Iran considers illegal or switched off their tracking systems, likely to use the same corridor. Five vessels were struck by Iranian projectiles during the past week, resulting in two reported casualties. All five ships were reportedly damaged but not lost.