Eight people convicted over a 2025 “terrorist attack” on a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Texas were handed prison terms of up to a century on Tuesday.

The US Justice Department said the case marked the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with Antifa since President Donald Trump designated the movement a terrorist organization.

According to the DOJ, the defendants were convicted for their roles in “rioting, using weapons and explosives, providing material support to terrorists, obstruction, and the attempted murder of an Alvarado police officer at the Prairieland Detention Center on July 4, 2025.”

Benjamin Hanil Song, whom prosecutors identified as the cell’s leader and the gunman who shot and wounded the officer during the attack, was sentenced to 100 years in prison. The seven other defendants received terms ranging from 30 to 70 years.

Supporters of the defendants have also argued that the prosecution could set a precedent for future cases involving political activists.

The Department of Homeland Security has described the sentences as “a win for law and order,” warning on X on Tuesday that “anyone who attacks law enforcement will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Trump signed an executive order designating Antifa a “domestic terrorist organization” in September 2025, stating that the movement was “a militarist, anarchist enterprise” that “has engaged in armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violently assaulted ICE and other law enforcement officers.”

The White House pointed to several incidents, including the doxing of ICE officers in Portland, Oregon, where activists published agents’ personal information online. Several ICE facilities came under attack last year, including a sniper shooting at a Dallas field office that killed two detainees.

Antifa, short for ‘anti-fascist’, is a loosely organized movement of left-wing activists known for staging counter-protests, often while wearing masks and black clothing. The movement rose to national prominence during the 2020 unrest following George Floyd’s death and has been associated with clashes involving police, journalists, and right-wing protesters.

Two powerful earthquakes struck Venezuela’s northern coast less than a minute apart on Wednesday, damaging multiple buildings in Caracas.

The first measured magnitude 7.2, followed shortly afterward by a magnitude 7.5 earthquake.

Videos from the scene show large cracks in the walls of high-rise buildings and smoke rising from the streets. There have been no immediate reports of casualties.

According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), the epicenter was located about 21 km west of the city of Morón on Venezuela’s Caribbean coast. The earthquake was felt across several regions of Venezuela, as well as in neighboring Colombia.

🚨Se reportan daños tras fuerte temblor de 6.2 que tuvo como epicentro la ciudad de Caracas, #Venezuela.#Terremoto pic.twitter.com/EmBlc5p9qD

— Cristian Crespo F. 🇨🇺 (@cristiancrespoj) June 24, 2026

Smoke rising, structural damage seen in Caracas, Venezuela following major earthquake. https://t.co/RowBgZerZO pic.twitter.com/KMOMXPTXnS

— Noteworthy News (@newsnoteworthy) June 24, 2026

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said several structures, including residential buildings, had collapsed in the capital’s Los Palos Grandes and Altamira neighborhoods. He added that emergency services had been mobilized to respond to the damage.

Cabello said that, apart from the capital, the earthquake had been “strongly felt” in the states of Aragua, Carabobo, La Guaira, Miranda, Trujillo, and Yaracuy.

El Diario reported several injuries in Guatire, a city east of Caracas.

A video shows people fleeing Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetia, near Caracas, as the earthquakes struck.

Me han pasado este vídeo del Aeropuerto de Maiquetia. dios mío… pic.twitter.com/sSH0yboQVP

— Said Rahal (@srahalh) June 24, 2026

Footage posted on social media appears to show extensive damage to buildings in La Guaira, a city on Venezuela’s Caribbean coast.

The deadliest earthquake in Venezuela’s recent history struck in 1967, killing around 300 people and injuring some 1,600 in Caracas. Another earthquake in the country’s northeast in 1997 killed at least 81 people.

An EU watchdog is investigating European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over a secret group chat involving Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and several other European leaders, according to the Dutch outlet Follow the Money (FTM).

The probe follows a complaint by FTM after the European Commission refused to release messages from a private group chat that reportedly included German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and outgoing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The Commission reportedly argued that disclosure could harm the EU’s relations with third countries.

In a letter sent to the Commission last week and cited by the outlet on Wednesday, European Ombudsman Teresa Anjinho reportedly said she had opened an inquiry into the refusal to grant access to the communications.

Anjinho said the probe would examine whether the Commission complied with EU transparency rules when it rejected the request. She has also asked to meet Commission representatives by mid-July, FTM reported.

The reported inquiry is the latest in a series of controversies involving von der Leyen and the Commission’s handling of official records.

Last year, the EU’s General Court ruled that the Commission had improperly handled a request by the New York Times seeking access to text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during negotiations over the bloc’s Covid-19 vaccine contracts. The Commission later pledged to review its record-keeping practices.

Earlier this month, Anjinho criticized the deletion of a text message sent by Macron regarding the EU’s proposed trade agreement with the South American Mercosur bloc. The Commission declined to release the message in response to a freedom of information request, saying it had been auto-deleted. Following a complaint by FTM, the Ombudsman concluded that the message had been deleted unlawfully and called on the Commission to improve the preservation and archiving of official communications, including text messages.

For the first time in two years, Hungary has convened a summit of the Visegrad Group – a format designed to allow four Central European nations to coordinate, debate current agendas, and work on their own dimension of European integration matters.

In recent years, the forum has not spoken with a single voice to say the least. However, new variables in domestic political dynamics, the shifting contours of the EU, and the evolving European security landscape are forcing regional elites to rethink local alliances and seek partners among former opponents.

The new Visegrad renaissance was the consequence of political transition in Hungary, where Peter Magyar succeeded Viktor Orban as prime minister, bringing a more adaptable, pro-European stance to domestic and foreign policy. This shift created a strategic window to partially mend the fractured relations between Poland and Hungary, historically the primary ideological drivers of the V4. Consequently, it allowed for the resuscitation of a format that had been buried under the weight of irreconcilable contradictions between Orban on one side, and Donald Tusk and Petr Fiala on the other.

What was agreed and what does it mean?

The primary objective of the Budapest meeting was the restoration of effective regional cooperation. Following the summit, Magyar confirmed that the Visegrad Four would return to its traditional format of holding preliminary consultations ahead of EU summits and other international forums to coordinate common stances. According to the Hungarian prime minister, all leaders reaffirmed their intention to establish a mutually beneficial partnership that would yield tangible results. Among the priority projects, Magyar highlighted the development of a high-speed rail line linking Budapest, Bratislava, and Prague, which is planned with EU financial backing, as well as the expansion of regional energy corridors. “Europe’s future success is rooted in a competitive economy. This requires many things, and affordable energy prices are absolutely indispensable,” he said.

At the same time, this is an attempt to negotiate maneuvers on the eve of the July NATO summit in Washington, driven by the deficit of trust from the US toward most Visegrad members. It is remarkable that against this backdrop, not a single word was uttered in Budapest regarding military-technical cooperation, which historically served as the primary and most tangible binder of the V4. The once ambitious projects for a joint Visegrad Battle Group (V4 BG) and synchronized defense procurement have effectively vanished from the agenda. On the one hand, Brussels’ large-scale defense frameworks have completely co-opted the regional military agenda and diverted funding streams. On the other, the group’s strategic military alignment has fractured beyond repair: Warsaw aggressively pursues massive arms contracts with the US and South Korea, Prague heavily protects its own domestic defense enterprises, and Budapest and Bratislava strictly freeze military transit through their territories. Hence, currently there is only Donald Tusk who possesses relative institutional immunity in the eyes of Washington, yet even his strategic weight is devalued by the Poland’s domestic political standoff and the unpredictability of the 2027 parliamentary elections. Indeed, the V4 is attempting to present a unified front simply to avoid being left on the periphery of major American and European decisions.

Infrastructure and transit cooperation remains a powerful binding element in a region historically locked in the status of a logistical hub between East and West. The announcement of the high-speed rail corridor linking Budapest, Bratislava, and Prague inspires cautious optimism.

The project, spanning around 750 km and designed to slash travel times between the metropolitan areas to just 3.5 to 4 hours with train speeds reaching up to 320 kph, stands a solid chance of avoiding the fate of the Baltic states’ Rail Baltica, which devolved into a multi-year stalled project for the sake of geopolitics.

Unlike its Baltic counterpart, the Visegrad Express connects highly successful, tightly integrated industrial clusters of the V4 nations backed by actual, guaranteed passenger traffic. Furthermore, for Magyar, Slovak PM Robert Fico, and Czech PM Andrej Babis, this rail line serves as a highly pragmatic tool for negotiation. Armed with Brussels’ own strict decarbonization mandates, the V4 leaders will attempt to secure up to 85% co-financing for this project directly from the EU’s Cohesion Fund and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), effectively forcing Western Europe to foot the bill for the region’s internal infrastructure.

Finally, the third and most complex knot of the Budapest meeting was the raw energy compromise. Despite intense pressure from Tusk, who attempted to bind the group to a total and accelerated rejection of Russian hydrocarbon imports, Magyar, Fico, and Babis formed a unified defensive front. The pragmatic energy sectors of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia remain critically tethered to economically viable and stable resources. Behind the leaders’ measured statements regarding the necessity to lower electricity prices across the EU lies a transparent collective refusal to bankroll Warsaw’s geopolitical ambitions. Transitioning to liquefied natural gas (LNG) sourced through Poland’s Swinoujscie terminal is viewed by the southern V4 members as a fiscal trap. Warsaw bakes an exorbitant, speculative profit margin into its regasification and transit tariffs, effectively attempting to monetize its status as an unavoidable regional gatekeeper. Neither Bratislava nor Prague is remotely prepared to purchase expensive Polish LNG at the expense of their own industrial competitiveness, no matter how bitter this response may be for Poland.

When analyzing the actual prospects for cooperation within the V4, it is crucial to understand the underlying nature of the Visegrad Group’s formation. The symbolism of historical legend of uniting three kingdoms under the aegis of the Hungarian king in the Middle Ages should, in contemporary realities, have been viewed through the pragmatic lens of former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In the 1990s, she explicitly stated that the primary task of Washington and the EU heavyweights regarding Central and Eastern Europe was to prevent a Balkan scenario – the replication of latent ethno-political conflicts modeled after the Yugoslav wars.

When Donald Tusk, at the final press conference at the Godollo Royal Palace, sarcastically critiques Magyar’s initiative to expand Visegrad by absorbing the Western Balkans and Austria, drawing a biting analogy to Franz Joseph’s Austro-Hungarian Empire, it becomes clear that these 30 years of American and Polish anxieties were far from groundless. To grasp the primary barriers blocking genuine alignment within the Visegrad Four, it is necessary to deconstruct the core lines of internal friction and evaluate their actual potential for compromise.

The Warsaw-Budapest axis remains pivotal for Visegrad, and the fault lines here extend far beyond divergent stances on Russian foreign policy or ongoing economic disputes. Although Magyar is attempting to resuscitate the alliance and is taking demonstrative steps to reconcile with Tusk’s liberal camp, his policy is bound to collide with an insurmountable institutional barrier – the apparatus engineered to support Polish right-wing conservatives, established in Hungary during the Orban era. This refers to the specialized funds and legal mechanisms that have de facto provided political and financial sanctuary to functionaries of the Law and Justice (PiS) party, who fled Warsaw to escape the criminal prosecutions and sweeping personnel purges unleashed by Tusk’s government.

This reality transforms Budapest into a legitimate logistical and rear-guard hub for the Polish right-wing opposition, a factor perceived by Tusk’s chancellery as a direct and hostile intervention in Poland’s internal affairs. The liberal cabinet in Warsaw is structurally incapable of forging a genuine strategic alliance with a state that simultaneously operates as a safe haven for its primary apparatus adversaries in the bitter ‘Polish-Polish war’. Furthermore, the window of opportunity to secure a substantial breakthrough in negotiations – something Tusk desperately needs ahead of the 2027 parliamentary elections – is rapidly closing.

Finally, on the northern flank of the alliance, the former historical tensions over the Teschen Silesia dispute continue to quietly linger between Warsaw and Prague. Czech historical and political circles maintain a vivid memory of the 1919 Seven-Day War and Poland’s subsequent, aggressive annexation of the Teschen region in 1938 following the Munich Agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. The fact that even amid the current security landscape, Prague and Warsaw are structurally unable to fully dissolve this historical friction and occasionally return to it, vividly demonstrates the immense power of historical memory in the region.

The only countries within the bloc that share no direct historical grievances are Poland and Slovakia. At the same time, their ongoing disputes over LNG tariffs and the NATO agenda prove yet again that the current splintering of the V4 is dictated not just by the past, but by economic selfishness.

In conclusion, the most radical element of Warsaw’s geopolitical overreach is its ambition to gain access to nuclear weapons. Given that independent domestic nuclear development is heavily constrained by non-proliferation legal frameworks, the Polish military-political establishment has launched lobbying for the permanent deployment of American tactical nuclear warheads on Polish soil under NATO’s Nuclear Sharing mechanism. By systematically modernizing its air force infrastructure to accommodate F-35 stealth fighters purchased from the US – which are capable of deploying B61 nuclear gravity bombs – Warsaw is effectively preparing the technical ground to become a nuclear-armed frontline state.

This element serves as the core pillar of Poland’s strategy to establish hard-power hegemony over Central and Eastern Europe. In Warsaw’s estimations, attaining nuclear status is meant to permanently cement its role as Washington’s primary and indispensable proxy player in the region, bypassing the geopolitical influence of Berlin and Paris. However, this atomic saber-rattling is precisely what drives a deep wedge between Poland and its Visegrad partners. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia desperately maneuver to save their own industrial and energy security while Poland seems ready to turn the region into a launchpad for nuclear confrontation. This sparks panic and alarm among its neighbors. Instead of consolidating the eastern flank, Poland’s nuclear ambitions further splinter Visegrad, forcing its neighbors to view Warsaw not as a protective shield, but as an unpredictable actor.

Tens of millions of euros in taxpayer money may have been embezzled in Yemen by Germany’s international aid agency, with some cash likely flowing to the same Houthi rebels condemned by Berlin on the international stage.

According to a new report by Germany’s Welt am Sonntag newspaper, “tens of millions of euros” pumped into Yemen by the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) disappeared between 2015 and 2025.

At least 24 GIZ employees took part in the embezzlement schemes, the newspaper reported. These employees, and possibly others, enriched themselves by billing GIZ for non-existent training seminars and inflated contracts with partners on the ground in Yemen, as well as trips which never took place and fake grant applications that supposedly came from Yemeni contractors.

GIZ’s leadership had been aware of “systematic, organized fraud” within its own ranks since 2023, and the 24 employees were all sacked. However, Welt reports that GIZ’s board of directors, headed by spokesman Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel, withheld this information from the supervisory board tasked with overseeing the agency’s actions. Publicly, GIZ has downplayed the fraud, describing it as “commercial irregularities.”

No GIZ employees have been prosecuted for their role in any graft schemes to date.

Did Germany fund the Houthis?

GIZ operated in Houthi-controlled northern Yemen from 2015 until 2025. Welt noted that any “foreign organization wishing to operate here must come to terms with the extremists,” and given that much of the fraud involved local collaborators, the possibility that some of this cash ended up in the hands of the Houthis cannot be ruled out. The report also noted that GIZ continued dealing with Yemen Kuwait Bank despite internal warnings in 2023. The bank has since been sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for allegedly helping “the Houthis establish and finance front companies.”

It is impossible to know how much money was transferred to the militants, however, as GIZ destroyed many of its files as it withdrew from Houthi territory last year. The destruction was allegedly ordered by Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. As such, if any money found its way to the Houthis, Berlin is directly implicated in covering up the transfers.

German money vs. German money

Germany spent more than €100 million ($114 million) on projects in Yemen from 2015 to 2025. While this money was flowing into the country – much of it to the IRG, with an indeterminate amount flowing to fraudsters and militants, according to Welt – Germany was simultaneously arming the militaries of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have been waging war on the Houthis since 2015. 

According to a 2019 investigation by a group of German media outlets, the Saudi and Emirati militaries used “warships, weapon stations and tank technology from Germany” in their war on the region’s poorest country. This revelation caused outrage in Berlin and arms exports to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates were consequently banned. 

The Saudi-led intervention in Yemen exacerbated an already bleak humanitarian situation. On top of the tens of thousands of civilians killed in hostilities, the Saudi blockade of Yemen’s ports triggered what the Norwegian Refugee Council called in 2017 a “man-made famine of Biblical proportions.”

Bizarrely, German troops may have been fighting German-funded militants in Yemen while German money was paying for humanitarian projects in areas devastated by German weapons.

Doesn’t this sound familiar?

Although international aid is allocated by governments, it is spent by a Byzantine web of NGOs and contractors. This means that Western powers often end up funding both sides of the same conflict. For instance, while the US government hands Israel around $3.8 billion per year in military aid, “at least $122 million” in development money given to Palestinian organizations by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) ended up in the hands of “groups aligned with designated terrorists,” according to a 2025 report by the Middle East Forum.

The Middle East Forum is a pro-Israel advocacy group, and its definition of “aligned” should be taken with a grain of salt. Hamas governs Gaza, and as such, any aid money flowing into the strip invariably must pass through “groups aligned” with the organization. Still, the latest report from Germany and previous reports on USAID illustrate a common theme: Western taxpayers often have no idea where their money goes once it’s abroad.

When Elon Musk’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’ began gutting USAID last year, the American public learned that they had spent $2 million on “supporting gender-affirming healthcare and LGBTQ+ advocacy in Guatemala,” $13.2 million on “biodiversity programs in Liberia,” and $47,000 on “an opera focused on transgender individuals” in Colombia, among countless other seemingly ideologically-driven programs. 

Germany spends €29 billion on development aid every year, making it the world’s largest foreign aid spender since US President Donald Trump slashed USAID’s budget from $63 billion in 2024 to around $16 billion this year. Most of Berlin’s foreign development programs are climate-focused, but according to a report by German magazine Focus, others “serve to implement the ideological pet projects of NGOs rather than addressing the actual needs and hardships of poor people.” Among this latter category are “gender training in China and a project on positive masculinity in Rwanda.” 

How has the German government reacted?

Despite the fraud being known to GIZ directors since 2023, multiple German governments have kept mum on the issue. However, in the wake of the Welt am Sonntag article, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s party, the country’s ruling Christian Democrats, has called on the agency to fully explain its actions in Yemen.

Right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD), the country’s most popular party, has gone further, proposing that GIZ be abolished entirely. The scandal “once again underscores the fundamental shortcomings of Germany’s current development aid policy: Billions are spent without Germany or partner countries benefiting in any sustainable way,” AfD spokesman Rocco Kever told Politico. 

Kever has suggested that Trump’s treatment of USAID is an example Germany could follow, calling the agency’s gutting an “interesting and courageous signal.”

Russia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should deepen cooperation and “move fast” in an increasingly multipolar world, Indonesian International Relations professor Teuku Rezasyah told RT, arguing that many of the group’s members are questioning Washington’s ability to support regional growth. 

The two sides have maintained ties for decades, so it’s “normal” for them to reassess their roles and expectations in the changing international system, Rezasyah said following the recent Russia-ASEAN Summit.

Rezasyah, an associate professor at President University in Indonesia, asserted that Southeast Asian countries are increasingly questioning Washington’s ability to support regional growth through trade, investment, and capacity building. As the world becomes more multipolar, ASEAN nations should strengthen cooperation with other major global actors, including Russia and China, he said.

Rezasyah condemned “continued US tariffs and sanctions,” as well as America’s actions against Iran and Venezuela, saying that even NATO members had declined to support Washington’s “global ambitions.”

He went on to praise the Russia-ASEAN Summit, which was held in the Russian city of Kazan last week, saying it was “very important and promising.” Rezasyah suggested that Russia’s experience in energy security, infrastructure, food sufficiency, public health and technological development could be useful for ASEAN states, particularly those facing energy shortages.

In addition, Rezasyah called for closer cooperation between Russia’s and Southeast Asia’s universities and research institutions, saying this could support broader economic and technological ties. “It is time for ASEAN and Russia to think big, start small, and move fast,” he concluded.

A long road to power

The 2026 presidential campaign in Peru could finally bring victory to Keiko Fujimori, daughter of Alberto Fujimori, the country’s former president (1990-2000) and leader of the Popular Force party. In Peru, opinions about Alberto Fujimori are highly divided: Some call him a hardliner who brought order to the country with an ‘iron fist’ policy, while others consider him a corrupt dictator. 

This is the fourth presidential race in Keiko Fujimori’s career. She has previously lost in the runoff three times – in 2011, 2016, and 2021– to candidates from the center (or center-right) and left parties.

This year, on counting 99.859% of the ballots, results show that Fujimori has garnered 50.118% of the vote, placing her ahead of Roberto Sanchez from the left-wing party Together for Peru. Fujimori currently leads by around 43,000 votes, but this is standard practice in the highly fragmented Peruvian society, where the outcome of the presidential race could be decided by a razor-thin margin.

The runoff was held on June 7, but due to difficult terrain and the impossibility of organizing faster ballot delivery logistics, ballots are still being counted. Voting abroad will also influence the election results.

“It’s noteworthy that Fujimori lost the election within Peru and won thanks to votes from abroad. This demonstrates the rejection of ‘Fujimorism’ as a political project within the country, but shows that it is supported abroad,” Viktor Heifets, a professor at the St. Petersburg State University (SPbU) and director of the SPbU Center for Ibero-American Studies, told RT.

Heifets also points out that so far, Fujimori has received roughly the same percentage of votes as in the previous elections, and the margin is also minimal, which may indicate the persistence of Fujimorism as a political phenomenon in Peru. Clearly, public sentiment is inclining toward harsher methods of governance and establishing order in the country.

The family curse

The Fujimori family name has become a kind of political platform for Keiko Fujimori, but in a certain sense, it is also a curse for her own political project. Keiko Fujimori’s main campaign themes were centered around the fight against crime and political instability. She also promised a tough response to organized crime. This is entirely consistent with the continuation of the Fujimorism policy in Peru.

As a politician, Keiko has spent her entire political career within this political project. However, her policies have always adhered to a strategy of balancing its legacy with the need to build her own independent image, one that is integrated into the democratic paradigm of modern Peru.

To understand this, we must take a brief look at the phenomenon of Fujimorism in Peruvian history.

By 1990, following the tenure of President Alan Garcia, Peru had entered a serious economic crisis. During his five years in office, Garcia spent significant funds on social programs, which, however, had no positive effect and only accelerated inflation to 7,000%. The social measures did not secure the loyalty of large sections of the population, and instead led to the collapse of the country’s economy. 

Moreover, a number of leftist terrorist rebel groups became active in Peru. The most prominent of these were Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement; their terrorist attacks targeted not only the regular army but also the civilian population.

Against this backdrop, a widespread mistrust of traditional state institutions and anti-elite sentiments permeated society. Alberto Fujimori came to power as an anti-elite, non-systemic politician promising to solve the country’s deep economic and political crises. 

However, Fujimori’s popularity subsequently declined, and the politician himself resorted to authoritarian methods to “maintain loyalty,” including dissolving the bicameral Congress in 1992, repealing the 1979 constitution, and giving the National Intelligence Service (an institution that he had created) the right to spy on citizens.

Fujimori’s regime was accused of many crimes against human rights and freedoms. However, the most infamous project was the National Program for Reproductive Health and Family Planning – a campaign to combat poverty and overpopulation. It focused on forcibly sterilizing women residing in poor areas of the country, primarily among indigenous people. This “program” affected about 270,000 women.

In 2007, Fujimori was sentenced to six years in prison for human rights crimes; subsequently, he was charged on more counts and was released only in 2023. He died in September 2024.

From non-systemic to systemic Fujimorism

This political legacy is the foundation of Fujimorism, which Keiko Fujimori both relies on and tries to distance herself from. While her father rose to power and governed as an ‘outsider’, Keiko’s political career has been built around systemic participation in Peru’s political system. From 2006 to 2011, she served as a congresswoman, leading the Popular Force party, which won a record number of votes. The party controlled a majority in parliament and actively used constitutional instruments of pressure, including impeachments, amid a deep crisis of executive power.

Keiko Fujimori also faced corruption charges. She was accused of receiving approximately $1.2 million from the Brazilian construction conglomerate Odebrecht to finance her presidential campaigns in 2011 and 2016. In 2016, Odebrecht was accused of paying approximately $788 million in bribes and illegal donations to politicians and parties in 12 countries to secure lucrative construction contracts. The case ultimately fell apart. 

“With Keiko’s victory, we may speak of the full-fledged return of Fujimorism to power in Peru. Although the concept itself is undergoing changes, its two fundamental components remain unchanged: the establishment of order and economic pragmatism. And despite the Fujimoris’ toxicity for Peruvian society, Keiko’s proposals currently meet the needs of Peruvians,” Timur Almukov, an expert on Latin America, told RT.

Nevertheless, Almukov questions the existence of Fujimorism as an independent ideological concept separate from a specific family name. Currently, the movement rests solely on the authority and will of Keiko Fujimori.

Viktor Heifets, however, stresses that Keiko Fujimori’s policy will not resemble the Fujimorism of the ‘90s.

“It will be different. It’s more about a right-wing pragmatic politician coming to power in the country. Among other things, she’s showing a willingness to work with US President Donald Trump. However, she’s not a Trumpist. Keiko has simply identified a trend and is willing to follow it. So Peru will cooperate with Trump, though of course, this will raise questions in the future. Peru cooperates with China, and Trump’s attitude toward China is well known,” says Heifets.

A tilt to the ‘right’

Keiko Fujimori’s potential rise to power fits in well with Latin America’s general swing to the right side of the political spectrum. Right-wing politicians are either already in power or actively seeking it in Ecuador, Argentina, and Colombia. The outcome of the presidential elections in Brazil this October is also uncertain – a right-wing politician could also come to power there (as had already happened in the past).

Experts agree that this trend is only emerging and will intensify over time. But this shift can hardly be called radical, says Timur Almukov.

“Right-wing politicians are presenting a solution to the main challenge facing Latin American societies, which lies in the rise of crime and insecurity in the region. As long as the Salvadoran ‘iron fist’ model continues to be imported as a ready-made campaign slogan, politicians like Keiko Fujimori or Abelardo de la Espriella in Colombia will continue to win votes,” Almukov says. 

Leftists are not able to effectively respond to these challenges, Almukov says. Their approach – fighting the economic roots of crime – is not necessarily wrong, but it has become clear that it cannot immediately respond to public demand.

The US National Security Agency (NSA) has lost access to Anthropic’s advanced Mythos 5 AI model while using it to find software weaknesses, the New York Times has reported. The development comes amid Washington’s months-long dispute with the Silicon Valley firm.

The cutoff came after the Trump administration imposed export restrictions on Anthropic earlier this month, citing national security concerns, according to the NYT.

The loss “deprived” the intelligence agency of a “tool that has impressed and alarmed its analysts with how good it is at finding software weaknesses,” the outlet added.

During the tests, the model identified vulnerabilities in highly secure government networks “within hours,” the AP reported on Wednesday, citing an anonymous US official.

Anthropic’s AI technology has been increasingly deployed on classified government networks and integrated into US national-security work, with its models used for intelligence analysis, operational planning, and cyber operations.

Anthropic sued the government, arguing that the measures were unlawful retaliation for its refusal to relax safeguards on AI’s military uses.

Despite the phase-out order and ongoing legal battle, multiple media reports later claimed that parts of the US government continue to use Anthropic systems.

The developments come amid warnings from researchers, technology leaders, and security officials that AI systems are being integrated into military and intelligence operations faster than governments and institutions can adapt to their increasing capabilities. Experts have cautioned that the same tools that are used to strengthen cyber defenses could also automate attacks and lower barriers for malicious actors.

Iran believes it has emerged stronger from its latest confrontation with the United States and Israel, but remains deeply skeptical that any agreement reached at the negotiating table will be honored, University of Tehran professor Mohammad Marandi has insisted.

Speaking to Fyodor Lukyanov for Russia 24’s International Review, Marandi said the mood in Tehran is one of guarded confidence after what he described as a “decisive victory” in both military and diplomatic terms. He analyses that Iran’s opponents suffered serious strategic and financial losses, while the war had strengthened Tehran’s self-confidence and further deepened its ties with Russia.

At the same time, Marandi cautioned that few in Iran expect the new memorandum of understanding with Washington to be implemented smoothly, warning that the coming weeks and months are likely to remain difficult.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Do Iranians feel like victors?

Mohammad Marandi: The general view in Iran is that we have achieved a decisive victory. And it’s not just that the country has held its ground.

The Americans, the Israelis, and their allies suffered very serious losses throughout the war.

I believe that the financial damage inflicted on Iran’s enemies is considerably greater than the damage suffered by Iran itself, although that too was significant. As for the subsequent blockade, Iranians are convinced they have won that battle too. The Americans tried to starve Iran into submission, but this turned out to be a double-edged sword. The global economy suffered greatly.

And, of course, the Americans’ recklessness played into Russia’s hands, because of the energy crisis. After all, most of the oil from the Persian Gulf is heavy crude, and the only alternative source in the world with significant reserves of it is Russia.

So they’ve shot themselves in the foot twice. But the Iranians feel they’ve won this protracted war as well. That is precisely why Trump was so insistent on a quick deal.

Lukyanov: The deal, as it stands, suits Iran, as I understand it…

Marandi: Yes, the Iranians believe they have won at the negotiating table too. There were serious disagreements there. Contrary to what Trump and the Pakistani prime minister said, a few days before the agreement was announced, there was no final text of the memorandum. Significant contradictions remained. But by bombing Beirut in an attempt to scupper a potential agreement, Netanyahu, ironically, achieved the opposite. And when Iran decided to launch a second strike against the Israeli regime, Trump immediately made key concessions, including on Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli troops to mark the end of the war.

Marandi: Naturally, in Tehran, as, I am sure, in Moscow and throughout Russia, there’s enormous skepticism towards the United States. And there’s boundless mistrust of the Israeli regime. No one seriously expects that the signed memorandum will be easily implemented or that everything will be agreed upon in the second phase. That would be very naive. Most Iranians view the coming days, weeks and months as a very difficult period.

There are likely to be flare-ups of military tension, but most likely not on the scale of the 39-day war. On the whole, people are optimistic, although the economic difficulties are very real. However, Iran’s self-confidence has grown, and the country feels that its opponents have been significantly weakened, even if not completely swept away.

Lukyanov: A key element of this war is Iran’s relations with the Arab Gulf states. They were furious at the Iranian strikes, but cannot ignore the new realities and the strength Iran has demonstrated. What happens now? Is a security framework in the region possible?

Marandi: Iran’s actions against its neighbors were a response. These countries contributed to the war against Iran; in Tehran’s view, they were participants in it. They helped kill thousands of Iranians. And Iran had no choice but to strike back when its critical infrastructure was under threat. When the enemy began striking at vital targets, we had to respond with strikes against the states that were aiding the Americans and Israelis.

As we can see from the example of Oman, when a country does not provide bases or contribute to the war against Iran, it reaps the benefits. Iran’s relations with Oman are very good, as they are with Iraq. Tehran is now trying to engage each of the five remaining Gulf states bilaterally, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE. In some cases, it has been more successful, in others less so. The aim is to forge new relationships.

Lukyanov: Following last year’s 12-day confrontation, I heard some of your colleagues lamenting that Iran had found itself face to face with its enemies, practically on its own. Did you feel isolated this time around?

Marandi: To a certain extent, yes. But I must point out that Russia helped Iran and showed solidarity, particularly during this war. The same can be said of other friendly countries, to a greater extent than before. I think it’s fair to say that Iranian-Russian relations have advanced significantly over the last four or five years. And this war has continued to strengthen them. There’s certainly an element of isolation. When you stand up to an empire, you are alone. I’m sure that the Russians, even with the support of Iran and China over the last five years, have also felt isolated. But it is unfair to claim that Russia did not support Iran, especially in this war, because assistance was provided. And it seems to me that the path we are on is, unfortunately, linked to war, death and destruction; this is not of our own making, but it is leading to a further strengthening of the close ties between Iran and Russia.

This interview was produced specifically for the program International Review (Russia 24), and was translated and edited by RT team

Billionaire Bill Gates has claimed that the late pedophile and financier Jeffrey Epstein tried to blackmail him over affairs he had with Russian women, according to newly released congressional testimony.

The Microsoft co-founder appeared before the US House Oversight Committee on June 10 as part of an investigation into the convicted sex offender’s activities and ties to influential figures. A transcript of the closed-door interview was released on Tuesday amid scrutiny that Gates has faced since disclosures from the so-called Epstein files were released by the US Justice Department this past year.

The files include allegations concerning Gates’s extramarital relationships, requests for drugs, a purported sexually transmitted infection, and “sex with Russian girls.” They also detail his discussions with Epstein on global health initiatives, polio eradication, health data systems, and a proposed pandemic simulation years before the Covid-19 outbreak.

In his testimony, Gates acknowledged that, despite knowing of Epstein’s sex-related criminal conviction, he established contact with him in 2011 in hopes of getting access to wealthy donors for his global health projects. However, Gates said he cut ties with the financier in 2014 when Epstein failed to deliver.

According to the billionaire, Epstein then obtained “sensitive information” about his personal life and tried to use it to blackmail him and pull him back into his orbit.

“Epstein was working to use information about my infidelities, in addition to many lies that he layered on top, to pressure me to reengage with him,” Gates told lawmakers. “He was unsuccessful in this effort.”

Gates’ ties to Epstein have long raised questions, as the latter lacked any known public health expertise, despite taking part in discussions on global health projects and data systems. The Microsoft co-founder claims the meetings were aimed solely at securing funding for the Gates Foundation but resulted in no charitable contributions.

Gates has repeatedly apologized for his association with Epstein, saying he should never have met with him in the first place.

The broader Epstein files scandal has revived questions about how the convicted sex offender managed to maintain access to billionaires, politicians, bankers, and royals after his 2008 conviction.

Other prominent figures who have already testified in the investigation include former President Bill Clinton, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and billionaire Les Wexner.

China’s LineShine has been named the world’s fastest supercomputer at the International Supercomputing Conference in Hamburg, Germany, surpassing the US-built El Capitan. It marks the first time since 2017 that a Chinese machine has topped the TOP500 ranking of the world’s most powerful supercomputers.

Supercomputers are used for complex scientific tasks ranging from climate modeling and human brain simulations to cryptography and advanced research.

According to rankings released on Tuesday, LineShine, developed by the National Supercomputing Center in Shenzhen, can perform nearly 2.2 quintillion (billion billion) calculations per second. It outperformed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s El Capitan by more than 20% in a key benchmark. The American system had held the top spot in the twice-yearly TOP500 rankings since November 2024.

LineShine also stands out for relying entirely on standard central processing units (CPU) rather than the graphics processing units (GPU) used by most leading supercomputers.

GPUs, prized for handling large numbers of simultaneous calculations, are critical to advanced AI systems and have become a focal point in the technological rivalry between the US and China. Seeking to slow China’s progress, the administration of US President Donald Trump has imposed restrictions on exports of advanced chips.

“China can adapt to develop its own version of technology as good as – or maybe even better than – existing technology, despite US export controls,” Dongarra said.

This week marks the tenth anniversary of the Brexit referendum – an event that has reshaped British politics over the past decade and may well continue to do so into the future.

Brexit had its origins in Britain’s complex relationship with the EU and its predecessor organization, the European Economic Community (EEC) – a relationship that has for decades been at the heart of British politics.

Since the 1950s, Britain has been divided over whether it should become a member of these European-based organizations, and the Conservative and Labour parties have always been split over the issue – with both right wing Conservatives and left-wing Labourites being strongly opposed to UK membership.

French President Charles de Gaulle, fearful that Britain would be a Trojan horse of American influence, vetoed two attempts by Britain to join the EEC in the 1960s.

In 1973, after de Gaulle’s death, Prime Minister Edward Heath, a moderate Conservative, arranged Britain’s belated entry into the EEC. When Harold Wilson became Labour prime minister in 1974, in response to pressure from the Labour left, he held a referendum a year later on whether Britain should remain a member – and 67% of UK voters decided that it should.

It is noteworthy that the 1975 referendum was conducted in a civilized manner, and that the arguments put forward by both sides were confined to the issue of EEC membership.

Margaret Thatcher was always a lukewarm supporter of the EU – once describing it as “a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.” Thatcher refused to allow the British pound to be replaced by the euro, and engaged in a protracted war of attrition to prevent the EU from encroaching upon British sovereignty and independence. It was Thatcher’s dispute with her foreign secretary, Geoffrey Howe, over the EU that provoked his resignation, and led to the leadership challenge that deposed her as prime minister.

Tony Blair was an enthusiastic supporter of the EU and the vast expansion of its power and influence that occurred during New Labour’s term in office.

Fast-forward to David Cameron’s prime ministership in 2015. Cameron was then engaged in renegotiating the Maastricht Treaty – the foundational document of the EU that set out the terms governing Britain’s membership in the bloc. Right-wing Conservatives remained strongly opposed to Britain’s membership in the EU – and in order to obtain their support for his renegotiations, Cameron promised them that if he could not obtain an outcome they approved of, he would hold a referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU.

The EU refused to grant Cameron any concessions – and Cameron was obliged to hold a referendum, believing that it had no prospect of succeeding.

The Brexit referendum was set down for June 23, 2016 and Cameron, supported by Blair and a raft of politicians from both major parties, led the well-funded but poorly run and focused Remain campaign.

It soon became clear, however, that Brexit had become an issue around which deep-seated dissatisfaction with other, seemingly unrelated, issues – including mass immigration, the loss of British sovereignty, the faltering economy, the cost of living crisis, and ethnic diversity – galvanized.

Long buried divisions within the Conservative and Labour parties re-emerged with renewed bitterness as the campaign got underway. Boris Johnson threw his lot in with the Leave campaign – thereby laying the basis for his election as prime minister in 2019. The Leave campaign also saw the emergence of Nigel Farage as an influential national political figure, and the Reform party has its origins in Farage’s Brexit campaign.

Dominic Cummings emerged from obscurity to run the successful Leave campaign – and on June 23, 2016, 52% of UK voters surprisingly voted to leave the EU. It was in the impoverished working class north that the Leave vote was by far the highest.

David Cameron, shocked by both the referendum result and the bitterness and division that he had unwittingly unleashed, immediately resigned as prime minister.

The divisions within British society conjured up by the Brexit referendum intensified over the next three years as the woke elites in the south joined forces with Remainer politicians (most notably Theresa May), the judiciary, the finance sector, the civil service, and most media organizations to sabotage the implementation of Britain’s departure from the EU.

Only after Boris Johnson’s election victory in 2019, on a platform of promising to “get Brexit done,” was Brexit finally implemented, four years after the referendum – and then only in a modified and partial form. Even today, Britain remains bound by the European Human Rights Act and a raft of EU legislation that had been incorporated into UK law.

Boris Johnson was never forgiven for implementing Brexit, and Remainer animosity played a large part in him subsequently being deposed as prime minister.

Most politicians, however, believe that the referendum result should be accepted, at least for the time being – notwithstanding that many would like to reverse it, and recent polls show that a majority of voters are now in favor of rejoining the EU.

Brexit may have receded somewhat into the background as a discrete political issue – but that is because the Brexit referendum itself exposed and highlighted those very issues – the cost-of-living crisis, mass immigration, woke ideologies, cultural diversity – that now completely dominate contemporary UK politics.

How then is the continuing impact of the Brexit referendum to be explained?

Remainer animosity – fostered by powerful elites – is perfectly explicable and it is not likely to go away any time soon. Nor is the rather stale debate about the economic consequences of Brexit likely to cease. But Brexit was never about economics – something that Cameron and most Remainers never understood – nor was it really about Britain leaving the EU.

The Brexit referendum was a catalyst that gave British voters who had been pauperized and culturally alienated by globalization a unique opportunity to express their mounting anger and dissatisfaction by the simple act of casting a vote in a referendum.

For these voters, the EU was a symbol of globalization and all its consequences – poverty for the working class, mass immigration, cultural diversity, and the dominance of woke ideologies. And what David Cameron did was give these voters, by voting yes or no to EU membership, an opportunity to vent their anger against globalization.

People who voted Remain were by and large those who had benefited from globalization and wholeheartedly embraced all of its consequences – economic, cultural, and ideological.

What the Brexit referendum did was dramatically expose, for the first time, the seemingly unbridgeable north/south class and ideological divide that is at the heart of contemporary British society. This divide still exists and has grown wider and more bitter over the past ten years – and that is why Brexit still resonates powerfully in Britain and will continue to do so into the future.

Hungary has delayed a key procedural step in the EU membership bids of Ukraine and Moldova, complicating Kiev’s plan to open all six accession clusters by mid-July, Politico has reported. Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar has said fast-tracking Ukraine’s EU accession would be premature.

Kiev has repeatedly demanded a faster path into the bloc, with Vladimir Zelensky insisting on full membership no later than 2027 despite opposition from multiple EU members.

Budapest blocked the circulation of a joint letter outlining the position of all 27 EU member states to the European Council and European Commission, Politico reported on Tuesday, citing two EU diplomats.

Decisions on accession to the bloc require unanimous backing from member states, with Hungary remaining the only country opposed to moving the process forward.

“There are six clusters in total, and we don’t think opening them all at once is a good idea,” Magyar told reporters after last week’s European Council meeting in Brussels. Such a move could send “the wrong message” to Western Balkan countries that have spent years pursuing EU membership, he said, referring to Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, and North Macedonia

Magyar has previously said Ukraine’s accession could take ten to 15 years and tied further progress to Kiev’s treatment of the ethnic Hungarian minority. Around 80,000 Hungarians live in Ukraine, mostly in the western Zakarpattia Region, and their status has long strained relations between the two neighbors. The issue was a recurring source of friction under Magyar’s predecessor, Viktor Orban, who repeatedly blocked Kiev’s efforts to move closer to the EU.

Under Orban, Hungary refused to send weapons to Kiev and protested the forced mobilization of ethnic Hungarians, some of whom hold Hungarian passports, into the Ukrainian military to fight Russia.

Ukraine’s accession bid has also been consistently opposed by Slovakia. Bratislava and Budapest argue that Ukrainian membership could draw the EU into an open conflict with Russia and undermine the bloc’s economy.

Moscow says it does not oppose Ukraine joining the EU, but has criticized what Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described as the bloc’s evolution into an “aggressive military-political alliance” and an “appendage of NATO.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also argued that Ukrainian accession could weaken the EU and potentially destabilize the bloc.

Nigeria sees the upcoming Russia-Africa Summit in Moscow as an important opportunity to advance bilateral ties with Russia, newly appointed Nigerian Ambassador to Moscow Joseph Olusola Iji has said.

Speaking to RT, the diplomat said strengthening relations will be at the center of his mission in Moscow. Abuja expects to participate in the summit and views the event as a key platform for expanding cooperation across the continent as well.

“It will also be an advantage for multilateral relationship... it’s quite important for us,” the envoy stated.

Last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that Moscow will host the third Russia-Africa Summit in October, saying the Kremlin expects African leaders to approve a new three-year cooperation roadmap.

Iji acknowledged a persistent trade imbalance between the two countries, which he linked to sanctions-related restrictions, payment difficulties, and logistical challenges. He argued that expanding Russian industrial investment in Nigeria could help increase bilateral trade and create a more balanced economic relationship.

Iji highlighted the importance of media cooperation, saying: “It’s very important [media exchange with Russia] because the media are expected to build bridges.”

Last October, the administration of US President Donald Trump placed Nigeria on its list of ‘Countries of Particular Concern’ amid allegations of genocide against Christians in the country. Abuja has repeatedly rejected the claims, arguing that the country’s security crisis is driven by insurgency and banditry rather than religious persecution and affects Nigerians of all faiths.

India has honored Russian scholar Dr. Lyudmila Khokhlova, acclaimed Indology professor and linguist, with the Padma Shri award for her contribution to the field of literature and education, and advancing Indian languages and culture.

The Moscow State University scholar has a decades-long academic career spanning historical linguistics, the origins and evolution of Sikhism, and the study of Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, and Marwari. She has authored six books and 92 publications, while teaching generations of young India specialists.

President Droupadi Murmu presented India’s fourth highest civilian honor to Dr. Khokhlova on Tuesday in New Delhi.

Earlier in January, speaking to RT when the award was announced on India’s Republic Day, she said: “I wish for Indians to keep moving forward, continue their rapid economic development and preserve all the glorious spiritual traditions since ancient times.”

“This award means a lot to me both personally and professionally. And I will work as much as possible to make myself worthy of this award,” she added. Dr. Khokhlova is an Associate Professor in the Department of Indian Philology at the Institute of Asian and African Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Fewer than ten Russian scholars have received the Padma Shri since it was instituted in 1954. 

The Iran conflict shows that the era of the unipolar world is over, a leading policy expert has said. The US can bomb a country to the Stone Age, but cannot “create global governance,” Samir Saran, the head of the Observer Research Foundation, told the Primakov Readings International Forum in Moscow.

“If the biggest power in the world cannot open the Hormuz Strait, I don’t think that power should be recognized as being anything close to being powerful,” he said on Wednesday at the event.

Speaking exclusively to RT on the sidelines of the event, Saran stated that traditional friends Moscow and New Delhi do not have another partnership that can claim the same level of trust.

“India and Russia have a very special relationship and a special connection with each other,” he said.

On New Delhi’s concerns regarding Moscow’s ties with Beijing, he said Russia and India should “view only what we do with each other. We should double it, then triple it, then grow [the relationship].”

“We should be each other’s most essential partners and we should continue to invest in that. What we do with others should not be a concern to either of us.”

“We will not have the dominance of the USA and USSR of the past ever. There will be no real superpower in the next 25-30 years,” he said.

Saran went on to say that commodities will be key among the “four drivers of the world of the future,” listing technology, demography, and identity as the other three.

He slammed the “new export control ethic emerging around AI,” saying it will create divides like never before. “Technology is going to create an underclass,” he warned.

Saran predicted that “identity and sovereignty are going to be stronger in the next 20 years than they were in the last 20 years.” 

Germany has pulled the plug on its largest naval shipbuilding project since the end of WWII, scrapping plans for a fleet of six F126 frigates first ordered under then-Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen.

The plans to axe the project were first reported by Der Spiegel on Tuesday, which said the program had long been plagued by numerous issues. The ministry confirmed the move the next day, saying it was “due to significant delays, enormous cost increases, and incalculable risks.”

It also noted that completing six F126s would have driven total costs above €18 billion ($20.3 billion) – compared to the initial estimate of €5.27 billion for four vessels.

The contract was initially awarded to the Dutch Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding (DSNS), but the project quickly stalled as the company struggled to transfer ship design data into the production systems used by German shipyards and suppliers due to incompatible software.

Costs already started ballooning as early as 2019 – even before the contract went to DSNS – with then-Left Party MP Matthias Hohn calling the project a “money pit.”

Critics pointed to the fact that Katrin Suder, then-state secretary in the Defense Ministry, was herself a veteran McKinsey employee. A later federal audit found that in most cases, the ministry failed to justify why external consultants were necessary.

According to Der Spiegel, as DSNS continued to struggle with the order, German defense officials weighed handing the contract to German shipbuilder Naval Vessels Lurssen, now owned by Rheinmetall, the country’s largest arms manufacturer. But the ministry ultimately ruled this out, saying it would have meant waiving its right to sue DSNS for damages.

The termination of the project was a severe blow to Rheinmetall, with shares plunging as much as 17% in the stock’s worst single-day fall in years.

In place of the F126, the ministry plans to buy eight MEKO A-200-DEU frigates – ships originally pitched as a stopgap “bridge solution.” Built by the TKMS shipbuilding conglomerate, the MEKO A-200 is far smaller than the F126, at around 120 meters and 4,200 tons.

The first four frigates would cost around €6.3 billion, with an option on four more for around €5.3 billion if exercised by the end of 2026, pending approval from the Bundestag’s Budget Committee.

The termination of the controversial project comes as Germany carries out its largest militarization campaign in decades, with the 2026 defense budget reaching €108 billion. Germany and other European nations have cited the supposed ‘Russian threat’ to justify the build-up. Moscow has dismissed speculation that it plans to attack NATO as “nonsense.”

A church in Odessa dedicated to the Russian Orthodox saint Aleksandr Nevsky has been seized by anti-Russian activists. The incident follows a pattern of government-backed crackdowns on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), the country’s largest denomination.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Ukrainian authorities have carried out raids on monasteries and churches, imposed sanctions on clergy members, and backed efforts to transfer UOC properties to the rival Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), whose clerics reportedly participated in the church takeover on Tuesday.

Why is there a church schism in Ukraine?

The OCU was launched as part of then-President Pyotr Poroshenko’s reelection campaign in 2019 and is considered schismatic by the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the UOC.

The canonical Ukrainian church has denied accusations that it serves Moscow’s interests and formally severed all administrative ties with the ROC in 2022. Despite that, it faces a possible legal ban under a law that current Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky signed in 2024.

How was the Odessa church targeted?

According to the UOC’s Odessa diocese, priests and parishioners arrived at the Aleksandr Nevsky church in the morning to find the gates locked. During a confrontation outside, one of the men involved in the takeover, who appeared to be a private security employee hired by the OCU, allegedly grabbed a priest by the throat.

In a video posted online, OCU cleric Teodor Orobets claimed the church now belongs to “real parishioners,” including “military service members, veterans, and our military chaplains.” He declared the church to be re-dedicated to an 11th-century monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery.

In footage filmed inside the church after the takeover, he criticized icons depicting saints who have no connection to modern-day Ukraine, denouncing them as “markers of Moscow religious life.”

What was the Church response?

The UOC said it will challenge the seizure in court. Church officials noted that the congregation restored the building between 1999 and 2001 and has used it ever since.

The church was originally built in 1897 on the grounds of a military hospital, but it was forced to shut down in the late 1940s under Soviet rule.

The temple is dedicated to Aleksandr Nevsky, a medieval Russian prince and Orthodox saint who ruled several principalities, including Kiev. The OCU has rejected his veneration, citing his role in the development of Russian statehood.

Agapetus of Pechersk, after whom the OCU wants to rename the church, is recognized as a saint by both the Ukrainian church it seeks to replace and the Russian one.

Former Scottish National Party chief executive Peter Murrell was jailed for five years and three months on Tuesday after admitting to embezzling more than £400,000 ($540,000) from the party. The offenses took place over a 12-year period.

The case rocked the SNP and drew former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, Murrell’s ex-wife, into a lengthy police investigation, although she was later cleared of wrongdoing.

The 61-year-old spent the stolen funds on hundreds of luxury purchases, including a £124,550 ($168,000) motorhome, a Jaguar SUV, jewelry, Montblanc pens, luxury watches, homeware, and designer stationery. He concealed the thefts by falsifying accounting records, entering false accounting codes in the SNP’s accounts, and submitting fake invoices, allowing him to embezzle a total of £400,310.65 ($540,400) over 12 years.

Murrell’s lawyer, John Scullion KC, said his client accepts full responsibility for the crimes and recognizes that a prison sentence is “entirely deserved.”

Murrell’s crimes came to light during a police investigation into the SNP’s finances that was launched in 2021 after complaints about the party’s handling of funds. Detectives subsequently uncovered evidence that the party’s longtime chief executive systematically diverted money for personal use while concealing the thefts through false accounting entries and fake invoices.

The case cast a shadow over Sturgeon, who led the SNP for nearly a decade and was arrested and questioned as part of the police probe known as Operation Branchform. Police later said she would not face any action. Sturgeon denied having any knowledge of Murrell’s offenses, saying she was “deceived, misled and betrayed” and was “completely exonerated” by the investigation.

Nuclear weapons are the only thing preventing humanity from sliding into a global war, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, as he commented on the worsening state of international security.

While the civilization-ending power of atomic weapons still deters a global confrontation, regional conflicts continue to erupt and are becoming increasingly devastating, the Russian official said on Wednesday. Peskov made the remarks while moderating a panel discussion at the Primakov Readings in Moscow.

“Directly speaking, we have nothing left in the world except nuclear deterrence. It’s the only thing saving the world from a global war,” Peskov said of international security mechanisms.

“We don’t really have any levers to reach an agreement in this area,” he added. “We can’t even reform the United Nations Security Council.”

The current international security system was established after World War II, with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council playing a central role in maintaining global stability. The same countries – China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US – are also the only states recognized as nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Several other countries have acquired nuclear weapons outside that framework, including India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, though the latter neither confirms nor denies its status.

Critics argue that growing tensions between major powers have left the UN Security Council increasingly divided and less effective. Moscow has blamed the situation on Western efforts to preserve the unipolar world order that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Recently, US President Donald Trump said he is satisfied with the situation regarding the Strait of Hormuz and the progress in negotiations with Iran. US Vice President J.D. Vance expressed similar sentiments earlier, noting that they succeeded in creating a mechanism to prevent further escalation between Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah, and laid the foundation for a future peace agreement during the talks in Switzerland. 

At first glance, this looks like a diplomatic breakthrough, but the reality is more complex. The Trump administration’s optimistic rhetoric doesn’t change the fact that the negotiation process remains highly volatile, and trust between the parties is minimal or even nonexistent. Moreover, while Vance led the negotiations in Switzerland, Trump, in his characteristic manner, once again lashed out at Iran, effectively jeopardizing the efforts of his own negotiating team. As a result, the Iranian side has temporarily withdrawn from the negotiations, although the Trump administration is trying to downplay this episode.

Nevertheless, it’s premature to say the negotiations have failed. Subsequent statements by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi demonstrated that despite its irritation, Tehran is not interested in immediately disrupting the negotiation process. On the contrary, the Iranian side continues to leave room for diplomacy, while demonstrating that it is not prepared to make concessions under pressure and public threats.

Currently, a temporary negotiation framework is in effect – a sort of memorandum that could remain valid for another 50-60 days. This is not a full-fledged agreement, but merely a pause that each side is using to its own advantage. For the US, this is an opportunity to demonstrate that the crisis is manageable and to reduce risks regarding the Strait of Hormuz and the Lebanese front. For Iran, it is a way to buy time, reduce sanctions pressure, restore diplomatic maneuverability, and test the extent to which Washington is truly capable of controlling its own rhetoric and the actions of its allies. 

Therefore, unconditional pessimism is as misguided as excessive optimism. The negotiations have not failed. The communication channel is functioning, the parties continue to exchange signals, and the timeframe offers a chance for further coordination. But this opportunity is rather limited and unstable. Iran, as always, is trying to win time and make the most of the diplomatic pause. The US is trying to portray the situation as a manageable process, even though it occasionally creates new risks on its own.

The situation with regard to the Strait of Hormuz also remains uncertain. Formally, the US and Iran have reportedly agreed to establish a communication line to ensure the safe passage of ships. Trump has hastened to declare that the strait is “fully open.” However, Iranian sources paint a completely different picture. According to them, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has not granted passage to any vessels. This means that even at the basic information level, the parties and their associated media channels are describing events differently.

This is precisely why there is no certainty regarding the strait. American political rhetoric, the demonstrations of control by Iran, and market signals all tell a different story. The overall picture is neither transparent nor stable. Formally, it may look like de-escalation, but in practice, it resembles a regime of managed uncertainty in which each side retains the ability to interpret events to its own advantage.

The reaction of the oil markets should not mislead anyone. The fact that Brent is currently hovering around $78-$80 per barrel looks good for Washington: An extreme price shock has been avoided for now, as markets appear to have partially accepted the possibility of stabilization. But this doesn’t mean the crisis is over. The oil market reacts not only to facts but also to expectations. If there is a new military incident, an attack on a ship or its blockage, or a tough statement from one of the parties, prices could once again surge to $100 per barrel. In this case, the current stabilization will prove to be a temporary pause rather than a sign of a real settlement.

This is precisely why the situation cannot be assessed in a definitive manner. On the one hand, the existence of a communication channel and a negotiation framework reduces the risk of accidental escalation. On the other, the absence of clear rules, as well as contradictory statements and ongoing military pressure make the situation extremely volatile. This is not a diplomatic failure – but it’s not a true success either. Rather, it is a temporary pause; the parties are trying to buy time, test each other’s intentions, and prevent immediate failure. 

The main conclusion is that the Strait of Hormuz has become not just a transportation corridor, but an indicator of the US-Iran dynamic. As long as there is uncertainty with it, the entire negotiation framework remains unstable. The sides can declare that the situation is under control, but in reality, a single incident, political statement, or misinterpreted action at sea can change everything. Therefore, it’s too early to talk about full-fledged de-escalation. The term ‘gray zone’ is more relevant: While room for agreement remains, there is also the risk of a new escalation. 

Furthermore, the Israeli factor cannot be eliminated. An Iran-US agreement will not exist in a vacuum, but in a regional environment where Israel remains an independent player with its own interests, threats, and red lines. Factors like Lebanon and Hezbollah, the security of Israel’s northern borders, and Iran’s influence on regional armed movements will all directly or indirectly influence the negotiations. Even if Washington and Tehran formally agree on the de-escalation parameters, it is unclear whether the negotiation process can remain free of external pressure.

A separate issue that has not disappeared from the agenda is Iran’s nuclear program. Formally, Iran can still claim that its nuclear activities are peaceful. But the context has changed. Prior to February 28, there were no significant or active discussions in Iran about moving toward creating a nuclear bomb, but now these discussions have become a reality. One can’t simply remove it from the agenda or pretend that nothing has happened. 

Washington will now have to deal not only with the technical parameters of Iran’s nuclear program, but also with the new political atmosphere in Iran. Following recent military pressure, the arguments of Iranian officials who favor a more hardline stance have gained additional traction. This poses a difficult question for the US: How can it restrict Iran’s nuclear program without strengthening the forces within Iran that believe making concessions to the West is dangerous and pointless?

All of this makes the current situation ambiguous. The negotiations have not failed and there is still room for compromise; but a full-fledged breakthrough is impossible. Too many factors currently prevent the parties from reaching a lasting agreement. While the chance of reaching an agreement remains, it will not depend on rhetorical statements, but on the ability of the US and Iran to move from demonstrative signals to real political concessions.

Niger has formally initiated the process of its withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC), months after its decision to exit the tribunal over claims of “neo-colonialist” bias.

The West African country reportedly submitted a letter to the UN on Monday to leave the Rome Statute, the treaty on which the ICC was founded.

“While the court had raised great hopes among peoples who cherish peace and justice, it has been misused and exploited,” the letter said, according to AP.

In response, the ICC said it regrets “any decision to depart from the collective effort to end impunity for the most serious international crimes.”

The withdrawal will take effect after 12 months, making Niger the third country to leave the ICC. Burundi withdrew from the Rome Statute in October 2017, accusing the court of deliberately targeting Africans for prosecution. The Philippines followed in 2018, with then-President Rodrigo Duterte saying the ICC was being used as a “political tool” against his country.

Niger’s intention to withdraw was first made public last September when the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), of which it is a member along with Burkina Faso and Mali, issued a joint statement saying the ICC had revealed itself as a “global example of selective justice.”

The AES denounced The Hague-based tribunal as an instrument of imperialist “neocolonial repression” and accused it of targeting actors outside the “closed circle” of beneficiaries of institutionalized international impunity.

The three countries have for years battled deadly insurgencies waged by jihadist groups linked to Al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). The authorities in Mali, where the violence first erupted, referred the situation to the ICC in 2012, but in more than a decade, the court has pursued only two prosecutions.

In March 2025, Burkina Faso and Mali withdrew from the International Organization of Francophone Nations, saying the Paris-based group had deviated from its original mission of promoting cultural and technical cooperation and become a biased tool of “political manipulation.”

Israeli forces have deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank, according to a UN inquiry, which says the attacks amount to war crimes and point to genocidal intent.

Srinivasan Muralidhar, chair of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel, presented the findings on Tuesday while discussing a new report on Israeli violations against minors.

He said the commission had found “indisputable evidence” of deliberate targeted killings of Palestinian children, as well as torture, inhumane and degrading treatment, sexual and gender-based violence, and attacks on infrastructure essential to children, such as orphanages, healthcare, and educational facilities.

According to the commission, Israeli forces killed more than 20,000 Palestinian children and injured over 44,000 others between October 2023 and October 2025. UNICEF findings also suggest that by February 2026, the toll in Gaza had risen to 21,289 children killed and 44,500 injured.

Israeli forces have killed over 20,000 children & injured 44,000 more since 7 Oct. 2023, Srinivasan Muralidhar, chair of the @UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory & Israel, told reporters today. #HRC62

More on their new report ➡️ https://t.co/gK2KhtlgFb pic.twitter.com/ZQGUQkJKxD

— UN Human Rights Council Investigative Bodies (@uninvhrc) June 23, 2026

Muralidhar stated that children accounted for around 30% of those killed in the occupied Palestinian territories and that attacks on them have been a “continuing activity.”

The commission attributed much of the toll to Israel’s use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas and a failure to take adequate precautions despite the presence of children.

The report also documented cases of children allegedly shot by Israeli snipers or drones while evacuating, sheltering in tents, approaching aid sites, or staying in displacement camps. Medical workers have noted a pattern of single gunshot wounds to the head or upper body, suggesting deliberate targeting.

The commission surmised that Israeli authorities and security forces have continued to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Gaza, as well as war crimes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel has rejected genocide accusations and has repeatedly insisted that its military campaign is aimed at the militant group Hamas, not civilians.

The Gaza war began after the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, in which around 1,200 people were killed and more than 250 taken hostage. Israel’s subsequent campaign has devastated much of Gaza, killing over 73,000 Palestinians and injuring more than 173,000, according to local health authorities.

At least 20 people have been killed in an armed attack in Nigeria’s central Plateau State, local police reported on Tuesday.

The assault took place before dawn on Sunday in Kawel village, located in the Mushere district of Bokkos Local Government Area. Police said a group of armed men stormed the community at around 4:40 AM, opening an attack that left multiple people dead.

Security forces, including officers from the Plateau State Police Command and the Violent Crime Response Unit, were dispatched to the area shortly after receiving reports of the violence. The authorities said the attackers exchanged fire with security personnel before retreating.

Eighteen victims were found dead at the scene and three others were taken to the hospital with injuries. “Subsequently, two of the injured victims were confirmed dead by a medical doctor, bringing the total number of casualties to twenty,” police said.

The motive behind the attack remains unclear. No group has claimed responsibility.

The West African state has long struggled with criminal gangs and extremist groups, which frequently hold people for ransom. This gained global attention in 2014 when Boko Haram militants kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls from Chibok in Borno State.

On Saturday, Nigeria’s Defense Headquarters announced that retired Major General Rabe Abubakar died in captivity after being abducted by unidentified gunmen.

Last month, suspected Boko Haram militants abducted more than 40 pupils during a raid on a school in Borno State, according to local officials and civil society groups. The attackers reportedly stormed classrooms while lessons were underway, forcing dozens of other students to flee into nearby bushland.

Russia and India are working on increasing bilateral trade volumes, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, as the countries pursue a trade target of $100 billion by 2030.

Ties between Russia and India, the world’s most populous country and one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, are set to reach new heights, Peskov told RT on the sidelines of the 12th International Scientific and Expert Forum ‘Primakov Readings’ in Moscow.

“We are working on increasing the volume of economic relations. This volume has a stable growth trend. We will work together further,” Peskov said.

The bilateral trade target of $100 billion to be reached by 2030 was set during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India in December.

Earlier this month, Putin expressed confidence in achieving the target, saying, “At present, trade turnover stands at approximately $58 to $60 billion. However, all the necessary conditions are in place to intensify our joint efforts and achieve even more ambitious goals.”

China is currently India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade at $151.1 billion.

India is a country with potential in all areas, Peskov said, adding Moscow’s ties with New Delhi have a “particularly privileged status.”

Earlier at the Primakov Readings, Peskov posed a query on India’s role in the emerging global order, linking its bilateral ties with Russia, to policy expert Samir Saran, the head of the Observer Research Foundation think tank.

In reply, Saran said the role of Russia-India relations is crucial in the emerging world. India will play a pivotal role in a world “where commodities and climate change and development challenges exist. If the Russians and the Americans were the military superpowers and the Chinese are the economic superpowers, India is the development superpower,” he said.

Saran pointed out that India, with a population of about 1.47 billion, has lifted “more people out of poverty, provided more food, provided more solutions to more people than anyone else in the world.”

The World Bank said last year that the number of Indians living on less than $2.15 a day, the international benchmark for extreme poverty, fell sharply from 16.2% in 2011-12 to just 2.3% in 2022-23.

US President Donald Trump has ordered the Justice Department to investigate major oil companies, accusing them of gouging consumers by keeping gasoline prices high despite a drop in the price of oil.

Oil prices surged after the US and Israel launched a bombing campaign against Iran in February, disrupting global trade.

In a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, Trump said he directed the Justice Department to “immediately start looking into this,” adding that he expected prices to fall “a lot faster than what I’m seeing.” He did not name any oil companies in the post.

“Those prices are dropping like a rock! In other words, customers are being ‘gouged.’”

Oil prices have fallen sharply from highs reached during the US-Israeli war against Iran, after Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, reached almost $120 a barrel in May.

The average US price of regular gasoline has dropped to around $3.90 a gallon from a peak of over $4 in April, though it remains high compared to pre-war levels. Gasoline prices tend to follow crude over time, but not immediately. Refining, distribution, and local market factors also shape prices at the pump.

Brent crude futures for August fell 0.91% to $76.38 a barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate crude for August dropped 0.94% to $72.52 a barrel.

The US Treasury Department has also issued a temporary sanctions waiver for Iran’s oil sector, authorizing the production, sale, delivery, and import of Iranian crude oil and petrochemicals.

The move comes as Washington and Tehran pursue negotiations following Qatari- and Pakistani-mediated talks in Switzerland over the weekend. The two sides agreed to a 60-day roadmap toward a final accord, further technical negotiations, and the creation of a high-level committee to oversee the process.

Vladimir Zelensky will skip a major gathering of Kiev’s key backers in Poland to keep it free of “scandals,” the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has said. His absence is linked to Kiev’s honoring of Nazi-collaborators who murdered over 100,000 Polish men, women, and children during World War II.

Tensions between Ukraine and Poland – a key supporter of Kiev – escalated in recent weeks when Zelensky named a special-forces unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which collaborated with Nazi Germany during WWII and whose fighters killed tens of thousands of Polish civilians.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki responded by stripping Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest honor, prompting several senior Ukrainian officials to renounce their own Polish honors.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko confirmed that Zelensky will not be present at the Ukraine Recovery Conference June 25-26 in Gdansk, which brings together senior EU and NATO figures with Ukrainian politicians and numerous think tanks, and that she will lead the Ukrainian delegation.

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Georgy Tikhiy called the decision “absolutely justified,” adding: “It is aimed at ensuring that the conference remains within a pragmatic, economic, and correct framework, without excessive politicization and without scandals.”

Tikhiy noted that Ukraine will be represented by top officials, expressing hope that “the conference will be very successful, despite such unfriendly attitudes from the Polish president.”

Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a fierce political rival of Nawrocki, said he will not be troubled by Zelensky’s absence. “There was a certain tension between the presidents and some disproportionate reactions on both sides, an unnecessary escalation of emotional tension,” he told reporters. “It may even mean a more efficient conference, and I treat it as a gesture toward de-escalation.”

Tusk previously called the dispute a “strategic mistake that will cost both sides: In business, geopolitically, and reputationally.”

Moscow has welcomed Poland’s pushback. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in late May that the nationalists being honored by Kiev are “absolute bloody butchers” that “killed Poles [and] Jews, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.”

The Kenyan Health Ministry has suspended construction of a controversial US-backed Ebola quarantine facility in the East African country after a court challenge raised questions over the legality of the project and its potential risks.

The move came after Health Minister Aden Duale appeared before the High Court in the capital, Nairobi, and apologized for defying an earlier court order to halt the project. A day earlier, on Monday, the minister was found guilty of contempt of court in a ruling by High Court Justice Patricia Nyaundi.

“The Cabinet Secretary [minister] also assured the court that all construction and site activities had been completely halted and expressed regret for any misunderstanding or perception of non-compliance with the court orders,” the ministry said on Tuesday.

Justice Nyaundi warned Duale against any further disobedience of court directives and discharged him without imposing any punishment.

The proposed quarantine facility at Laikipia Air Base in Nanyuki, located about 200 km north of Nairobi, drew attention last month after Washington announced a $13.5 million initiative to boost Kenya’s Ebola preparedness amid a deadly outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Healthcare experts in the US, including former officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have also warned that the project presents “significant clinical, ethical, operational, and legal challenges.”

At least three people were reportedly killed earlier this month during protests in Nanyuki against the planned initiative.

Despite the order, flights carrying medical equipment and specialist personnel have continued to arrive at the air base, Reuters reported, citing flight-tracking data as well as US and diplomatic sources.

On Tuesday, Kenyan Health Minister Duale told the court that decisions made by the Health Ministry “are guided by scientific evidence, technical advice, and strategic public health considerations.” He said, however, that “the proposed collaboration” between Nairobi and Washington in relation to the facility was suspended “immediately after the conservatory orders were issued.”

Israeli troops have killed two people in southern Lebanon, in the first reported fatalities since Sunday. The fragile Israeli-Hezbollah ceasefire is a key condition set by Iran for peace talks with the US, a process that has drawn sharp criticism from West Jerusalem.

The incident occurred on Tuesday in the Muslim-majority town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa and left another person wounded, Lebanon’s Health Ministry said.

The Israeli military claimed that “Hezbollah terrorists operating under civilian cover” approached its positions and failed to respond to warning shots, prompting troops to open direct fire.

Hezbollah said Israeli forces targeted a civilian municipal team that had been clearing roads from rubble and recovering bodies. The Iran-backed movement described the shooting as a “blatant violation of the ceasefire” with Israel, which was announced last week.

West Jerusalem has rejected parts of the US-Iranian memorandum of understanding, which is intended to create conditions for talks on a permanent armistice. Israel’s continued military presence in Lebanon remains a major obstacle to the Swiss-hosted negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

The shooting in Nabatieh came as Lebanese civilians had begun returning to southern towns during the lull, despite Israel’s continued presence in the area and fears that hostilities could resume at any moment, RT’s Steve Sweeney reports from the ground.

US President Donald Trump claimed that “all the Jews” are tired of Benjamin Netanyahu and threatened the Israeli prime minister with “divorce” between the close allies during a phone call, according to a new book by New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan.

The account comes from ‘Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump’, excerpts of which were cited by media outlets on Tuesday.

The heated exchange reportedly took place in September 2025, when Trump was pushing Israel to accept his peace plan for Gaza. He spoke with Netanyahu in the presence of US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

“Everybody’s sick of you, Bibi. All the Jews are sick of you. Even the two Jews on this call are sick of you,” Trump reportedly told Netanyahu, according to the Times of Israel.

Trump and Netanyahu praised their close cooperation during the opening weeks of the US-Israeli war against Iran, which was launched on February 28. Trump became increasingly critical of Israel as efforts to subdue Iran faltered and peace talks stalled.

Trump condemned Israeli strikes in Lebanon after Iran threatened to pull out of negotiations, at one point arguing that Netanyahu has “no f**king judgment” and reportedly calling him “f**king crazy.”

According to the Washington Post, US intelligence agencies recently warned Trump that Netanyahu is likely to attempt to undermine efforts to secure a lasting peace with Iran.

Both leaders have faced criticism at home, with opponents arguing that the interim agreement signed by the US and Iran last week failed to achieve their stated war aims.

The US will set up at least two domestic testing ranges that mimic battlefield conditions in Ukraine, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said on Tuesday.

Driscoll said defense contractors will have access to the sites, where the Army and industry “can start to do much more aggressive testing,” according to DefenseScoop.

The US has been struggling to keep pace with rapidly evolving drone technology used extensively by both Russia and Ukraine.

“You can have a kind of electronic warfare and all of the contested environment created, and you can have drone manufacturers and counter-drone tool-builders engaging together,” Driscoll told reporters at an Army-hosted industry event.

“Then, we also want soldiers to be able to go there so that they can strengthen their skills and work hand-in-hand with developers,” he added.

The widespread use of surveillance and attack drones in the Ukraine conflict has created vast ‘kill zones’ along the front line, with both sides using UAVs to repel mechanized assaults and carry out strikes deep inside enemy territory.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov said earlier this month that domestic companies now have the capacity to produce more than 15,000 FPV drones per day, up from around 15,000 per month in 2023.

Moscow has warned that Western supplies of drone technology and other weapons to Kiev make NATO a de facto participant in the conflict and risk further escalation.

Ukraine frequently uses drones to strike civilian targets. Last month, UAVs destroyed a college dormitory in Starobelsk, Russia, killing 21 students.

On June 3, a Ukrainian drone struck a commuter bus in Enakievo, killing eight passengers. Two weeks later, a drone hit a bus carrying a youth football team from Belarus near the Russian village of Nelzhichi, killing a pregnant woman and injuring eight people, including six children.

The US has eased travel restrictions on Iran’s national football team at the 2026 World Cup after Tehran protested what it called unequal treatment.

Iran’s delegation will leave its base camp in Tijuana, Mexico on Wednesday and travel to Seattle ahead of Friday’s Group C match against Egypt, according to the Iranian Football Federation.

Up till now, Iranian players had only been permitted to enter the US one day before matches. The team had to relocate its base camp from Arizona to Mexico and several officials and support staff were reportedly denied entry visas.

A spokesperson for the US Department of Homeland Security said the team would still be required to leave the country after Friday’s game. White House FIFA Task Force Executive Director Andrew Giuliani said the decision to grant an additional day had been planned in advance following a review of the team’s previous travel arrangements.

“We have officially notified FIFA of these issues and requested an explanation,” Iran team manager and Football Federation Vice President Mahdi Mohammadnabi told state broadcaster IRIB before Iran’s draw with Belgium.

Mohammadnabi said Iranian players were being subjected to conditions “in no way equal” to those faced by other teams, citing travel limitations and visa-related obstacles. He urged FIFA to ensure that procedures communicated to host nations were applied equally to all participants.

Iran head coach Amir Ghalenoei previously described his squad as “the most oppressed” team at the World Cup, while captain Mehdi Taremi called the situation facing the team a “disaster.”

Following Sunday’s match against Belgium, winger Alireza Jahanbakhsh said the squad was seeking only the same treatment afforded to the tournament’s other teams and hoped to arrive early enough to adapt to local conditions before facing Egypt.

The US Senate has passed a resolution directing President Donald Trump to withdraw US forces from the conflict with Iran.

The Senate voted 50-48 on Tuesday, with four Republicans joining Democrats in support of the measure. The resolution passed the House by a vote of 215-208 earlier this month.

According to AP, the resolution is largely symbolic but reflects growing opposition to the president’s Iran policy.

The vote marked the tenth attempt by Democrats to compel Trump to end US involvement in the hostilities in the Middle East. Previous efforts, including one last week, failed to gain enough support.

“Congress never authorized this failed war, and the president certainly has no authority to continue it indefinitely without our consent, as the Constitution requires,” Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said after the resolution passed.

Trump denounced the resolution as “poorly timed and meaningless.”

“These Senators have just made my job more difficult, but I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done!” the president wrote on Truth Social.

The resolution was passed as US and Iranian negotiators continued discussions on implementing the memorandum of understanding signed by the two sides on June 17. Some of Trump’s most vocal supporters, including hawkish Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, have expressed concern that the agreement could grant significant concessions to Iran.

“If you don’t have a diplomatic path through the MOU, then you have to go to war, or some other form of coercion,” Graham told CBS last week.

The conflict began on February 28 when the US and Israel launched a bombing campaign in Iran, which responded by firing missiles and drones at Arab states in the region that host US military bases. Iran also closed the Strait of Hormuz to most shipping, driving up oil prices.

Despite the relentless strikes, US intelligence assessments cited by media outlets indicate that Iran has retained around 70% of its prewar missile stockpile. Trump has continued to threaten renewed military action in recent days, although members of his administration have described the ongoing talks as constructive.

The war has remained widely unpopular, with only 24% of Americans saying it was worth the cost, and just 23% believing the US is in a stronger position now than it was before the fighting, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll.

A Canadian police chief has told officers to “change your behavior or quit” after accusing some members of using police databases and other law enforcement resources to look up women and pursue intimate relationships.

The remarks were made in a seven-minute internal video sent last month by Ottawa Police Chief Eric Stubbs to all members of the force, according to CBC News, which obtained the recording.

“Members are using our databases as their own way to meet women,” Stubbs says in the video, which has since gone viral.

He described cases in which officers allegedly recorded license plate numbers after seeing women at coffee shops, gyms, or on the road, and then searched police systems for their personal information.

“We’ve seen members messaging vulnerable victims on calls that they’ve attended in an attempt to develop an intimate relationship,” Stubbs said, adding: “Change your behavior now – or quit, leave.”

Ottawa Police say some officers have been using police databases to look up women and contact them for personal reasons.

Police Chief Eric Stubbs says officers have allegedly run licence plates and used information from police interactions to pursue women, adding that those who…

— RTN (@RTNToronto) June 22, 2026

He acknowledged that the problem persists within the force, warning that failing to confront it will only encourage this behavior to continue.

Stubbs told reporters on Monday that while some may argue that the force is not making progress, it is committed to addressing the problem and “will not stop trying.”

The controversy comes amid a series of recent cases involving Ottawa police officers and the misuse of official databases.

Earlier this year, Constable Andrew Reesor was charged under Ontario’s policing law after allegedly conducting dozens of unauthorized searches of government databases from 2021 to 2024. According to police documents cited by the CBC, he admitted that some searches involving women were motivated by “curiosity” and “attraction.”

The force has also disciplined another officer for improper database searches, while a separate officer was charged with assault and criminal harassment earlier this year.

One person has been killed and eight others injured in a stampede as thousands of football fans gathered to watch a World Cup match in the Jordanian capital, Amman, according to the local authorities.

People converged on Hashemite Plaza to support the Jordanian national team as it faced Algeria early on Tuesday. This year marks the first time the Middle Eastern nation has qualified for the World Cup.

Videos circulating on social media show the Roman Theater packed with football fans watching the game on giant screens.

The Roman Colosseum and the roar of the Jordanian crowds in the capital Amman after the first goal by the Jordanian national team 🇯🇴, the Nashama team
Jordan Algeria #كاس_العالم_٢٠٢٦ #FIFAWorldCup2026 pic.twitter.com/Hrvc98dPrR

— Israeli Affairs Expert ايمن الحنيطي (@AymanHunaiti) June 23, 2026

At one point, the situation appears to spiral out of control, with at least one video showing scenes of chaos.

#الأردن
تدافع الجماهير الاردنية في المدرج الروماني..

--- من الوطنية ان تشجع فريق وطنك، ولكن الاولى ان تكون هذه الحماسة في الدفاع عن حقوقك كمواطن، على الله تعود...#احرار_الاردن pic.twitter.com/dKuvo0cVyX

— امكيس1920 (@ummqais1920) June 23, 2026

شاهد لحظة وقوع التدافع والاختناقات في المدرج الروماني pic.twitter.com/vJFoIwTz42

— صوت عمان الإخباري (@ammanvoicenet) June 23, 2026

الحماس يتحول إلى حزن في الساحة الهاشمية بعمّان

تحولت مؤازرةُ المنتخب الوطني في الساحة الهاشمية في عمّان إلى حزنٍ بعد تدافعٍ عند بوابات المدرج الروماني، إثر الإعلان عن وفاة أحد المشجعين. pic.twitter.com/DnqlVM6u1c

— Roya News (@RoyaNews) June 23, 2026

Other videos show emergency responders and security personnel administering first aid and carrying away injured attendees.

According to Jordan’s Public Security Directorate, nine people were hospitalized, one of whom later died. The authorities have ordered a forensic examination to determine the cause of death.

A child under the age of 12 has been euthanized in the Netherlands for the first time, Health Minister Sophie Hermans has said, according to local media reports.

The procedure was caried out under rules introduced in 2024, which allow the nation’s doctors to end the lives of terminally ill children in exceptional circumstances. Similar measures previously applied only to newborns and those aged 12 and above.

In a letter to parliament on Monday, Hermans reportedly said that the terminally ill child’s death occurred toward the end of last year and was subsequently reported to a special review committee, which had been set up to assess such cases. The minister did not disclose the child’s age, sex, or medical condition.

The committee has reviewed the circumstances and spoken to the doctor involved, Hermans said. The findings have been sent to prosecutors, who will decide whether the procedure complied with Dutch law. The assessment is reportedly expected to be made public soon.

Under the new rules, doctors must determine that a child is suffering unbearably from an incurable illness and that no reasonable treatment options remain. Parents must also give their consent before the procedure can take place. When introducing the policy, Dutch authorities said that it was expected to apply to no more than five to ten children a year.

The policy has proven politically contentious, with the country’s two main Christian parties coming out against it. Some medical experts have also warned that doctors could be reluctant to act because prosecutors have the final say on whether the law was followed, rather than a review committee.

In the past, doctors could provide palliative sedation or stop giving food and fluids, allowing a child to die gradually, which could sometimes take weeks.

The Netherlands recorded over 10,000 euthanasia cases in 2025, accounting for around 6% of all deaths nationwide, according to the country’s Regional Euthanasia Review Committees.

Ten years ago, I was on a business trip in Brussels on the day of the Brexit referendum. Voting was already underway across the Channel, but in the European Quarter, the mood was almost serene. Journalists kept asking EU officials about Brexit, and the officials waved the questions away with jokes, as though the whole thing was a theatrical inconvenience rather than a potential political earthquake.

In private conversations, I asked people the same question: if you had to place a bet, what would you choose? Everyone said ‘Remain’. In Britain itself, almost 13 million voters didn’t turn out at all, apparently unable to imagine the scale of what was coming.

We were all naive. Trump hadn’t yet been elected in the United States, the Covid disaster hadn’t yet rolled across the world, and the year 2022 hadn’t arrived yet. On the morning of June 24, 2016, the news that 51.9% of British voters had chosen to leave the European Union was read not only online, but on the faces of people in Brussels. Outside cafés and around the offices where EU officials gathered for lunch, people spoke into their phones in a state of disbelief.

Today, around 57% of Britons say Brexit was a mistake, and despite the reverence traditionally attached in Britain to the “will of the people,” politicians are increasingly prepared to discuss whether the decision should one day be revisited.

At first glance, this sounds reasonable because, ten years on, Brexit hasn’t produced the promised economic boom. Sterling hasn’t soared, and the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in the long term, the British economy will be around 4% smaller than it would have been inside the EU. Some economists put the loss in GDP per capita at 6–8%.

Nor has Britain escaped dependence on the rest of Europe. The EU remains its largest trading partner, accounting for around 41% of British exports and almost half of imports, while for British companies, Brexit has brought more paperwork, friction, and uncertainty.

And yet the new talk of reunion isn’t quite the sober strategic rethink it pretends to be. It also belongs to a wider nostalgia that swept social media at the start of this year, when users in many countries began posting old photographs and memories under the slogan “bring back my 2016.”

Those now dreaming of a return to 2016, and to the EU, should remember what Britain’s membership actually looked like. Since joining the European Economic Community in 1973, Britain spent decades carving out a special status for itself, and while it was in the club, it was never quite like the others. It kept the pound, stayed outside Schengen, secured a rebate on its budget contributions, and negotiated opt-outs in sensitive areas.

This is where public opinion becomes more complicated because, while many Britons may favor closer ties, or even rejoining in theory, only 36% support returning without the old exemptions. In other words, they want the lost stability of EU membership, but not necessarily the obligations that would now come with it.

Britain might also find that its place in the European queue has changed, and a new application would risk landing behind Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, and Moldova. The former imperial power that once negotiated rebates and exceptions could return as just another applicant.

Both Brexit and the current regret over Brexit are therefore more emotional than rational. It’s no accident that the most common metaphor for it is divorce, and many people know from experience that missing a former partner does not always mean reconciliation is possible, or wise.

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

At the heart of Polish historical literature, brilliantly adapted for the screen by film director Andrzej Wajda, is a timeless, almost archetypal Slavic narrative. Take Adam Mickiewicz’s poem, ‘Pan Tadeusz’, or Aleksander Fredro’s comedy, ‘The Revenge’. In both cases, we see two noble clans trapped in a shared space – whether within a city or castle walls – selflessly and relentlessly destroying each other over long-held historical grievances, ambitions, and boundary disputes, while the entire ‘security architecture’ around them crumbles.

The stories have different endings, but the historical circumstances are similar, which undoubtedly provides grounds for reflection on the complex fate of the Polish people. Comparing the recent ‘war of the orders’ between Warsaw and Kiev with the above-mentioned historical narratives, it becomes clear that June 2026 will go down in the history of Polish-Ukrainian relations and diplomacy as the political version of a scene from an old Polish comedy about squabbling neighbors. However, this incident demonstrates several important aspects that define Poland’s current condition and foreign policy which are worth reflecting on.

On June 19, Polish President Karol Nawrocki decided to strip Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle because a Ukrainian unit was named after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA). He also stated that Poland would not allow those who do not understand the need to renounce the “cult of totalitarianism and violence” to join the EU.

Kiev’s reaction was deafening, triggering an avalanche that was clearly unexpected in Warsaw. Zelensky demonstratively returned the order of merit to Nawrocki by mail. But the most surprising thing was the complete solidarity shown by Ukraine’s former presidents: Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yushchenko, and Pyotr Poroshenko all simultaneously announced that they would also renounce their Orders of the White Eagle and return them to Warsaw. Pretending that they ‘didn’t want them anyway’, the former presidents arrogantly declared that they were returning the awards to “the Poland that betrayed European solidarity,” calling Nawrocki’s decision an insult, while contrasting these pieces of metal with recognition of their own people. Following their lead, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Kirill Budanov, and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga also renounced their Polish orders of merit, turning one of Europe’s highest and oldest awards into a devalued bargaining chip.

Domestic politics

Poland’s domestic political agenda is best characterized by the term ‘Polish-Polish war’, which has become widespread in Polish national discourse. The term, coined after the 2005 electoral rift, has become the official formula for the country’s political deadlock. Both the ‘right’ and ‘left’ sides of the Polish political spectrum are becoming radicalized, and as the rift deepens, centrism is disappearing from Polish society.

This was reflected in the post-COVID electoral cycle: Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s liberal coalition emerged victorious in the 2023 parliamentary elections and currently controls the Sejm [lower house of the Polish Parliament]. Meanwhile, conservative Law and Justice Party (PiS) candidate, Karol Nawrocki, won the 2025 presidential election by a narrow margin. This situation has left Poland’s government in a state of legal paralysis, forcing the country to operate under a dual power structure: Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s liberal government controls the budget and the Sejm, while President Karol Nawrocki’s conservative administration wields absolute veto power and blocks all liberal reforms.

​​In the last year alone (2025–2026), three major bureaucratic battles have erupted between Belweder Palace and the prime minister’s office. The first  is the war over the prosecutor’s office and the judiciary, which has resulted in a dangerous dual power structure: the police are subordinate to Tusk, while some judges and prosecutors only recognize decrees issued by Nawrocki. Then, there was the blockade of the diplomatic corps, when Donald Tusk’s government forcibly called ambassadors back to Warsaw, appointing temporary chargés d’affaires in their place.

So, the current scandal in Ukrainian-Polish relations has, in part, been provoked by the escalation of tensions in Poland’s own domestic politics. By playing the historical memory card, President Nawrocki is deliberately driving a wedge between the prime minister and conservative Polish voters, turning international alliances into ‘expendable assets’ in Warsaw’s domestic political battles. Donald Tusk’s liberal cabinet has been forced to justify itself and incur reputational costs. The prime minister hastened to declare on social media that the current spat with Ukraine is a “strategic mistake worse than a crime” that only benefits Moscow. However, Tusk has been caught in an institutional trap. If his cabinet refuses to countersign and legally formalize the president’s revocation of the award, the right-wing electorate will immediately accuse the liberals of betraying the memory of the victims of the Volyn massacre.

Polish-Ukrainian relations and Poland’s Eastern policy

Polish domestic politics is unstable, but despite all its ups and downs, there is a consensus on the enduring principles of the country’s foreign policy. Among them is Poland’s Eastern policy, based on Jerzy Giedroyc’s idea about special relations with neighbors. Warsaw saw itself as the exclusive advocate, curator, and ‘big brother’ of Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania, striving to create a controlled cordon sanitaire against Russia.

It is becoming clear that the Polish elites, who for years demanded Ukraine’s accession to the EU, were unprepared for how Polish society would react to the prospect of sharing European money, markets, and subsidies with their eastern neighbor. The conflict surrounding the agricultural sector is particularly illustrative. Poland has been the main beneficiary of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 20 years, receiving billions in subsidies for its farms. Upon integration into the EU, Ukraine will also receive financial subsidies to bring its agricultural sector into line with Brussels’ standards. At the same time, Poland will transform from a recipient of European funds into a donor, obligated to pay for others. And that’s not a role that Polish society is prepared to fulfill. 

Warsaw’s harsh economic blockade of Kiev should be seen in this light. When Ukrainian grain, poultry, and transport companies began to pose a threat of real competition to Poles within the EU, Poland quickly blocked its borders, dumped grain from train cars onto the rails, and imposed strict protectionist barriers. For Kiev, this was a painful revelation: it turned out that Polish ‘brotherhood’ ends precisely where competition for European money begins. Clearly, Polish protectionism increasingly resembles neocolonial practices, in which a master demands total geopolitical and historical fealty from its vassals (regarding the UIA, the Volyn massacre, and national awards), but offers no economic favoritism in return. Kiev is being pressured to remain an isolated ‘junior partner’ and a buffer zone, whose trucks and goods the Polish elite are ready to turn back at the border at the first threat to their domestic political approval ratings.

In the old days, Warsaw’s position was backed by its allies. However, the growing ideological rift in the West and the general volatility of the global agenda are rapidly narrowing the so-called Overton window, radicalizing Poland’s relations with its Eastern neighbors. After joining the EU, Warsaw had long served as the main advocate of the ‘European choice’ for Eastern Europe. However, in the face of persistent friction with Brussels, with Poland openly sabotaging the EU’s New Pact on Migration and EU climate directives, its previous ambitions to be an ‘advocate’ for EU candidate countries are being thwarted. Warsaw’s attempt to artificially introduce an opposition party in the EU – one that would become its ideological ally in the fight against German dominance and European bureaucracy – has been opposed by both Brussels and post-Soviet countries. Peripheral countries understand perfectly well that, with such ‘friends’, they won’t be accepted into the EU. 

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski has issued an ultimatum, stating that Warsaw officially demands a seat at future negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The fact that he has spoken out in the midst of the current scandal is no coincidence, but Sikorski’s move goes way beyond domestic political games. Its purpose is to seize the patriotic agenda from Nawrocki and demonstrate that, unlike its opponents from PiS, it is the liberal camp that will decide the fate of Europe. This step should be seen as another clear sign that the  classic Giedroyc doctrine has been abandoned. By demanding a separate seat at negotiations alongside the major powers, Sikorski has de facto admitted that Poland no longer represents Ukraine – it is interested solely in its own geopolitical and economic interests and wants to establish new boundaries for the cordon sanitaire and spheres of influence. At the same time, Warsaw is involved in a nerve-racking bargaining match with Washington and Berlin. Terrified that the West will reach an agreement with the Kremlin behind its back, it is trying to leverage its role as a logistics and migration hub to cement its status as a regional hegemon. 

Such is the true anatomy of the Slavic crisis, as depicted by Wajda: neighbors in an old castle are ready to fling prestigious orders of merit to the wind, commit petty spiteful acts against each other, gamble with their global allies, and erect brick walls in the middle of their shared living room. The historical archetypes in Fredro’s play, ‘The Revenge’, have once again proven stronger than Brussels’ modern regulatory directives, demonstrating that, in Eastern Europe, the logic of national survival is still written in the language of old grievances, covert bureaucratic wars, and uncompromising egoism.

US automakers could begin producing missiles and other weapons as Washington moves to expand military output and replenish its arsenals, President Donald Trump has said.

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday, Trump said car companies with spare factory capacity are discussing deals to manufacture weapons, including Patriot air-defense missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

”They’re dealing with General Motors. They’re dealing with Ford,” Trump said. “I know General Motors is all excited about building weapons now.”

He added that some plants belonging to the two carmakers are expected to be converted to military production, describing the shift as part of a “big strong economic push” to produce arms.

His remarks come after the Wall Street Journal reported in April that the Pentagon had approached General Motors, Ford, GE Aerospace, and Oshkosh about retooling civilian factories to produce munitions and other military equipment.

The talks were reportedly part of an effort to put US industry on what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has called a “wartime footing,” echoing the World War II-era conversion of Detroit factories to military production.

The push comes amid mounting concern over the state of US weapons stockpiles after years of arms deliveries to Ukraine under former President Joe Biden and heavy missile use during the recent US-Israeli war against Iran.

US media and think-tanks have warned that Washington burned through large quantities of critical munitions during the Iran campaign, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, Patriot interceptors, THAAD missiles, and other advanced systems.

Reuters has also reported that depleted inventories could delay US arms deliveries to fellow NATO members.

Trump has downplayed shortage concerns, saying the US has “quite a few” missiles but wants to keep larger reserves. His administration has requested a record military budget of around $1.5 trillion for the 2027 fiscal year, with much of the increase expected to go towards replenishing stockpiles and expanding production.

Multi-award-winning Russian filmmaker Andrey Zvyagintsev has been added to Ukraine’s notorious Mirotvorets (Peacemaker) ‘kill list’ for visiting Crimea.

According to the entry, the director supposedly violated “Ukraine’s territorial integrity” by setting foot in the region that overwhelmingly voted to become part of Russia in a 2014 referendum. Kiev still claims the territory and refuses to recognize the outcome of the vote.

The personal details of Zvyagintsev’s mother, Galina, and his wife, Anna Matveeva, have also been doxed.

The filmmaker, who currently resides in France, has been openly critical of Russia’s military campaign against Ukraine.

Taking the podium at the Cannes Film Festival in May, after his film Minotaur was awarded the Grand Prix, Zvyagintsev addressed Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling on him to “stop this carnage.”

Launched in 2014 as a nominally independent project, Mirotvorets has been linked to Ukraine’s security services and is notorious for publishing the personal details of anyone remotely deemed an enemy of the Ukrainian state. The website has targeted a wide range of international figures, including American journalist and podcaster Tucker Carlson, Hollywood director Woody Allen, former US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Croatian President Zoran Milanovic, former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the late US diplomat Henry Kissinger, and musician Roger Waters.

Russian officials have denounced it as a hit list targeting individuals that Kiev allegedly wants to “eliminate.”

Several individuals whose details were made public by Mirotvorets – including journalists and politicians – have been subsequently killed.

Earlier this week Andy Burnham, the popular former mayor of Manchester, forced Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign as leader of the Labour Party in a meticulously planned and well executed bloodless political coup.

As a result, Burnham is now poised to become, in a few weeks, Britain’s seventh prime minister in less than a decade.

Burnham has been stalking Starmer for months. In January he sought endorsement as Labour’s candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election – winning a seat in the Commons being a necessary prerequisite to challenging Starmer’s leadership. Starmer, however, personally intervened to ensure that Burnham did not become the Labour candidate – and Labour subsequently lost the formerly safe Labour seat to the Greens.

Starmer’s popularity had been plummeting for more than a year – becoming the most unpopular prime minister ever – and the Mandelson scandal, together with Labour’s disastrous results in the May local and regional elections, made it clear that Labour was doomed to electoral oblivion under Starmer’s leadership.

Burnham and his supporters then engineered another by-election in Makerfield, that Burnham won by a colossal 20-percent margin last week – defeating Reform comprehensively in a northern white working-class seat that, in the ordinary course of events, it should have won easily.

The size of Burnham’s victory in Makerfield made it inevitable that Starmer would resign, and that Burnham would be anointed prime minister without the need for a leadership contest. So it transpired this week – with Starmer’s few remaining supporters in cabinet and parliament finally deserting him over the weekend.

Starmer listed his alleged achievements – reforming the Labour Party and winning the 2024 election; making the economy stronger; reducing illegal boat crossings; supporting Ukraine; reducing NHS waiting lists; and “restoring Britain’s reputation internationally.”

Notwithstanding these ‘successes’, the Labour Party had asked the question whether he was “best placed to lead us into the next general election” and had answered it in the negative.

Starmer concluded by saying that the accepted the party’s decision “with good grace” and said, as all deposed and failed leaders inevitably do, that he now looked forward to being “the best husband” and “the best dad” he can.

Starmer will remain prime minister until the Labour Party elects a new leader on 9 July. Immediately after Starmer’s resignation speech, Wes Streeting announced that he would not be a candidate for the leadership, and that he was backing Burnham to become prime minister – eliminating the need for a contest.

Burnham’s swift and bloodless ascent to the prime ministership came about as a result of Starmer’s terminal unpopularity, and because Burnham was able to infuse the moribund Labour Party with a measure of hope and optimism – something that the maladroit and uncharismatic Starmer had always been incapable of doing.

Two crucial questions now arise as Burnham is preparing to move into 10 Downing Street.

Will the new leader be able to come up with a policy program acceptable to the Labour Party, and is he capable of reviving the party’s ailing electoral prospects and reversing the inertia and leadership churn that has characterized British politics for the past decade?

When Burnham becomes prime minister he will become leader of a party that is deeply divided over key policy issues – including net zero, immigration, transgender rights, defense spending and welfare payments. It was divisions within Labour on these issues that crippled the Starmer government from day one, and they have not gone away. Labour MPs may all agree that Starmer had to go – but they agree on little else. And Burnham’s inconsistent and contradictory stances these issues in the past suggest that he lacks the necessary authority to impose a coherent policy direction on the party. Deep-seated divisions within Labour have already emerged this week, as candidates for cabinet positions in the Burnham government have begun pressing their claims.

Burnham’s victory over Starmer has been welcomed by the left wing of the Labour Party, and Angela Rayner, John McDonnell, and Jeremy Corbyn have enthusiastically endorsed the prime minister in waiting. So, too, has Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy security and net zero, who it is rumored has been promised the job of chancellor of the exchequer as a reward for having duplicitously undermined Starmer’s leadership.

Miliband, however, is committed to net zero, and right-wing Labour figures – one of whom recently described him as a “net zero lunatic” – who believe, as does Tony Blair, that Labour must ditch its commitment to net zero if it is to have any hope of winning the next election, are strongly opposed to Miliband being made chancellor.

Such policy disputes will, of course, only intensify once Burnham becomes prime minister, appoints his cabinet, and cannot escape making important policy decisions.

Burnham has been a political chameleon throughout his lengthy and checkered political career, and policy development has never really interested him. In fact – given his extensive history of policy backflips – it is almost impossible to discern what Burnham’s view really is on any important policy issue.

And if Burnham becomes a captive of Labour’s left wing – as seems likely – it will be impossible for him to formulate such a program, let alone impose it on a party that remains riddled with intractable ideological divisions.

Assuming, for the purposes of argument, that Burnham does manage to formulate a policy program that the party accepts. Is there any realistic prospect that Burnham may be able to implement it, solve the acute economic and social problems that have plagued Britain for decades, and reverse the chronic instability and leadership churn that have characterized UK politics for the past ten years?

The answer to that question must also be no – and not just because of Burnham’s obvious limitations as a politician, and the divisions within the Labour Party – but because the basic framework of contemporary British politics makes radical political change impossible.

Globalization has, over the past 20 years, fundamentally restructured the basic framework of British politics so as to render it immune to change whilst, at the same time, making politics itself inherently and chronically unstable. Leadership churn is the primary manifestation of this instability.

The fact is that since New Labour’s election win in 1997, power in Britain has been transferred to the global elites and the institutions that they control, including the judiciary, the public service, and the raft of quangos that have proliferated over the past thirty years. In reality contemporary prime ministers have very little power to effect change.

The UK Labour Party was long ago captured by the global economic elites that rule Britain and remains committed to elite policies like net zero, mass immigration, and various woke ideologies.

No political party in Britain today, least of all Labour, is even willing to contemplate such an economic program, let alone implement it.

What then does the future hold for Andy Burnham and UK politics generally?

Burnham’s popularity will probably commence to wane after he takes office as, just like his predecessors, it becomes clear that he is unable to solve the very same problems that they were unable to solve. In 12 months’ time, Burnham may well find himself in a similar position to Starmer earlier this year – deeply unpopular with the electorate, seeking to hold together a ramshackle and divided government, and trying to ward off yet another leadership coup.

In his victory speech at Makerfield Burnham said that he was “Labour’s last chance,” and that is undoubtedly the case. It follows that, when Burnham proves to be a failure as prime minister, voters will desert Labour in droves and it will become yet another party with little or no prospect of winning government.

The result in Makerfield was a disaster for Reform, and may herald the end of any realistic hope that the party has of winning government. Reform has shown itself incapable of making the transition from being a right-wing fringe party to a party capable of governing – although it will remain a significant force in British politics.

The extreme right-wing Restore Party received 7% of the vote in Makerfield and seems destined to remain a disruptive fringe party.

Makerfield was a complete disaster for the Conservatives – they received only 997 votes and lost their deposit. There is nothing to suggest that the party’s downward slide towards political irrelevancy will not continue apace.

The Greens and the Liberal Democrats will continue to win seats in the urban southeast but will remain fringe parties.

None of this augurs well for UK politics in the future – and whatever Burnham’s and Labour’s collective fate may be, it absolutely clear that British politics can only become even more unstable in the future than it has been for the past decade.

The Eurasian Cinema Academy has launched the selection process for films competing for the 2026 Diamond Butterfly awards, with screenings already underway ahead of the ceremony in Moscow, organizers announced on Tuesday.

The event is billed as an alternative to mainstream Western film awards, promoting works rooted in traditional values that reject the ‘wokeism’ and political messaging which organizers say have become increasingly prevalent in contemporary cinema.

Renowned Russian director Nikita Mikhalkov spearheaded the creation of the Eurasian Cinema Academy and the Diamond Butterfly award with support from Russia’s Culture Ministry and Foreign Ministry. Organizers say the initiative aims to foster cultural exchange and promote films that reflect both “national” and “universal spiritual and moral values.”

Last year, 34 films from 17 countries competed for the Diamond Butterfly, including entries from Russia, China, Türkiye, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, South Africa, Venezuela, and Cuba.

According to the award’s executive producer, Leonid Vereshagin, last year’s response demonstrated “enormous demand for honest, deep and meaningful cinema.” He predicted even broader participation this year.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described the event as a unique platform for Eurasian filmmakers and an emerging “cultural center of power” for a continent rooted in tradition. Unlike its Western counterparts, the award is free from imposed ideological narratives and an excessive focus on gender politics, she argued.

Zakharova added that, while the date of the ceremony has yet to be announced, screenings are already taking place in Belgrade. Additional events are planned in Russia, China, South Africa, North Korea, Hungary, Italy, and France.

The inaugural ceremony was also held in the Russian capital last November, when Chinese director Xu Zheng’s drama Upstream won the award for best picture.

A Palestinian farmer and his three-year-old son were ambushed by IDF troops near the Gaza border, leaving the child dead and the father badly wounded. The devastated man told RT about the tragic events.

Speaking from a hospital in Deir Al-Balah, Central Gaza, Baha Abu Al-Ajeen said he was tending his land and was driving along a rural road near the ‘yellow line’ when Israeli soldiers suddenly appeared and ordered his vehicle to stop. His son, who was sitting in his arms, began to cry, he said. 

“From the first bullet, I stopped completely to avoid getting killed,” he said. “The first bullet hit the road while the second hit the child directly while he was in my arms… A soldier shot the child right in the head.” Abu Al-Ajeen said the next round hit his leg, shattering the bone. 

The soldiers refused to call an ambulance and took away his phone, telling him that no calls or medical help would be allowed. The man was held “for hours in a military vehicle” while the wounded child remained in his arms, and “right after my son died in my arms, they took him away from me,” before he was dropped off at an unknown location and eventually reached Al-Aqsa Hospital.

Responding to RT’s request for comment, the IDF said the soldiers “initiated standard suspect apprehension procedures, which included warning fire,” and that “it was reported that, as a result of the fire, one Gazan was killed and another was injured.” 

According to the latest report by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Israeli forces have “deliberately targeted and killed” Palestinian children in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The report accused Israel of committing genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in the enclave. 

The commission found that around 30% of those killed in Gaza since October 2023 were children, and that attacks on maternity and neonatal care, combined with an aid blockade, have driven a rise in miscarriages, birth defects, starvation-related deaths, and disease among minors. Israel rejected the commission’s findings as a “defamatory advocacy report” and a “libelous sham.” 

Western nations are no longer hiding their preparations for war with Russia, President Vladimir Putin has said, adding that NATO and EU leaders are using “false claims” about the supposed ‘Russian threat’ to justify rampant militarization.

Putin made the remarks on Tuesday during a ceremony in the Kremlin for graduates of Russia’s military, security, and law enforcement academies, saying NATO’s posture has shifted from supporting Kiev with weapons and funding to outright preparations for war.

“Now, they are openly saying that they are preparing for war with us, increasing military offensive budgets,” Putin said. He argued that Western governments are using the same playbook that has always been used against Russia.

Putin’s remarks come as NATO’s European members and Canada raised defense spending by 20% in real terms in 2025, reaching a combined $574 billion, citing the supposed ‘Russian threat’. Moscow has dismissed speculation that it plans to attack NATO countries as “nonsense.”

Turning to Ukraine’s drone campaign against Russian cities, Putin said the strikes on civilian infrastructure are designed “to rock society” rather than achieve military aims. “When the whole West is working for them, with this huge flow of drones, [the aim is] to create doubt in the actions of the Russian Armed Forces,” he said.

Putin noted, however, that European nations are still reluctant to launch strikes on Russia from their own territory because “they understand that there will be retaliation.”

Putin’s comments came as Ukraine continues to carry out long-range strikes deep into Russia, which often lead to civilian casualties. Last week, Kiev launched a drone raid on Moscow – the largest in two years – with Mayor Sergey Sobyanin reporting the destruction of 194 drones. The attack damaged an oil refinery, a shopping center, and several residential buildings, with more than a dozen people injured.

A rare tornado swept through Russia’s Sverdlovsk Region in the Urals on Monday, damaging more than 100 homes, knocking out power lines and injuring residents.

The worst of the devastation was reported in the town of Kushva, located roughly 170 kilometers north of Yekaterinburg, where local authorities promptly declared a state of emergency.

Footage shared online showed a large funnel cloud ripping through neighborhoods, leaving behind uprooted trees, shattered concrete poles, and torn roofs 

Healthcare authorities said 16 people sought medical help after the storm, with one person hospitalized in the city of Nizhny Tagil. Governor Denis Pasler said the lives and health of residents were no longer in danger.

Close-up footage of a significant tornado in Kushva, Sverdlovsk oblast, Russia, 2 hours ago. pic.twitter.com/xFHSHueTa8

— Kirill Bakanov (@WeatherSarov1) June 22, 2026

According to regional reports, 32 private homes were completely destroyed and nearly 100 more were damaged. The storm also damaged over two dozen cars, schools, kindergartens, gas pipes and at least 15 power lines. 

Some 4,000 residents were left without electricity, forcing critical systems like local hospitals to temporarily run on backup generators while emergency grids were restored. Water and gas networks were also punctured, requiring temporary safety shutoffs.

Pasler said 16 miners were also trapped underground at the Yuzhnaya mine after a power grid failure, but all were brought safely to the surface by 4am and sent home.

A hurricane destroyed a church in the Chelyabinsk region.

The day before, in the village of Bolshoy Kuyash, a church dedicated to the Nativity of Christ was damaged during a violent storm.

The small dome with the cross was torn off by strong winds, and sections of the… pic.twitter.com/yHJl3B9vRM

— Russian Market (@runews) June 23, 2026

Emergency crews, utility workers and regional officials have been sent to Kushva to clear debris, restore power and gas supplies, and assess the damage. 

Meteorologists have described the tornado as rare for the region but not impossible. Weather specialist Aleksey Pulin said such vortexes form in the Urals every few years, but usually over sparsely populated areas, and are often confirmed only later by damage patterns in forests. He noted that this latest event was highly anomalous due to its direct path through dense residential zones.

An 82-year-old retired craftsman opened fire on French gendarmes after declaring that a revolution was underway and insisting that President Emmanuel Macron had been deposed, local media have reported.

The incident took place on Saturday, when the elderly man’s wife called police to report that her husband had taken a hunting rifle and gone into the garden, convinced that the French government had fallen.

France’s elite GIGN police tactical unit was deployed to disarm the retiree. When five gendarmes arrived at the property near Nogent-le-Rotrou in north-central France, the former craftsman reportedly declared that “it’s a revolution” and that “Macron has been deposed” before opening fire.

Guided by one of the man’s daughters, the gendarmes found the self-styled revolutionary hiding behind a cedar tree with a rifle in his hands.

Both wounded gendarmes survived. One was taken to Chartres hospital and the other to the Percy military hospital in Clamart, while prosecutors said neither officer’s life was in danger.

The garden uprising finally came to an end when GIGN negotiators persuaded the 82-year-old to surrender shortly before 11 PM local time. He was later taken to the hospital to undergo surgery after a bullet became lodged in his hand.

The retired craftsman, who has no known criminal record, was subsequently placed in custody. Prosecutors said he has not yet been questioned in detail because of his hospitalization and what they described as “verbal delirium” during the incident.

A psychiatric examination is expected to determine whether the octogenarian was of sound mind at the time of the shooting.

South Sudan has announced that it will hold its first general election on December 22, after years of repeated postponements since gaining independence more than a decade ago.

The National Elections Commission (NEC) confirmed the date on Monday, saying preparations are underway across the East African country despite an ongoing armed conflict and logistical hurdles.

South Sudan gained independence from Sudan in 2011. It has been governed under a power-sharing arrangement since 2018 as part of a peace agreement that ended a five-year civil war sparked by a feud between President Salva Kiir Mayardit and opposition leader Riek Machar. Machar served as Kiir’s first vice president until his suspension last year after being charged with treason. He is currently under house arrest.

The landlocked country has remained volatile since the end of the war, with political tensions flaring in recent months over the dismissal and arrest of officials purported to be loyal to Machar.

NEC Chairman Abednego Akok Kacuol said the electoral commission requires $250 million to conduct the 2026 election but has so far received only a fraction of the required funds, SS24 news agency reported.

The government has insisted that the election will go ahead without further extensions, despite growing concerns over political instability, sporadic fighting, and the displacement of civilians across the country.

In a statement on Monday, acting SPLM-IO chairman Nathaniel Pierino said, “anyone coming to register voters and campaigns in territories controlled” by the group will be treated as a “prisoner of war, or at worst, dead.”

“Holding elections to abrogate [the 2018 peace agreement] for South Sudan is... pure politics, not governance, it is a dangerous escalation and shall throw the country into more chaos,” Pierino warned.

Kiir is expected to run in the December presidential election. It is unclear whether Machar will be permitted to run due to the criminal charges against him.

India has called for the emergence of a strong voice for the Global South at a meeting of the security chiefs of BRICS countries in New Delhi.

Warning that multilateralism is on the decline globally, Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval struck a note of caution about the growing security challenges. “Tumultuous times, marked by military conflicts and growing security challenges, need a stronger voice of the Global South,” he said.

The two-day meeting was attended by top security officials from the bloc’s countries, including Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. 

The BRICS leaders "reaffirmed their commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including through countering the use of new technologies being utilized by them," India's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Doval pointed out that BRICS was created to promote a more multipolar world order, strengthen the voice of the Global South, and advance peace, development, and cooperation. The NSA said the bloc is “gaining strength day by day.”

Backing Doval about waning multilateralism in global relations, Russia’s Shoigu said BRICS should play a key role to reform “failing international organizations, including the UNSC and WTO.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously pushed to reform the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. “A reform of leading UN institutions and global financial structures is long overdue,” Putin said in the presence of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres at the 2024 BRICS summit in Kazan. “The weight of the developing nations in the world economy has radically changed in the past decades.”

🇷🇺 Security Council Secretary Shoigu Calls For Creation Of BRICS Emergency Reserve

The mechanism would be "for storing stocks of medicines, food, energy, fertilizers, rare earth metals, and other vital goods" for use in crisis situations. https://t.co/VjyFc9CVC0 pic.twitter.com/nPVUv9maej

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) June 23, 2026

Shoigu also called for the creation of a ‘BRICS Emergency Reserve’ as a mechanism “for storing stocks of medicines, food, energy, fertilizers, rare earth metals, and other vital goods” for use in crisis situations.

The NSA meeting is a preparatory initiative to lay the groundwork for the BRICS Leaders’ Summit scheduled for September 12-13 in India, which Putin is expected to attend.

Doval also met with China’s Wang on the sidelines and held “constructive and forward-looking talks,” the ministry said.

The ministry “noted progress towards gradual normalization” of bilateral ties.

South Korean stocks suffered their sharpest drop in more than three months on Tuesday as fears that an AI-driven rally pushed semiconductor valuations to unsustainable levels sparked a market-wide sell-off.

The benchmark Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) plunged 9.99%, shedding 910.71 points to close at 8,203.84.

The Korea Exchange (KRX) activated a market-wide circuit breaker at around 2:33 PM after the KOSPI fell more than 8% from the previous session’s close. Trading in all stocks was halted for 20 minutes, marking the fourth such suspension this year and the tenth on record.

Samsung and SK Hynix together accounted for around 53% of the KOSPI’s total market value, leaving the index heavily exposed to any reversal in semiconductor sentiment.

“The sell-off appears to be driven mainly by profit-taking after the recent sharp rally, as the market had become increasingly overbought,” Ha SeokKeun, the chief investment officer at Eugene Asset Management in Seoul, said, as cited by Bloomberg.

The rout followed explicit warnings from the Korea Exchange and local regulators about overheated tech valuations. The authorities said they were considering measures to curb speculative trading linked to Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix.

The pressure intensified after SK Hynix briefly overtook Samsung as South Korea’s most valuable listed company on Monday. SK Hynix’s market capitalization reached 2.080 quadrillion won (around $1.5 trillion), narrowly ahead of Samsung’s 2.067 quadrillion won, powered by demand for AI memory chips.

The market turmoil comes as investors increasingly question whether the AI boom is creating a financial bubble. OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank have committed hundreds of billions of dollars to new AI infrastructure projects, while chipmakers and cloud providers continue to pour money into the sector despite limited evidence that profits are keeping pace with spending.

Some analysts argue that AI investment has become concentrated within a tightly linked network of companies whose valuations depend more on expectations and capital inflows than on proven profitability.

A person mowing the lawn in the Estonian countryside stumbled on what was likely a Ukrainian drone packed with 5 kg of explosives earlier this month, a local official has revealed. The UAV apparently went down during a Ukrainian raid on Russia on June 3, despite officials’ earlier assurances that no unauthorized aircraft entered the country’s airspace at the time.

Harrys Puusepp, bureau chief at Estonia’s Internal Security Service, confirmed on Monday that the drone crashed in a field in Rouge municipality, around 40 km from the Russian border. The discovery was reported to authorities on the evening of June 10 but was not made public until June 22 due to an ongoing major exercise, he added.

“The person discovered a drone in taller grass while mowing. Some parts of the drone were also found in a tree, so it had apparently fallen from there,” he said, adding that shortly after the incident, “the danger area was secured, and no bystanders were put at risk.”

🇺🇦🎮⚔️🇪🇪 An Estonian man discovered a fallen Ukrainian drone while mowing the grass.

The discovery was made in the Rõuge municipality back on June 10, but news of it has only just emerged.

According to Harris Puusepp, a bureau chief at the Estonian Internal Security Service… pic.twitter.com/DGJ5eLFt7o

— dana (@dana916) June 22, 2026

Puusepp said the drone may have been among those reported during alerts on June 3 during a Ukrainian raid on Russia, with Kiev previously targeting oil infrastructure on the Baltic Sea coast. At the time, the Estonian military scrambled jets and sent warning notifications to residents, but said “no air threat was detected.”

Despite the assurance, several people living in Voru county, where a suspected Ukrainian drone was later found, told ERR they had heard a noise that may have been related to a UAV.

Ukraine has often apologized for the incidents but has given no indication that it plans to scale back its drone campaign.

In an incident on May 19, a Romanian F-16 shot down a suspected Ukrainian UAV near Lake Vortsjarv, with wreckage landing close to the village of Kablakula in southern Estonia.

A growing number of undocumented schoolchildren in South Africa have been left without their parents following a recent wave of repatriations targeting illegal immigrants, Gauteng Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Sports, Arts, and Culture Lebogang Maile said during a provincial legislature session on Tuesday.

Addressing the critical issue of children without guardians, Maile pledged to devise a plan to tackle the concerns surrounding undocumented learners. He stated, “I have already asked the national department of education for a list of all the undocumented children in our schools at the instruction of the courts that we must accept them. We are examining their ages and which schools they attend, and we want to assess the financial implications of supporting their education”.

In addition to addressing the plight of undocumented learners, Maile touched on another pressing issue: corruption within schools, noting that reports from recent school visits reflect this persistent challenge. “The second issue is corruption in schools. We have received a report in this regard. This is coming up from the visits that we are having in the schools and communities,” he added.

As part of strengthening the province’s rich cultural heritage, Maile has committed his department towards unveiling eight new heritage sites with a sports, arts and culture budget made up of  R719.4 million from the Provincial Equitable Share and R336.3m in Conditional Grants.

“Our heritage work remains central to preserving the identity and memory of our people. During this financial year, the department will declare eight heritage sites and implement twenty national symbols awareness programmes to deepen constitutional values, social cohesion and public consciousness, particularly among young people,” he stated.

When it comes to infrastructure backlogs and other challenges facing the education system, Maile indicated that challenges arise from rapid in-migration, urbanisation, overcrowding, infrastructure backlogs, and growing learner demand, particularly in township, informal settlement, and inner-city schools.

“These pressures require us to think differently about education delivery, infrastructure planning, and long-term sustainability. To respond to these challenges, we are increasing the department’s budget from R68bn in 2025/26 to R70.9bn in 2026/27, representing an increase of R2.9bn, or 4.3%. This increase allows us to strengthen key interventions while maintaining our focus on quality, access, and equity”.

First published by IOL

Russia is ready to invoke its security guarantees to Belarus if Ukraine follows through on threats to strike targets on its territory, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned.

Lavrov made the remarks during a round-table discussion on the West’s role in the Ukraine conflict on Monday. He was commenting on Vladimir Zelensky’s demand that Minsk dismantle or disable what Kiev claims are Russian-linked relay stations along the Belarus-Ukraine border. Zelensky gave Belarus one week to act, warning that Ukraine would otherwise destroy the equipment itself.

The Russian foreign minister described the ultimatum as a threat against a sovereign state, stating that “this is obviously aimed at dragging Belarus directly into the conflict and expanding the geography of hostilities.”

He noted that Russia and Belarus have had a security guarantees treaty in force since March 2025 under the Union State framework.

The pact treats an attack on either Russia or Belarus as an attack on the Union State and allows both sides to use all available military and technical means, including nuclear weapons, to repel aggression and threats to their sovereignty or territorial integrity.

Minsk has said it will not dismantle the equipment or halt fuel deliveries to Russia, similarly warning that an attack from Ukraine would trigger a response.

Lavrov also criticized the EU for what he said was support for Zelensky’s threats, citing remarks by a European Commission spokeswoman who accused Belarus of aiding Russia and said Ukraine has the right to self-defense.

The foreign minister stressed that Europe cannot act as a neutral mediator in the conflict while arming Ukraine, expanding the sanctions on Russia, and backing threats against Belarus.

Belarusian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Sekreta said Minsk is closely watching the exercise and accused Europe of embracing a militarized ideology. “Who are they planning to fight again?” he said.

Russia and Belarus have denied that they have any plans to attack NATO or the EU unless attacked first. They have accused Western states of using the Ukraine conflict, NATO drills, and military buildups on the bloc’s eastern flank to prepare for a direct confrontation with Russia and Belarus.

A US-educated executive who has headed Ukraine’s national postal service for a decade does not have the professional competence required for the position, the country’s central bank has ruled.

Ukrposhta chief Igor Smelyansky has faced years of criticism over his salary, reportedly the highest in Ukraine’s public sector, as well as his dismissive communications style. The regulator responsible for financial oversight has demanded that he be removed from his post within five days, while the postal chief has threatened to strike back.

In a sharply worded ruling published on Tuesday, the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) cited multiple violations by the state-owned company, including alleged anti-money laundering failures. Smelyansky’s qualifications, the regulator concluded, “do not meet the professional requirements” for the top executive of a major payment operator.

Ukrainian postal chief threatens central bank

Smelyansky has dismissed the ruling as “nonsense” and claimed it was a personal attack by NBU head Andrey Pyshny, whom he accused of corruption.

Smelyansky, a graduate of Georgetown and George Washington Universities, worked in Ukraine’s banking sector before taking over Ukrposhta.

Central bank ruling like ‘a Russian strike’

The postal chief, who presents himself as an efficiency-focused reformer, has said his monthly salary of $21,500 is lower than what he earned in the private sector.

He has claimed that managing a state-owned enterprise is more difficult and less emotionally gratifying than working for a private company.

Smelyansky has insisted he will remain in his high-paying job until martial law is lifted, meaning not before the conflict with Russia is resolved. Ukrposhta plays a role in Ukrainian military logistics, and its storage facilities have been targeted by multiple Russian strikes.

He claimed Ukraine’s central bank under Pyshny is as damaging to the national postal service as Moscow, but added that Ukrposhta knows how to “recover from enemy attacks.”

Backlash over sexualized schoolgirl images

In February, Smelyansky labeled a critic of Ukrposhta’s recent rebranding “a whore,” while on another occasion he described people working for minimum wage as “sick in their heads.”

Another controversy involved Ukrposhta’s St. Valentine’s Day campaign, which featured sexualized images of schoolgirls and a “post of love” theme. Smelyansky later called the campaign “a mistake,” while the advertising firm behind it deleted the most provocative images.

Twelve Indians are among the 13 killed in a blast at a Ras Laffan gas facility on Monday, the Qatari authorities say.

Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi said the blast at the Barzan plant in the Ras Laffan LNG complex was due to a “technical malfunction,” ruling out any “hostile” action.

Qatar suffered Iranian missile and drone attacks during the recent Middle East conflict triggered by US-Israel strikes on Iran, with the Ras Laffan facility extensively damaged in March.

The Indian Embassy in Doha said the Qatari authorities confirmed that 12 of the deceased were from India. The 66 reportedly injured are Qatari, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Kenyan, Ghanaian, Tanzanian, Nigerian, and Nepalese nationals, Qatari officials said.

The Qatari authorities said the injured are in stable condition and are receiving medical treatment.

Qatari authorities have confirmed that 12 Indian nationals have unfortunately passed away in the Ras Laffan incident yesterday night. We extend our deepest condolences to the bereaved families and prayers for the departed souls.

Qatari authorities have also confirmed that all…

— India in Qatar (@IndEmbDoha) June 22, 2026

The Indian Embassy said officials are in touch with the authorities to extend “all possible help to the Indian nationals and their families affected by this incident, including ensuring that the mortal remains of the deceased are sent back to India at the earliest.”

The Ras Laffan Industrial City around 80 km north of Doha houses the world’s largest LNG export complex and produces around a fifth of global supply.

Qatar Energy did not provide details on the extent of the damage in the blast. Al-Kaabi, who is also the CEO of the state-owned company, said the blast “will not affect in any way our exports to the world.”

Qatar is India’s largest LNG supplier, accounting for nearly half of the country’s imports. Qatar owns nearly all of the plant, with ExxonMobil holding a small share.

The explosion occurred as workers were restarting operations at the complex. There was no gas leakage, Qatar’s Interior Ministry said, adding that the incident does not pose any danger to public safety.

A senior Kenyan health official has been found in contempt of court over the continued construction of a controversial US-backed Ebola quarantine facility, despite an earlier judicial order halting the project.

High Court Justice Patricia Nyaundi ruled on Monday that government authorities had failed to comply with existing conservatory orders and allowed work on the facility to continue.

The court summoned the cabinet secretary of health, Aden Duale, to appear on June 23 to explain the government’s actions.

“The court cannot permit its orders to ⁠be rendered hollow,” Nyaundi said, as quoted by Reuters.

The case stems from a petition filed in May by rights group Katiba Institute, which claimed that the proposed facility could pose a public health risk in a country that has never recorded a single case of Ebola.

In a separate finding, the court concluded that the Health Ministry had disclosed all available documents related to the project.

“The fact that construction continued in direct violation of a High Court order shows that the government believed it could operate entirely above the Kenyan judicial system,” the institute’s executive director, Nora Mbagathi, noted.

The quarantine facility issue drew attention last month, after Washington announced a $13.5 million initiative to boost Kenya’s Ebola preparedness amid an outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo).

Despite a High Court order halting the project, Reuters reported that about 20 flights carrying equipment and personnel landed at the base between May 23 and May 31.

The project has also triggered strong opposition among local residents. Protests against the construction of the US-backed quarantine facility reportedly turned deadly, with at least three people being killed during unrest linked to demonstrations over the site.

As of June 22, the country had reported 1,048 confirmed cases, including 267 deaths and 112 recoveries. Neighboring Uganda has also recorded infections, with 19 confirmed cases, two deaths, and ten recoveries.

Iran has agreed to set up a ‘hotline’ with the US and other countries to “prevent and resolve any misunderstandings” involving ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has said.

The strait will henceforth be “managed under Iranian arrangements” and will “never return to what it was before the war,” Ghalibaf said on Monday, returning from the first round of talks with the US in Switzerland.

“Problems can arise in the Strait of Hormuz, so we agreed to establish a center and a communications line so that if issues occur, we can resolve them more quickly within a 30-day period,” Ghalibaf was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

The communications line will not be used to obtain Iranian permission for passage through the waterway, he added, saying clearance procedures will remain separate. Instead, it will serve as a mechanism for resolving issues involving ships and clarifying potential incidents.

“Naturally, just as problems may arise in Lebanon or elsewhere, problems can also arise in the Strait of Hormuz,” Ghalibaf said. “As you’ve seen, on some nights there have even been clashes.”

Washington and Tehran agreed on a roadmap toward a final accord following Qatar- and Pakistan-mediated talks at the Swiss resort of Buergenstock at the weekend. While no joint statement was released, mediators said the sides agreed to a 60-day path toward a final deal, further technical negotiations, and the creation of a high-level committee to oversee the process.

Although shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has resumed, shipowners remain deeply uncertain about how to navigate the waterway, amid conflicting instructions from Iran, the US, and Western insurers.

Iran has warned that vessels could face penalties or be forced to turn back unless they obtain prior clearance from Tehran and follow designated routes closer to the Iranian coast.

The US and some Western insurers, meanwhile, have advised vessels to use routes along the Omani side of the waterway under the protection of US air cover, according to three shipping industry executives.

The conflicting guidance has left shipowners uncertain over which route to take, despite the strait remaining open to commercial traffic.

The political rift and dual power structure in Libya that emerged after the 2014 House of Representatives (HoR) elections persists to this day, despite numerous attempts to unify the country.

During this period, Libya lived through its second civil war; although the war ended with a ceasefire in October 2020, two competing centers of power remained: one based in Tripoli, in the west of the country, and the other in Benghazi, in the east. 

Last year, two new initiatives for reaching a settlement were launched. The first initiative comes from the US, and the second is yet another attempt by the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) to prepare the country for national parliamentary and presidential elections. 

The secret mission of Trump’s in-law 

Reports of US negotiations with Libyan political and military leaders surfaced shortly after US President Donald Trump’s return to office. These talks were led by the senior adviser to the US president on Arab and Middle Eastern affairs, businessman and diplomat Massad Boulos.

In late April 2025, the US State Department announced that it had held a series of meetings with Saddam Haftar, the son of Khalifa Haftar, commander-in-chief of the Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF) – also known as the Libyan National Army (LNA) or the Libyan Arab Army (LAA). Saddam was appointed Khalifa’s deputy in August 2025.

“The United States will continue to engage officials from western and eastern Libya and to support Libyan efforts to unify their military institutions as Libyans secure their autonomy,” the State Department said.

The talks in Washington were conducted by Boulos, who is of Lebanese descent. Libyans have nicknamed him ‘Tiffany’s father’ due to the fact that his son, Michael Boulos, is married to Trump’s youngest daughter, Tiffany.

Massad Boulos’ activities consist of implementing a pragmatic plan to unite the country’s military and economic institutions. A key episode in this strategy was a secret meeting in Rome on September 3, 2025, at which major figures from the two opposing Libyan camps met face to face for the first time. These were Saddam Haftar and Ibrahim Dbeibeh, the adviser and nephew of Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, prime minister of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in Tripoli. Boulos acted as the mediator and main negotiator on the American side.

What is Boulos’ plan about?

Several similar meetings were held later, including one in Paris in January 2026, which was also mediated by Massad Boulos. Details of the negotiations later surfaced in the media.

In particular, the negotiators discussed the appointment of Haftar as head of the Tripoli-based Presidential Council (PC), which fulfills the role of the country’s president during the transitional period and is headed by Mohamed al-Menfi. The current head of the GNU, Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, will also retain his position.

At the military level, according to the plan presented by Boulos, Khaled Haftar (Saddam’s brother and the LNA chief of the General Staff in Benghazi) will remain in charge of the military leadership in the east of the country, General Salah ad-Din an-Namrush (the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces in Tripoli) will remain in charge in the northwest, and a third figure, whose identity has not yet been established, will be in charge in the south.

Many of the plan’s aspects are being kept under wraps by officials, but Boulos himself recently admitted in an interview with the Financial Times that he is working to unite the country’s disparate institutions under a single leadership, while simultaneously promoting investments by American oil companies in Libya. The LNA leadership soon issued a statement welcoming the US initiative.

Some aspects of Boulos’ plan have already been successfully implemented. For example, on April 11, 2026, the Central Bank of Libya announced that the House of Representatives and the High Council of State (HCS), an advisory body in the west of the country, had approved the first unified budget in over 13 years.

Furthermore, Boulos’ initiatives laid the foundation for the first joint military exercises to be held in many years between the country’s eastern and western forces, as part of the annual Exercise Flintlock – a training event for special operations forces conducted under the auspices of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM).

In April 2026, Exercise Flintlock took place in Libya for the first time in history, in the port city of Sirte.

Harsh reactions

Boulos’ initiative and the secret negotiations between Saddam Haftar and Ibrahim Dbeibah are fundamentally changing the nature of the political rift in Libya. Instead of institutionally unifying the country through elections, the US is essentially promoting a pragmatic plan for power-sharing between the two dominant clans – the Haftar family and the Dbeibah family.

This has a dual effect on the power divide: On the one hand, the plan reduces the risk of a new large-scale war and temporarily defuses the acute geopolitical confrontation between Tripoli and Benghazi, transforming it into a pragmatic business alliance between the two families; on the other hand, it is creating new divisions within the two camps. 

In the east of the country, Saddam’s brother, Belqasem Haftar, who heads the Libyan Development and Reconstruction Fund, has sharply opposed the plan. He rejected US-sponsored economic agreements, claiming they “obstruct the national development project.”  

The authorities in the west, as well as paramilitary groups in Misrata and Tripoli, who fought against Haftar for years, perceive Saddam’s appointment as head of the Presidential Council as a betrayal by Dbeibah.

Moreover, Boulos’ plan completely ignores existing legitimate government bodies. This fact has united them against the US. The High Council of State and the Presidential Council of Libya officially declared the deal illegal and outside the framework of the Libyan Political Agreement. The agreement was signed on December 17, 2015, in the Moroccan city of Skhirat under UN auspices and laid the foundation for the creation of several government structures that are still in effect in the country.

The Presidential Council sees the American initiative as a direct threat to its existence, as the Boulos plan calls for the elimination of the current leadership of the council and the transfer of the chairmanship to Saddam Haftar. Realizing that Dbeibah negotiated with Haftar behind his back, Mohammed al-Manfi initiated the creation of a unified national Libyan front, joining forces with the HCS and HoR to block the Boulos plan.

Furthermore, the council is actively seeking support from loyal military groups in western Libya, convincing them that the American initiative leads to the establishment of a one-man military regime.

It’s worth noting that the swift actions of the US prompted Libya’s advisory bodies to accelerate the implementation of the UN initiative. On June 18, the HCS, HoR, and PC agreed on a roadmap that calls for holding simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections by February 17, 2027 (a significant date, as February 17, 2011, marked the beginning of mass protests and the civil war that led to the overthrow and assassination of Muammar Gaddafi).

Is US trying to sabotage the UN plan?

Since the Boulos plan generally proposes to entrench the existing status quo, the US is effectively admitting the failure of the UN plan, aimed at preparing the country for general elections. 

In contrast to America’s power-sharing deal between the clans, the UN, through its UNSMIL mission, led by Ghanaian lawyer and diplomat Hanna Tetteh, is promoting an official, inclusive Political Roadmap. Hanna Tetteh’s plan was presented on August 21, 2025, during her address to the UN Security Council.

The Political Roadmap is supposed to be implemented over 12-18 months and is built upon three main pillars: 

The first is the Electoral Framework. It includes the adoption of a single, legally sound electoral framework for holding simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections, thereby eliminating the option of appointing leaders ‘from above’; it also involves reforming and ensuring the full financial independence of the High National Election Commission (HNEC); and updating laws based on the work of the 6+6 Joint Committee formed by the HCS and HoR.

The second objective is the Unified Government. It calls for the formation of an inclusive transitional government led by technocrats and built on consensus between the House of Representatives and the High Council of State rather than family quotas. This government is temporary; its sole aim is to prepare the country for the elections. 

The third part of the plan is Structured Dialogue launched in Tripoli and aimed at engaging the entire Libyan society in the political process. It supposes the development of a common vision for the future structure of the state, the transparent distribution of oil revenues through independent oversight bodies (rather than through personal agreements between the clans), the institutional unification of the army, and the withdrawal of foreign forces from the country (as opposed to the joint exercises with AFRICOM), as well as the launch of transitional justice processes and the protection of human rights.

An inevitable dead-end

Despite Hanna Tetteh’s negotiations with various Libyan and foreign officials, the UN Roadmap, like previous UN initiatives, failed to achieve success, and encountered the usual delays or sabotage by Libyan political leaders.

The country’s key institutions – the HCS and the HoR – cannot agree on the constitutional foundations for holding the elections. One of the main issues is the restructuring of the High National Electoral Commission, which is one of the key objectives of the UN plan. Tetteh also acknowledged the failure of the UN plan, citing the usual delays in economic, social, legal, and security matters.

“The main cause of this dysfunction is a divided government, with limited coordination and unilateral action on both sides,” Tetteh stated.

This failure is also demonstrated by the security situation in western Libya, particularly the events in Zawiya, a city around 40 km from Tripoli, where armed clashes regularly occur between local militias loyal to the various government structures of Tripoli. 

Local clashes involving heavy weapons have resulted in civilian casualties, destruction, and the shutdown of the local oil refinery (the second largest in the country). A resumption of clashes near the refinery on May 8-9, 2026, resulted in deaths and injuries. Over 80 people were urgently evacuated from the fighting zone by the Red Crescent.

The UN’s inability to control local authoritarian leaders in western coastal towns like Zawiya or to achieve a permanent ceasefire remains the primary reason for the continued failure of broader UN mediation initiatives.

However, UN officials still have hope. Most recently, Hanna Tetteh announced a ‘two-step approach’: if major players continue to block the process, the UN will bypass them by convening a broad national conference involving elders, women, youth, and civil society in order to pressure leaders to make concessions. However, given the experience of past years, it is unclear how such an approach will help implement the UN plan.

Mixed opinions from outside

Boulos’ behind-the-scenes deal effectively reflects Washington’s policy in Libya, even though formally, the US, like the EU, supports the proposed UN mechanism, seeing it as a way to legitimize the government. However, several EU countries act inconsistently when it comes to the UN initiative. For example, Italy and France, which are concerned about illegal migrants arriving from Libya and have their own energy and security assets in the country, are interested in stabilizing the situation.

Italy is critically dependent on Libyan gas supplies and views a settlement as a guarantee of uninterrupted energy supplies to Europe. Furthermore, Rome views the unification of the Libyan authorities and the creation of a single government (as proposed by Boulos) as an opportunity to block the main illegal migration routes via the Mediterranean Sea.

Türkiye, which has demonstrated a surprising degree of flexibility, also supported the American initiative. While remaining the main military patron of the Government of National Unity, Ankara has begun forging ties with Saddam and Belqasim Haftar. Türkiye’s primary goals are to protect its construction contracts in the east and to secure the potential recognition of the 2019 Turkey-Libya Memorandum of Understanding on the Delimitation of Maritime Jurisdiction Areas by the country’s eastern authorities.

Cairo, which traditionally backs eastern Libya, also welcomed the US plan. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty stated this during a telephone conversation with Boulos, emphasizing, however, that the process of unifying national institutions would pave the way for holding presidential and parliamentary elections as soon as possible, which is more in line with the UN Roadmap.

And what does Russia think?

As for Russia, it pursues a unique policy of ‘equal distance’ (or ‘equal proximity’) in Libya, maintaining strong contacts with both the east and the west. Moscow’s positive role consists in maintaining a strategic balance of power, preventing a resumption of a full-scale civil war, and facilitating economic recovery.

At the same time, eastern Libya remains Russia’s main geopolitical anchor in the region. Russia maintains a military and technical presence there through the Russian Defense Ministry’s Africa Corps. The presence of Russian specialists at key LNA bases (such as Jufra and Sirte) acts as a deterrent for western groups. In the Fezzan desert region of southern Libya, Russian forces are helping the LNA control the borders with Chad and Sudan, blocking the logistics of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and arms smugglers, and stabilizing the entire Sahel region.

The political leadership of western Libya (including Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah) regularly holds official talks with the Russian Foreign Ministry. Dbeibah has publicly declared improved relations and a commitment to a strategic partnership with Moscow. 

Despite reports by Western media that one of the goals of the Boulos plan is to oust Russia from Libya’s political life, contacts with Moscow play a stabilizing role for Libya and allow the authorities in Tripoli to avoid becoming completely dependent on US dictates or Turkish military bases. 

At the same time, Moscow advocates for an inclusive process within the framework of the UN Security Council that would lead to national elections. Russia maintains that a stable peace agreement is impossible without the participation of all Libyan factions, tribal alliances, and the consideration of the interests of both the east and the west.

Despite the support of many parties both within Libya and outside of it, America’s actions are not healing the divisions in the country, but only temporarily freezing them. They reduce the likelihood of a sudden war for Tripoli, but at the same time, by relying on a deal between the elites, they undermine the democratic process promoted by UN structures.

In the long term, the creation of the Dbeibah-Haftar ‘family consortium’ makes Libya’s political system even more fragile, as it rests solely on the balance of interests of two specific families whose internal stability may be shaken after the departure of their leaders.

Guinean President Mamadi Doumbouya has banned the export of raw gold, directing all production to be refined domestically as part of a push to expand local value addition in the West African nation’s mining sector.

The measure follows talks between the president and industrial and artisanal mining operators, as well as gold buying offices, on June 19, and takes effect immediately.

“Any operator who, after the expiry of this deadline, continues to export raw gold will have its license suspended, its mining agreement terminated, and will answer for its actions before Guinean justice,” Doumbouya warned, according to his office.

Guinea holds significant gold reserves and ranks as the sixth-largest producer in Africa, with production of 69.3 tons in 2025, according to the World Gold Council. The former French colony is also the world’s leading producer of bauxite, accounting for around 33.2% of global output in 2024, US Geological Survey data shows.

President Mamadi Doumbouya said Guinea has “unfortunately been among the poorest nations in the world,” despite being “one of the richest lands in Africa.”

He said the country’s “gold leaves its soil every day in raw form, loaded onto planes, taken to foreign refineries to be processed” and sold elsewhere while Guinea “receives crumbs.” 

The government said the measure is designed to boost local value addition and accelerate industrialization in a country where mining remains the backbone of the economy.

Doumbouya, who first came to power in 2021 after a military takeover and later won the presidency in an election last December, has also tightened oversight of Guinea’s bauxite sector, revoking and reassigning mining concessions while pushing for greater local processing.

British Labour MP Andy Burnham looks set to be airdropped into Downing Street to replace Prime Minister Keir Starmer. He’s promising “renewal for our party and our country,” after the sitting prime minister effectively burned the greatest parliamentary majority in over a hundred years with scandals, a lack of empathy, and a notoriously belligerent line on the country’s relationship with Israel.

However, despite the premature hailing of Burnham as someone who could reinvigorate the Labour vote, all signs point to him delivering Starmerism without Starmer.

Starmer resigned on Monday as the most unpopular prime minister in modern British history, six weeks after the Labour Party lost almost 1,500 seats in local elections across England. His resignation opened a leadership contest that Burnham – a Labour veteran that served under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who re-entered parliament after winning a by-election in Makerfield, Manchester last week – is all but guaranteed to win. 

“The country expects stability, seriousness and a continued focus on the issues that matter most and that is what it will get,” Burnham wrote on social media. “The Labour movement has always been at its strongest when it looks forward with confidence…and we will make sure this transition is a positive process of renewal for our party and our country.”

The Andy Burnham aesthetic

At first glance, Burnham represents an aesthetic break from Starmer, who has been described as “wooden” and “lacking in charisma.” Speaking in a slightly working class northern accent and clad in a simple shirt and jeans, Burnham goes to great lengths to set himself apart from the “Westminster bubble” inhabited by suit-and-tie southerners like Starmer. 

The North vs South-off in the battle to be British Prime Minister - which pitch will win out? pic.twitter.com/r0CKtH6Z5s

— ɖʀʊӄքǟ ӄʊռʟɛʏ 🇧🇹🇹🇩 (@kunley_drukpa) June 20, 2026

The British media have largely accepted this framing. The Financial Times has described him as a man who bases his policies on conversations with voters in supermarkets, while The Times has described his views as shaped by the “class-conscious history of Catholicism in the north,” as well as his time as a church altarboy. 

Should he get the job, he will be the first Roman Catholic in British history to become prime minister. But scratch the PR-friendly surface, and Burnham starts to look more and more like the prime minister he’s set to replace.

Are Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer really that different?

Aesthetic differences aside, Starmer and Burnham are both products of the same political pipeline. Both were educated in England’s most elite universities, with Starmer studying at Oxford and Burnham at Cambridge. Both represent the centrist, managerial ‘New Labour’ of Tony Blair, not the left-wing Labour of Jeremy Corbyn. Back in 2015, both tried and failed to prevent Corbyn from wresting control of the party after Ed Miliband’s resignation, with Starmer endorsing Burnham’s failed leadership bid.

🚨 WATCH: Andy Burnham has just left Manchester and is set to arrive in London at 1:09pm pic.twitter.com/ngUA1huyAa

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) June 22, 2026

Starmer eventually succeeded Corbyn in 2020, using accusations of anti-Semitism to oust one of Britain’s most vocal supporters of Palestine. He has since reshaped the party as an Atlanticist, pro-Israel political force, and there is no indication that Burnham will abandon this course.

Labour’s losing message on Israel

Labour’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is existential for the party. Under Starmer, Palestine Action was listed as a terrorist organization, and the PM called for the “policing of language” and banning anti-Israel protests. As a result, Labour’s left-wing base has abandoned the party in droves, switching allegiance to the explicitly pro-Palestinian Green Party. Against public protests and complaints from his own MPs, Starmer refused to call for a ceasefire in Gaza in late 2023 and publicly affirmed Israel’s right to cut off power and water to the strip’s two million residents.

Burnham, like Starmer, is a member of Labour Friends of Israel – a group that only a quarter of Labour MPs have joined. He backed Starmer’s coup against Corbyn, describing the party as “embroiled in an anti-Semitism crisis.” And in his 2015 leadership bid, he promised that his first overseas trip as prime minister would be to Israel, which he praised for its “long history of protecting minorities and promoting civil rights.”

Andy Burnham in the 2015 Labour Leadership Election:

"The first country I will visit if elected is 'israel'"!

Meet the new puppet, same as the old one. pic.twitter.com/9OzyorBdqi

— UNN (@UnityNewsNet) June 20, 2026

None of this will ingratiate Burnham with Labour’s left wing. Nor will it help him with Muslim voters, two thirds of whom say they will no longer consider voting for the party, according to a poll taken last month. 

Burnham backed the Iraq War

For his part, Burnham voted in favor of joining the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a decision that he has since described as “agonizing.” However, he went on to vote against formal inquiries into Britain’s conduct in Iraq and has said little about the war on Iran, describing it as “not simple.” 

Like Starmer and every Conservative PM since 2022 – Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak – Burnham is staunchly pro-Ukraine, promising to “stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.”

Can voters trust Andy Burnham on immigration?

Although immigration policy is largely a right-wing concern, more and more of Labour’s voters back tougher border controls in the wake of the so-called ‘Boriswave’: the post-Brexit surge in non-EU immigration that has seen more than 4 million migrants arrive in the UK since 2020. According to a YouGov poll, half of Labour’s 2024 voters now think Starmer is handling immigration badly, while 49% want overall immigration numbers reduced, according to a separate Ipsos survey taken last year.

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has branded Burnham “open-borders Burnham” over these positions. With Reform winning as many seats in last month’s by-elections as Labour lost, and with the party’s tough immigration policies three times as popular as Labour’s, it is highly unlikely that Burnham will be able to turn around Starmer’s polling on the issue.

New prime minister, new taxes

Starmer took office during an unprecedented decline in British living standards and immediately began imposing new taxes to fill a £22 billion ($29.9 billion) hole in public finances. Spending increases on healthcare, education, and policing were limited, and between July 2024 and November 2025, Starmer’s government imposed a new tax or increased an old one every ten days, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

Unlike Starmer, Burnham has promised a quasi-socialist surge in public spending. On the campaign trail in Makerfield, he called for a sweeping wave of nationalization, energy price caps, public housing construction, and defense spending hikes. However, his appointment of MP Miatta Fahnbulleh as economic adviser suggests that the end result will be the same for the British taxpayer.

In order to pay for this ambitious agenda, Fahnbulleh, whose father worked in the government of former Liberian President Samuel Doe, has proposed the imposition of a wealth tax and windfall taxes on oil and gas, hikes in capital gains and property taxes, and increases in property and dividend taxes. 

Nigel Farage demands elections

Burnham is on the cusp of becoming the UK’s sixth prime minister in seven years. Only three of these – Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Keir Starmer – actually won a general election, and none served a full five-year term. None have managed to turn Britain’s cratering economy around, none have offered any kind of shift in foreign policy, and none have reduced immigration to a level acceptable to voters.

British PMs since 2016 and how long they spent in power:

◾️David Cameron — 429 days

◾️Theresa May — 1,106 days

◾️Boris Johnson — 1,140 days

◾️Liz Truss — 49 days

◾️Rishi Sunak — 619 days

◾️Keir Starmer — 717 days + remaining days

None of them served out their full terms pic.twitter.com/u32u1NXiam

— RT (@RT_com) June 22, 2026

“Andy Burnham knows this,” Farage wrote in a blog post on Monday. “He doesn’t care about our borders, our rotten high streets, our energy bills or our collapsing finances. That’s why he didn’t even try and campaign on his own ideas – because he doesn’t have any. His plan for government is to act as continuity Starmer, and hope the rest of us are too stupid to notice.”

Reform demands a general election to fix broken Britain. pic.twitter.com/8YsAtTr2oB

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) June 22, 2026

Whereas Burnham has called for an “orderly and responsible” transition of power, Farage has demanded a general election, but Starmer has insisted on installing a successor “to ensure the Labour Party secures a second term in office.” With the party’s first term set to drag on until 2029, few expect Burnham to make it that far. All Starmer has done is to ensure that, whenever an election is called, it is Burnham’s, and not his, to lose.

Ukrainian special services attempted to use two Moscow women as unwitting suicide bombers in a double-tap attack on a Russian law enforcement facility, investigators say.

The operation began last week when the two suspects, aged 19 and 47, traveled from Moscow to Pyatigorsk, a city in Stavropol Region, Russia in the North Caucasus, according to statements released on Tuesday by the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Investigative Committee. The women were reportedly unaware of each other and did not know that the courier jobs they accepted were intended to be suicide missions.

Investigators said the 19-year-old suspect was detained on Saturday while heading toward a checkpoint near the intended target. The 47-year-old woman later aroused suspicion as she approached the same area, the authorities said.

Both women allegedly collected backpacks containing improvised explosive devices from caches in Pyatigorsk. The bombs were destroyed in controlled detonations, according to video footage released by the FSB. The video also shows the second suspect crying, thanking the officers for saving her life and saying that Saturday was her birthday.

Russian officials believe the Ukrainian handlers intended the first courier to trigger a security response, while the second was meant to inflict maximum casualties among law enforcement personnel.

The FSB has reported several cases in which it claimed Ukrainian operatives used people as unwitting suicide bombers. The first high-profile incident took place in October 2022, when a commercial driver was reportedly tricked into transporting a bomb across the Crimean Bridge. He was killed in a remotely triggered explosion, along with four other civilians traveling nearby.

Recent alleged attacks include a woman and a man who were reportedly instructed to deliver explosive devices disguised as a Christian icon and a portable speaker to the FSB’s regional headquarters in Crimea.

Russian officials claim that Kiev is resorting to terrorist tactics due to setbacks suffered on the battlefield. The CIA helped Ukraine overhaul its special services after the 2014 coup, turning them into proxies for espionage operations focused on Russia, according to media reports.

Germany and France are preparing an unprecedented joint state takeover of the EU’s largest tank maker, as the two countries continue their militarization drive.

The two governments announced the deal involving Amsterdam-headquartered KNDS on Monday, saying they have finalized the framework governing the company’s ownership, with the countries set to have equal shares.

Germany is expected to purchase 40% of the stock, while the French government will reduce its holding from 50% to 40%, thus leaving a free-float of only around 20%.

Germany’s stake would be acquired from the Wegmann family, KNDS’s current German shareholder, though the contract is still awaiting the final signature and the green light from the Bundestag’s parliamentary budget committee.

KNDS has a portfolio ranging from Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks to artillery and armored vehicles, and is a key supplier to European militaries. Formed in 2015, the company has equipped Ukraine’s military with Leopards and Caesar systems and opened a Ukrainian subsidiary to support local repair and ammunition production.

French President Emmanuel Macron also hailed the deal, saying that “together with Germany, we are taking a major step for our defense sovereignty today.” He added that the partnership was giving the two countries “the means to defend themselves, produce and innovate on their own,” in pursuit of “a sovereign Europe that protects and chooses its own destiny.”

Macron has for years pushed for European strategic autonomy amid a growing rift with the US, warning the continent must not be a “vassal” of Washington. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has been more cautious but increasingly tilted the same way, warning last year that European nations must end what he termed a defense “free-ride” on the US.

Citing an alleged “Russian threat,” both countries have embarked on expedited militarization, aligning themselves with NATO’s target defense spending of 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Moscow has repeatedly dismissed speculation that it could attack NATO, with President Vladimir Putin labeling the claim as “not only pure insanity but also a deliberate provocation.”

While the new Franco-German deal marks a milestone in military cooperation, the KNDS announcement came just weeks after the collapse of the joint FCAS project to build a next-generation fighter jet by 2040. The venture failed due to an estimated €3.2 billion in sunk R&D costs and irreconcilable disputes between Dassault and Airbus over leadership of the program.

Russian Tu-160 nuclear-capable strategic bombers have conducted drills over the neutral waters of the Barents and Norwegian seas, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday. The mission took place amid tensions between Moscow and NATO over the Ukraine conflict.

The aircraft were escorted by MiG-31 fighter jets and conducted mid-air refueling drills during what the ministry described as a routine patrol flight over the Arctic region between Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. According to the ministry, the bombers were shadowed by fighter aircraft from unspecified foreign countries during parts of their 16-hour mission.

“All flights of the Russian Aerospace Forces are conducted in strict accordance with international rules governing the use of airspace,” the ministry said on Telegram.

Russia and Belarus conducted their first joint nuclear exercise last month. President Vladimir Putin said nuclear deterrence protects the sovereignty of both countries at a time of “growing global tensions, as well as the emergence of new threats and risks.”

“A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wrote in a recent op-ed that was rejected by Politico Europe.

Lavrov also expressed “deep concern” over France’s proposal to extend its nuclear deterrent to Germany and other NATO members.

Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum this month, Putin reiterated that Russia would not attack a NATO member unless Russia is attacked first.

More than $140,000 has been raised online on behalf of a Texas woman filmed making anti-Islam comments in a grocery store.

The 44-second video which surfaced on Sunday shows a woman in blue medical scrubs confronting two other women who remain off camera.

The woman, identified by media reports as massage therapist Dasha Kilpatrick, says: “Islam is a terrorist organization, not a religion. I’m very educated on this subject. You need to leave. You’re not welcome here. This is not a Muslim country. This is a Christian country.”

One of the women is heard responding, “You need to leave,” while another says, “We have citizenship here.”

The altercation was reportedly filmed inside an H-E-B supermarket in Conroe, Texas.

After Kilpatrick faced backlash online, a fundraiser was launched on the Christian crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo. As of Tuesday, it raised $140,178.

This is not an outlier or an isolated incident. Perhaps the most disturbing part is the conviction this woman has in believing neighbors shopping at HEB are a threat to her and her country. This "hate virus" is a contagion we must confront with facts, truth, and unity. #txlege pic.twitter.com/Sg30vqknhp

— Rep. Suleman Lalani, M.D. (@DoctorLalani) June 21, 2026

“Dasha’s been fully doxxed, fired, and canceled for daring to speak truth in her own country. She’s now dealing with lost income, threats, and the mob coming for her holistic practice,” the fundraiser page states.

Texas State Representative Suleman Lalani described Kilpatrick’s remarks as “disturbing.”

“This ‘hate virus’ is a contagion we must confront with facts, truth, and unity,” he wrote on X.

Others, including Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, expressed support for Kilpatrick.

“I stand with Dasha, do you?” Mace wrote on X.

Anti-Muslim incidents in the US have increased in recent years amid debates over immigration, conflicts in the Middle East, and concerns about Islamist terrorism.

President Donald Trump, who signed an executive order restricting entry from several Muslim-majority countries during his first term in office, has recently accused Democrats of covering up several high-profile fraud cases in Minnesota involving Somali Americans.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it received 8,683 complaints of discrimination and bigotry last year, the highest annual number since the organization began publishing the data in 1996.

Outgoing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has turned the UK into an “authoritarian hellhole,” with more people being jailed and arrested for social media posts than in any other country in the world, former MP George Galloway has told RT.

Starmer announced on Monday that he would step down as prime minister and Labour Party leader by September, citing a widespread internal revolt against his leadership.

Speaking to RT’s Rick Sanchez, Galloway, who was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 for his vocal opposition to the Iraq War, welcomed the move.

“I danced on his political grave,” he said. “He has turned the United Kingdom into an authoritarian hellhole.”

Galloway argued that Starmer, who assumed office in July 2024, had made the UK subservient to the interests of Israel, Ukraine and the EU.

The British people were “rejoicing” at his departure, Galloway said, suggesting that Starmer’s plunging approval ratings had made him a liability for Labour. Only 18% of Britons viewed him favorably in mid-June, according to YouGov.

“That doesn’t mean the next fellow will be better,” Galloway said.

Andy Burnham, the newly sworn-in MP for Makerfield, is widely seen as the frontrunner to become the next prime minister. “It’ll be a coronation… this is a democratic outrage,” Galloway said.

In 2024, Starmer became the UK’s first Labour prime minister since 2010 and the sixth person to hold the office in the span of a decade. He decided to leave office after more than 100 Labour MPs urged him to step down and several key ministers resigned from his government.

The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) let hundreds of thousands of illegal fentanyl pills reach the streets of New Mexico between 2023 and 2025 – potentially leading to deadly outcomes – to focus on building bigger drug cases, The Associated Press reported on Monday, citing law enforcement sources and records.

Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid roughly 50 times stronger than heroin, is manufactured largely in clandestine Mexican labs using chemicals sourced from China. A dose as small as two milligrams – a few grains of salt – can be lethal, making it far deadlier per unit than cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin, with the drug itself cheap to produce and not dependent on crop seasons.

The drug is associated with two main dangers: while for opioid addicts, it has replaced heroin as their primary high, for the broader public, it acts as a hidden poison, often disguised as counterfeit prescription pills.

The US has been reeling from the fentanyl epidemic since 2013, with tens of thousands dying from overdoses yearly. US President Donald Trump has outlined combating the crisis as one of his priorities, designating fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction.”

“We poisoned our community to make cases,” DEA Special Agent David Howell told the outlet, adding that the agency’s approach “100% got people killed.” Howell, who filed a whistleblower complaint on the issue, described the tactic as “we did nothing, but sit back and watch.”

In one case detailed in a 66-page report reviewed by AP, agents tracked a June 2023 deal in Albuquerque in which traffickers delivered 74,000 pills that were never seized. A former DEA supervisor told AP that colleagues let “millions” of pills go unseized during a separate multi-state probe last year; Howell’s whistleblower disclosures put the figure at no less than 1.8 million pills.

At the same time, as the investigation progressed, the DEA carried out the largest single fentanyl pill seizure in its history in Albuquerque in May 2025, with agents confiscating 2.7 million fentanyl pills, more than 11kg of fentanyl powder, and $5 million in cash, alongside the arrest of 16 people with suspected ties to Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s resignation has drawn a mix of mockery and skepticism in Moscow, with officials and experts saying that his departure is unlikely to change London’s hostile stance towards Russia.

Relations at ‘zero level’

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the idea that Starmer’s departure would alter bilateral ties, arguing that the British leader had “not done anything to distinguish himself on the issue of UK-Russian relations” and had consistently favored keeping them “at a zero level.” Peskov added that there was little reason to expect any successor to take a markedly different policy.

Starmer’s resignation ‘unites us all’

Russian Special Presidential Envoy Kirill Dmitriev appeared to celebrate the news on X, writing: “We did it. Starmer's resignation unites us all,” echoing comments made earlier by US President Donald Trump.

The criticism extended to Russia’s parliament, where Senator Vladimir Dzhabarov predicted Starmer would be gone by autumn, branding him “a destroyer of everything possible” who “only sets countries against each other” and “hinders any negotiation process.”

UK policy on Ukraine and Russia to remain unchanged

Speaking to RT on Monday, Nikolay Topornin, director of the Center for European Information and an international observer, said Starmer’s departure is unlikely to bring any major shift in British foreign policy.

“The British course to support Kiev, to punish Russia, and to provide military and financial support to Ukraine will remain unchanged,” he said.

Moscow has long insisted that any lasting settlement must address those issues, including Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization, protections for Russian speakers, and recognition of territorial realities.

The UK remains bound by agreements with Germany, France, Brussels, and Washington, Topornin argued. As long as they maintain a common stance on Russia and the Ukraine conflict, there is little room for any major shift in London's policy, he said.

The analyst noted that much will depend on appointments to top foreign-policy posts, but argued that no prominent British politician currently favors a meaningful change of course on the Ukraine conflict.

Who’s next?

Topornin predicted that Labour politician Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Manchester, would succeed Starmer. Burnham “has not yet distinguished himself by some radical statements about foreign policy and changes in approaches to the conflict,” he said, adding that the rhetoric towards Moscow is unlikely to become “more pragmatic” as the new prime minister is expected to follow “the politics of the previous cabinet.”

Sergey Shein, a research fellow at the Higher School of Economics, echoed that view. He argued that Starmer is likely to oversee a managed transition rather than a sudden exit, while any successor, including Burnham, would initially be preoccupied with uniting the Labour Party. Domestically, Burnham would likely focus on economic recovery, housing, and healthcare, he added.

The Israeli army should continue operations in Lebanon despite pressure from the US, Israel’s hardline national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, said on Monday.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has expanded its presence in southern Lebanon since early March, after the militant group Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in support of Iran. Tehran has since made ending the fighting in Lebanon a key condition in peace talks with the US, prompting President Donald Trump to condemn the Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon.

Speaking to reporters, Ben-Gvir argued that Israel should make it clear to Trump that it “cannot agree to a ceasefire in Lebanon,” where more than 4,000 people have been killed since Israel resumed military operations. He added that Israel should not withdraw its troops and allow Hezbollah to rearm.

Under a US-Iranian memorandum of understanding signed last week, the sides declared an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”

On Monday, US Vice President J.D. Vance said “very good progress” was made on a deconfliction mechanism for Lebanon during talks with Iran in Switzerland. Mediators Qatar and Pakistan released a joint statement saying the parties “agreed on the creation of a deconfliction cell,” while technical talks on the issue will continue this week.

“The IDF has no restrictions in this regard,” Netanyahu added, according to the Times of Israel. Israeli politicians have criticized the US-Iranian peace roadmap for failing to advance Israel’s war objectives.

During a series of heated phone calls with Netanyahu this month, Trump urged the Israeli leader to halt strikes in Lebanon, reportedly accusing him of having “no f**king judgment.”

A British businessman who became known as the country’s ‘first gay father’ has been charged with child sex offenses, according to media reports.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, 57, was already facing a number of criminal allegations alongside his current husband, Scott Drewitt-Barlow, 32. The couple, who bought Essex-based football club Maldon and Tiptree FC in 2025, appeared at Chelmsford Crown Court on Monday. They were reportedly hit with 18 additional charges, including rape and child sex offenses.

The new charges relate to offenses allegedly committed between 2013 and 2026. According to Essex Police, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow was also charged with two counts of sexual activity with a child, two counts of paying for the sexual services of a child, five counts of rape, and four counts of sexual assault, among other offenses. Scott Drewitt-Barlow faces two additional rape charges and one count of causing or inciting sexual activity.

The pair are due to return to court for a plea hearing in September. They were remanded to custody, with a provisional trial date set for January 18, 2027.

Property developer Barrie Drewitt-Barlow became a public figure in 1999, when he and his then-partner became known as Britain’s first gay fathers after having children through surrogacy. He later appeared on reality television shows, including ‘Rich House, Poor House’ and ‘Below Deck Sailing Yacht’.

Police launched an investigation in May, carrying out searches at Maldon and Tiptree FC and the couple’s home in Danbury, Essex. Barrie and Scott Drewitt-Barlow were arrested during a raid on the property on May 6 and charged two days later, according to The Telegraph.

Earlier this month, the Football Association suspended both men from football-related activities pending the outcome of the police investigation, according to court proceedings cited by the BBC.

At least five people died in France on Sunday and Monday as temperatures topped 42°C (107.6°F) in parts of the country in the midst of a severe heatwave gripping much of Europe.

Among the victims were two children, aged two and four, who were found dead in their family car in the southern town of Carpentras on Monday. Prosecutors said heat exposure was the suspected cause of death.

A day earlier, three elderly people were found dead in their homes in the suburbs of Bordeaux, local prefect Sophie Brocas told France 3. Emergency responders reportedly linked the deaths to the extreme heat.

At least 13 more people drowned over the weekend as crowds flocked to beaches, rivers, lakes, and swimming pools in search of relief from the scorching temperatures.

Authorities have issued red heatwave alerts – the highest level – across more than half of France, while dozens of trains have been canceled and thousands of school classes have been postponed or relocated because of the extreme weather.

In the UK, the national weather service has warned of “extreme heat,” with temperatures potentially reaching 39°C later this week.

The heat is proving especially hazardous in the parts of Europe that are ill-equipped for such temperatures, as many homes and commercial buildings are designed to retain warmth and often lack air conditioning.

Some forecasters have warned that the current bout of hot weather could rival the deadly 2003 heatwave, which caused tens of thousands of excess deaths across Europe, according to official data.

A US university has come under fire after videos emerged showing a provost grabbing a Palestinian flag from a Muslim student during a graduation ceremony. 

The video in question was reportedly recorded during Seattle University’s commencement ceremony earlier this month and then widely shared online. It appears to show Provost Shane Martin reaching for a Palestinian flag as a graduating student named Sumeyya Osman unfurled it while approaching him for an official photograph. Martin is seen pulling the flag out of camera view before briefly struggling with Osman over it and guiding her off the stage by the arm.

Osman later said she planned to display the flag while receiving her diploma, but Martin prevented her from doing so. She also said she declined to shake the provost’s hand because of her Muslim faith, which discourages physical contact with unrelated men. “But then he just proceeded to try and take the flag away from me aggressively,” she told the media.

Osman said the incident left her feeling anxious and in fear of possible repercussions, prompting her to leave the ceremony before it ended.

CAIR-WA condemns @seattleu provost disruption of Muslim student’s graduation. Physically accosting her after she said she doesn’t shake hands with men and held up the Palestinian flag. pic.twitter.com/spbE2FFrLC

— CAIR Washington (@CAIRWashington) June 17, 2026

The footage has triggered outcry and calls for a public apology. The Washington chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights organization, has condemned the incident, saying Osman was “physically accosted” by Martin. It went on to denounce his actions as an “aggressive” response to the student’s religious and identity expression.

Martin later apologized, saying he had not heard that Osman wished to avoid physical contact for religious reasons. CAIR-Washington subsequently argued that the apology failed to address Martin’s handling of the Palestinian flag.

Since returning to office, Trump has stepped up pressure on universities to address anti-Semitism and dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In February 2025, the Justice Department launched a multi-agency task force to investigate alleged anti-Semitic incidents, with particular attention on schools and colleges.

The administration has also taken financial measures targeting several major institutions for their handling of campus protests related to the Israel-Hamas conflict, as well as what it described as inadequate responses to anti-Semitic incidents. Among them is Harvard University, which saw more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts frozen after rejecting a list of White House demands.

Sir Keir Starmer has resigned as UK prime minister. Following the re-election to Parliament of Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, the former lawyer realized he had no support left.

After winning in a landslide in 2024, Starmer is but the latest casualty of number 10 Downing Street. And in many ways, it is a wonder why.

Last week on Britain’s most popular radio station, LBC, a female caller quipped, “I don’t understand why he’s so unpopular.” By all accounts, Starmer and his wife are decent people. Both have had decorated careers in public service, as a lawyer and a nurse respectively, and are known to be good parents.

Politically, Starmer is a moderate known for caution. One of the biggest criticisms has been his lack of boldness, and yet Labour has achieved a lot in a short space of time. Renters now have more protections, the minimum wage and state pensions have increased, workers’ rights have improved, the feudal system of ground rent has been reformed and rail operators nationalized. Waiting lists on the health service have declined, and half a million children have been lifted out of poverty.

Elsewhere, immigration (legal and illegal) has dropped. Britain’s homicide rate is the lowest in fifty years. Starmer also secured the best possible trade deal Britain could have got with the EU. He did this whilst avoiding the worst of US President Donald Trump’s erratic behavior.

In failing to brag about his achievements, voters did not feel the benefits of Labour’s success. By not articulating a positive vision for Britain, Starmer could never explain his government’s purpose. Labour had little to say on the big questions facing Britain and provided no antidote to short-term pain.

Like former US President George H. W. Bush, Starmer admits he “is not much of an ideas guy.” He is not really interested in Labour Party history. He, instead, wanted to cut the figure of a statesman who did the right thing in spite of what is popular. He thought that making government work after fourteen chaotic years of Conservative rule would be enough.

It has not been. The party wanted a political leader who would unite the country’s progressive left majority in a fragmented political environment.

Last year, I attended a conference in Cambridge on Labour’s first year, where one of the organisers put it candidly: “You have to honor a large majority,” he said. Labour failed to deliver the speedy change Britain’s impatient population was expecting and routinely got in its own way.

Starmer tried to reform Britain’s shockingly high welfare bill (currently around 10% of GDP with 55% going to pensioners). He tried to cut the winter fuel allowance, a payment which goes towards all pensioners’ heating bills. Most do not need it and see that as a badge of honor. Starmer also tried to make certain benefit payments harder to get and encourage more young people back into work. And in fairness, unemployment is now down slightly.

But like his defense plans, Labour backbenchers would not have it. No new ideas came in their place, and Starmer proved unwilling to break manifesto pledges. Without a vision and a purpose, voters turned to fringe parties. More than half of Labour’s own members feel their party is failing to deliver.

He says the north of England – specifically Manchester – is an example of what a successful Britain could look like. In Burnham’s telling, growth only matters if it is translated into tangible benefits for every citizen. ‘Manchesterism’ is “the end of neoliberalism, the end of trickle-down economics,” he claims, with more power and resources being devolved out of Westminster.

To be fair, Manchester is a booming city and some of that is down to Burnham. Most, however, is not. He merely rode the coattails of an already underway regeneration plan. His signature achievement is cheaper and more expansive local bus networks, but concerns linger over local policing, affordable housing, and homelessness.

More concerning is that Burnham has no fixed ideology. He appears happy to say whatever goes down well at the time of speaking. Many of Burnham’s colleagues in Manchester and Westminster have noted how Burnham often chooses policies on a whim. Few can explain how he will be any different (or better) than Starmer.

Burnham himself has been extremely vague, too. He has not articulated any positions on foreign policy or defense, has gone back and forth on climate policy, the EU, and immigration. He has talked about raising corporation taxes, cutting business rates for pubs, overhauling property taxes, and revamping social care. He has also talked of ‘business friendly socialism’ and re-nationalizing utilities.

But no details have followed and, as prime minister, Burnham would have limited room for economic maneuvering. He will still face the same issues Starmer has, and no magic bullet solution exists – just ask all the other ex-prime ministers and those who voted for Brexit.

The shadow chancellor, Conservative Mel Stride, told Sky News that nothing will fundamentally change if Burnham replaces Starmer. “This is somebody who has flip-flopped all over the place. You have seen it even in this by-election itself.”

The trade unions that back Labour are also skeptical. They are calling for a leadership contest of ‘policies not personalities’. Labour MP Jess Phillips agrees, saying that Burnham should not simply face a coronation as Labour leader and prime minister. In Phillips’ words, Burnham has to prove he is ready to lead. He cannot do that without facing proper scrutiny of his plan for government.

Another in agreement is former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, whom Starmer defeated. Writing in The Sunday Times, Sunak said. “Without [a leadership contest], your mandate is weak, and you end up being bound by commitments that aren’t your priorities.” Sunak also went on to say that Burnham must recognize that he will never have more power than on his first day, and that it is “vital he has a clear and achievable plan for what he wants to do in those opening hours.”

Beyond giving more money to the north of England, his plans are unclear – and even that is questionable. What about the rest of Britain? What about Wales and Scotland, where Labour just lost elections? Northern towns, like Britain itself, are extremely diverse. Darlington and Chorley are about as different as the coastal towns of Grimsby, Lincolnshire and Paignton, Devon. What does that extra money mean and where will it come from? Do not ask Burnham.

Whether he can turn Labour’s political fortunes around is also in doubt. Recent polling still shows a Labour Party led by Burnham would come second in a hung parliament – giving it just an extra 4% of the vote. Thankfully for Labour, the poll-leading Reform UK has peaked in its vote share and is losing supporters and key by-elections. Yet, Labour still has a lot to do before it wins another general election.

Things might be bad for Starmer, but he will be remembered fondly by British historians. Not as a disaster, but a decent man guiding Britain through difficult times, trapped by the system and a fickle population. In that sense, Starmer is rather like another US president: Gerald R. Ford.

If Burnham cannot turn things around, he ruins his legacy and Labour’s. Starmer was allowed to fail. Burnham will not be.

The Iranian national team has formally complained to FIFA about what its manager has described as systemic discrimination by the US, one of the hosts of the 2026 World Cup. Tehran expects football’s governing body to act and ensure that the host nation honors its obligations to all participating teams, Mahdi Mohammadnabi said.

The tournament is being co-hosted by the US, Canada, and Mexico, with most matches taking place in the US. Iran’s head coach, Amir Ghalenoei, has previously called his side “the most oppressed” team at the World Cup, while captain Mehdi Taremi described the situation facing the squad as a “disaster.”

Speaking to Iran’s IRIB broadcaster ahead of Iran’s game with Belgium, Mohammadnabi said that the conditions imposed on Iranian players were “in no way equal to those of other teams.”

He cited travel restrictions that force Iran’s squad to arrive at match venues only one day before games, while other teams are able to arrive two days in advance. The reduced preparation time leaves players with less opportunity to adapt to local conditions and train properly, potentially affecting performance, he argued.

“We expect FIFA to perform better in its area of responsibility,” said Mohammadnabi, who also serves as vice president of the Iranian Football Federation.

His remarks came as US and Iranian delegations traveled to Switzerland for a new round of talks aimed at reaching a lasting settlement to the months-long conflict between the two countries, which had earlier cast doubt over Iran’s participation in the tournament.

Iran’s complaints add to broader concerns over US entry policies during the World Cup. A Somali referee selected for the tournament was denied entry despite holding valid documents, while players, officials, and supporters from several countries have reportedly faced extensive screening, visa delays, or outright refusals.

FIFA has also faced criticism over soaring ticket prices, expensive stadium concessions, and mandatory hydration breaks that some observers argue have become commercial opportunities rather than purely player-safety measures.

Two people were killed in a shooting in a Jewish neighborhood in Montreal, Canada, on Monday, police said.

Montreal police said the suspect had been neutralized. A police officer and a civilian were killed in the Cote-des-Neiges neighborhood, while another officer and a second civilian were injured.

The Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) identified the civilian victim as Michael (Michel) Moshe Mizrahi, calling him “a beloved member of Montreal’s Jewish community.”

The slain police officer was identified as Constable Mohamed Lamine Benredouane, who had served with the force since 2021.

Videos from the scene show a police presence near the Supermarche PA shopping center on Westbury Avenue. The surrounding area has been cordoned off, with residents urged to remain indoors and avoid approaching windows. The videos appear to show police officers exchanging gunfire at close range with the suspected gunman.

🇨🇦 More footage from the scene in Montreal shows police everywhere.

It's a chaotic situation, and while it's not confirmed, it looks like the shooter is still inside.

Writer: Daniyalpic.twitter.com/CgrAxOISEt https://t.co/ufD6XHcCdc

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) June 22, 2026

According to The Times of Israel, the shooting took place in an area with numerous kosher restaurants, Jewish schools and community centers.

Radio-Canada reported that the suspect had released a manifesto targeting women and calling for a revolution based on “masculinist” ideas. The broadcaster linked the document to the incel (involuntary celibate) subculture.

🚨 HORROR FOOTAGE: TERROR IN MONTREAL - ARMED SUSPECT IN CAMO CLOTHING OPENS FIRE ON POLICE pic.twitter.com/OJYWY50547

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 22, 2026

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he was “horrified” to learn that a police officer and a civilian had been killed.

“My thoughts are with the victims, their loved ones, the first responders and the entire community of Côte-des-Neiges. My gratitude goes to our courageous police officers, whose heroic dedication protects our communities,” he wrote on X.

Located near the city center, the Cote-des-Neiges neighborhood is home to several public schools and colleges, including the main campus of Montreal University, as well as some hospitals and prominent religious buildings, such as Saint Joseph’s Oratory of Mount Royal – a large domed basilica, which is widely regarded as the most popular local tourist attraction.

Advanced artificial intelligence models could soon give hackers the ability to cripple governments, businesses, and critical systems, cyber agencies from the Five Eyes intelligence group have warned.

In a rare joint statement published on Monday, cyber security leaders from Australia, the US, the UK, Canada, and New Zealand said frontier AI models are developing faster than expected and are “anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.”

“The timeline is not years, it is months,” the agencies said, adding that “cyber risk can no longer be treated as a purely technical issue. This is a core business risk and leadership responsibility.”

The statement said AI will help improve cyber defense over time, but is also lowering the barrier for malicious actors, increasing the speed and complexity of attacks, while shrinking the window between vulnerability discovery and exploitation.

The agencies urged organizations to strengthen their digital defenses, update outdated software more quickly, limit access to sensitive systems, and prepare for cyberattacks before they happen.

Earlier this year, the company said one of its flagship models, Mythos, was too powerful to be released to the general public and limited access to a small group of trusted organizations. The company later introduced Fable 5, a more restricted version of the technology, but both models were subsequently taken offline after the US government ordered that foreign citizens be barred from using them, citing national security concerns.

The developments come amid broader warnings from researchers, technology leaders, and security officials that AI capabilities are advancing faster than governments and institutions can adapt.

Experts have increasingly cautioned that systems designed to boost productivity and strengthen cyber defenses could also be used to automate attacks, lower barriers for malicious actors, and amplify the impact of small groups.

Over the past year, the nature of the Iran-Israel conflict has undergone a significant transformation. What previously appeared as a series of isolated crises is increasingly taking on the characteristics of a sustained, direct confrontation. In this context, Operation True Promise 5, announced by Tehran in June, has become evidence of a new reality which demonstrates that the previous mechanisms of deterrence have become ineffective.

The new round of escalation was triggered by Israel’s fierce strikes on Lebanon. For Tehran, Lebanon is not only an important element of regional balance, but also part of its system of influence. For Israel, the problem is not Lebanon itself, but rather the fact that Lebanon is part of a broader system of Iranian influence. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his team want to curb this influence at all costs. 

Iran’s Operation True Promise 5 should be viewed in this context. It was a response not only to the strikes on Lebanon, but also to a broader process of erosion of the old rules of the game. Iran is demonstrating that it no longer considers itself bound by the old logic of caution which involved a delayed, limited, and measured response.

Over the past year, Tehran has adapted to continuous escalation. While in the old days, a strike on Iranian territory would have been perceived as a transition to an entirely new reality, now this reality no longer surprises anyone. Sanctions, sabotage, assassinations, attacks on infrastructure, and pressure on military and industrial facilities have become commonplace. Despite its many internal problems, Iran has learned to live on constant alert. 

Moreover, Israel’s policy of pressure has largely backfired. Instead of deterring Iran, it has accelerated the development of a new kind of psychological resilience. Iran is becoming less patient and is willing to respond more quickly and directly. This doesn’t mean that Iran’s actions are completely unrestrained, but rather that the previous strategy of cautious and delayed response is giving way to a new model of behavior.

The regional consequences of this transformation have proven to be significantly broader than the Iran-Israel confrontation. As soon as it became clear that Israel intended to continue the attacks on Lebanon, Tehran effectively began delaying the diplomatic process and abandoned its previous commitment to move toward the signing of a memorandum in Switzerland, scheduled for June 19. At the same time, Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. The strait instantly became a tool of pressure not only on Israel but also the US, which finds itself in a difficult position, as any escalation around the strait directly affects energy security, global markets, and the stability of the entire regional architecture.

The current stage of the conflict is dangerous not so much because of the scale of the attacks, but because of the shift in the logic of the confrontation. While escalation was previously seen as a tool of deterrence, it now has the opposite effect. Each new attack does not necessarily deter the enemy; on the contrary, it may trigger a more forceful response.

Iran no longer acts as if its primary objective is to avoid a direct conflict at all costs. It has adapted to war and is willing to exist in a state of a constant confrontation. This makes the situation particularly dangerous. The conflict is entering a phase in which escalation no longer guarantees deterrence, and each new attack increases the risk of a wider regional crisis. Israel has already conducted hundreds of strikes on Lebanon, demonstrating its reluctance to reduce the intensity of military action despite signals from Washington. And although on June 19 Hezbollah and Israel agreed to a ceasefire, it was violated just hours later.

As a result, a situation has emerged in which the agreement exists at the diplomatic level, but fails to address the key military-political question: Who really controls southern Lebanon and is capable of stopping further attacks?

Israel understands this perfectly well. It assumes that the Lebanese state lacks sufficient military and political resources to independently curb Hezbollah’s actions. The Lebanese Army formally exists, but its capabilities are incomparable to either the Israeli military machine or the infrastructure of the country’s non-state armed actors. Therefore, for Israel, any agreement with Beirut is insufficient: Even if the Lebanese government declares its readiness for a ceasefire, it is not always capable of enforcing it on the ground.

This is precisely why Lebanon remains a constant trigger in the confrontation between Iran and Israel. For Israel, Hezbollah is not simply a Lebanese actor, but part of the broader system of Iranian influence, as noted above. For Iran, Lebanon is the only remaining tool for deterring Israel. As long as this situation persists, any strikes on Lebanon will be perceived in Tehran not as isolated incidents, but as pressure on Iran’s overall position in the region.

In this sense, the Lebanese front prevents the conflict from entering a sustained phase of de-escalation. Even if there is diplomatic talk of a ceasefire, the dynamics on the ground are quite different. Israel continues to carry out strikes, Hezbollah responds, and Iran sees these developments as part of an overall strategy of pressuring its regional presence. Therefore, Lebanon will continue to act as a trigger in the Iran-Israel confrontation. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei confirmed this, noting that Tehran will not move to the next stage of negotiations with the US unless there is a ceasefire in Lebanon.

And if anyone thinks that a few angry words from US President Donald Trump are enough to fix everything, they’re wrong. Trump may not particularly like Netanyahu, but what matters here is not so much the Israeli prime minister as broader geopolitics. Netanyahu is fully aware of this and does whatever he deems necessary, confident that Trump, or rather the US, will always be on Israel’s side, no matter who leads it.

Cuban revolutionary commander Ramiro Valdes Menendez, a figure revered in the island nation as a hero who fought alongside Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, has passed away at the age of 94.

In an X post on Sunday, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel said Valdes’ death “hurt deeply, like that of a father.”

“Every act in Commander Ramiro’s life was marked by his absolute loyalty to the leadership of Fidel and Raul [Castro], to his fellow fighters, and to the Moncada Program,” he said, referring to the political and social reforms implemented after the revolution toppled the US-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959.

The reforms were named after the unsuccessful 1953 Moncada Barracks assault, which marked the beginning of the revolution and in which Valdes fought alongside Che and both Castro brothers.

In the years after, he was awarded the titles of Commander of the Revolution and Hero of the Republic of Cuba, played a key role in establishing the island nation's intelligence services, and later served as vice president during the presidency of Raul Castro.

Since the start of his second term, US President Donald Trump has further tightened the blockade, promising tariffs on countries that supplied oil to Cuba and openly threatening it with regime change and a takeover.

Diaz-Canel denounced the pressure as illegal, but has confirmed talks with Washington as the nation grapples with a worsening fuel, electricity, and economic crisis brought on by the blockade.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s resignation on Monday exemplifies the cynical sham of ‘democratic renewal’ in a system dominated by globalist plutocratic interests.

Starmer stood outside 10 Downing Street and announced that he was stepping down as leader of the Labour Party and head of government. He cynically masked his political execution as a voluntary departure made ‘with good grace’ for the sake of the party’s chances at the next election. The grim reality is that his hand was forced by an imploding cabinet and years of plummeting approval ratings fueled by economic paralysis, disastrous U-turns, and outright voter disgust.

Media outlets immediately framed the moment as “historic,” a signal that the system had listened, that accountability had prevailed, and that Britain might now chart a different course. Yet this narrative rings hollow. Starmer’s departure is not a rupture but another installment in a long-running political theater designed to sustain the illusion of choice while preserving the underlying structures of power. In contemporary Western ‘democracy’, genuine transformation remains elusive because the system functions less as rule by the people and more as management by a self-appointed new ‘aristocracy’, whose priorities consistently diverge from those of native populations.

Starmer’s Labour government, like the Conservative administrations that preceded it, continued or accelerated policies that many voters perceive as detrimental to national interests. Record levels of legal and illegal immigration, the continued aggressive pursuit of net-zero carbon targets – which have driven up household energy bills through massive grid upgrades needed to integrate intermittent wind and solar power, along with the phasing out of cheaper fossil fuels – and a foreign policy closely aligned with supranational institutions rather than distinct British priorities all persisted under Starmer’s watch. His resignation changes none of these trajectories at the structural level. A new leader will inherit the same institutional constraints, the same donor networks, the same media ecosystem, and the same ‘international commitments’.

The term ‘plutocracy’ describes a system in which wealth and concentrated economic power determine political outcomes far more effectively than ballots. In Britain and across the West, this plutocracy operates through interlocking networks of finance, multinational corporations, media conglomerates, and supranational bodies such as the World Economic Forum, the European Union (even post-Brexit, its influence lingers), and global financial institutions. These actors prioritize borderless capital flows, cheap labor, regulatory harmonization, and cultural liberalization because such arrangements maximize returns and minimize resistance from rooted national communities.

Sustained high immigration depresses wages in lower-skilled sectors, strains public services, and alters the demographic balance in ways that native citizens did not vote for. Energy policies framed as ‘climate necessity’ impose costs that fall disproportionately on working and middle-class households while benefiting green-tech investors and international energy traders. Cultural shifts promoted through education, media, and corporate diversity mandates harm the shared identity and social trust that have historically underpinned stable democracies. When voters express discontent – through protests, low voter turnout, or support for outsider candidates – the response is rarely substantive policy reversal. Instead, the system offers spectacle.

Resignations function as particularly effective herd control mechanisms. The dramatic exit of a prime minister generates wall-to-wall media coverage, parliamentary farce, and public catharsis. Citizens are encouraged to believe that the system works because a failing leader has been removed. Historical examples abound. Boris Johnson’s 2022 downfall involved dozens of ministerial resignations in days, portrayed as a spontaneous revolt of principle. Liz Truss’s brief tenure ended in market chaos and swift replacement. Theresa May and even Margaret Thatcher’s departures carried similar dramatic weight. Each episode produced intense coverage, temporary polling shifts, and the sense that accountability mechanisms were functioning. Yet, as the spectacle dissipates, the new occupant settles into the same institutional furniture, and public attention moves to the next distraction: sports, entertainment, or the next celebrity scandal.

This cycle keeps populations docile. The modern equivalents of Roman bread and circuses include expansive welfare systems that foster dependency, ubiquitous digital entertainment that dull the people’s reasoning faculties, and a news cycle engineered for outrage rather than analysis. The mainstream media acts as a ruthless guardian of the status quo by relentlessly pushing identity-based conflicts that fragment public attention and block unified opposition to the ruling economic order. This calculated distraction deliberately shields the predatory architecture of financialization, offshoring, and elite regulatory capture, all while advancing policies hostile to the ethnocultural interests of white British people, the destruction of the traditional British heritage, and institutional favoritism towards non-native groups at the expense of the historic majority. When frustration builds to the point of threatening stability, a high-profile resignation or leadership contest is staged. The message is clear: your voices have been heard; change is coming. In practice, the new leader often accelerates elements of the previous agenda or introduces cosmetic reforms that leave core power relations intact.

Andy Burnham’s emergence as a potential successor illustrates the point. His by-election triumph was hailed by some as a rebuke to Starmerism, yet Burnham’s record as Greater Manchester mayor and his positioning within Labour’s broad church suggest continuity rather than change. Whether the next occupant hails from the party’s right, center, or soft left, the institutional incentives push towards accommodation with the plutocratic consensus.

True democratic renewal would require mechanisms that genuinely empower citizens to alter foundational policies: stricter controls on elite influence through campaign finance reform, actual referendums on immigration and constitutional questions with binding force, and devolution of power that reduces the distance between rulers and ruled. Instead, the current arrangement offers periodic leadership musical chairs while the music, global capital’s preferences, continues uninterrupted. Starmer’s resignation will be remembered as another well-choreographed scene in a production whose directors remain firmly in their chairs.

The British public, like most citizens across the West, grows increasingly aware of this dynamic. Polling has shown deep distrust in institutions and a sense that the political class operates in its own interest. Yet awareness alone does not alter structures. Until mechanisms exist for ordinary people to impose real costs on elites who disregard national interests, the cycle of spectacle and continuity will persist. Resignations will come and go. New puppets will be installed. And the plutocracy, globalist by nature and insulated from the consequences of its preferences, will continue to rule in democracy’s name. The question is no longer whether the next leader will be different in any fundamental way – he will not – but whether citizens will continue to accept the performance as the substance of self-government.

A blaze in a commercial building in the northern Indian city of Lucknow on Monday has left at least 14 people dead, most of them students.

The fire broke out in a building located in the Aliganj neighborhood, which housed a pet shop and veterinary clinic on the lower floors, in addition to an animation studio and a study center upstairs.

The deputy chief minister of the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, Brajesh Pathak, confirmed that 14 bodies have been recovered, while ten people were undergoing treatment in a hospital.

Local media reports that several people were injured. Rescue efforts were coordinated by officials from the fire department, police, and district administration.

Disturbing and scary visuals from Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh where people were seen jumping from the first floor of a shop caught in a massive fire. pic.twitter.com/ofT6vlKOQW

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) June 22, 2026

Authorities have not determined the cause of the blaze. Videos circulating on social media showed people shimmying to the ground on makeshift ropes, as well as a person falling from the first floor while trying to escape. Local media later reported that the man has been hospitalized.

Some animals rescued from the pet clinic were also injured.

Firefighters broke open a wall to gain entry to the building as thick smoke hampered rescue efforts. Exhaust fans were used to clear the smoke.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that cash assistance would be provided to the families of the victims and those hurt in the blaze.

“Anguished by the loss of lives in a fire mishap in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. My condolences to the bereaved families. May the injured recover at the earliest,” he posted on X.

The US has issued a temporary sanctions waiver for Iran’s oil sector, authorizing the production, sale, delivery, and import of Iranian crude oil and petrochemicals, the Treasury Department has said. The announcement comes as negotiations between Washington and Tehran continue following the first round of talks in Switzerland over the weekend.

Iran General License X authorizes “the production, delivery and sale of crude oil, petrochemical products, and petroleum products of Iranian origin” for a 60-day period, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on X on Monday.

The license also covers services linked to the energy trade, including vessel management, insurance, crewing, bunkering, classification, and emergency repairs. Buyers are permitted to make payments in US dollar-denominated funds to Iran, the Iranian government, or sanctioned Iranian entities for transactions covered by the license.

Unlike General License U, issued in March 2026 and limited to oil already loaded onto tankers before a set cutoff date, the new license also allows production activities.

The authorization comes as part of a memorandum of understanding reached between the US and Iran earlier this month, in which Washington pledged to immediately issue waivers on Iranian oil exports.

This weekend, Washington and Tehran agreed on a roadmap toward a final agreement following negotiations mediated by Qatar and Pakistan at the Swiss resort of Buergenstock. No joint statement has been released, but the mediators said the talks produced agreement on a 60-day roadmap toward a final deal, further technical negotiations, and the creation of a high-level committee to oversee the process. Tehran said the talks focused heavily on practical economic measures, including the release of frozen assets, and the lifting of restrictions on Iranian ports and shipping.

Despite the sanctions, Iran continued exporting crude oil, with China remaining its largest customer. Much of the exports were reportedly purchased by independent Chinese refiners that bought Iranian oil despite the risk of US penalties.

India is in initial talks with the United Arab Emirates for the potential sale of BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, Reuters reports.

The Gulf nation is ramping up weapons purchases in the aftermath of the Middle East conflict and amid concerns about regional stability.

The negotiations also include the potential purchase of India’s Akashteer air defense system, Reuters reports, citing two sources.

“The talks between India and UAE are at initial stages and are progressing fast,” the report quoted a third source as saying.

BrahMos, jointly developed by India and Russia, is among the world’s fastest cruise missiles and has land, sea, and air variants. The missile, with speeds reaching up to Mach 3, was employed with lethal effectiveness against Pakistani targets last year by Indian forces.

Akashteer is a fully automated air defense system developed by state-run Bharat Electronics Ltd and the Indian Army.

The Alliance of Sahel States (AES) has condemned a terrorist attack targeting Diori Hamani International Airport in Niger’s capital, describing it as a “cowardly and perfidious aggression” supported by “foreign state sponsors” against the region.

The assault on Thursday left 13 people dead, including 11 security personnel and two civilians. Four others were injured, while 22 assailants were neutralized and about 20 suspects arrested, according to Niger’s Defense Ministry. Al-Qaeda affiliate Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack.

In a statement published on Saturday, AES President Captain Ibrahim Traore said the “attempted takeover” of Niamey Airport was aimed at weakening Nigerien armed forces and reversing what he described as the defeat of militants in the Sahel.

He said the AES “strongly condemns this new manifestation of terrorist violence supported by foreign state sponsors,” without naming any countries.

“These recurring and remotely directed attacks only strengthen the sacred union of … the AES around the vision of their heads of state in their struggle to preserve the territorial integrity of member states, protect populations, and guarantee lasting peace in the Sahel space,” Traore stated.

Niger and its neighbors, Mali and Burkina Faso, formed the AES in 2023 to collectively address the jihadist insurgency that has gripped the region for more than a decade, driven by armed groups linked to al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

On Saturday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova expressed Moscow’s solidarity with Niamey, denouncing the June 18 assault as an attempt to “undermine the stability of the Alliance of Sahel States.”

At the time, Niger’s transitional leader, General Abdourahamane Tchiani, accused France and neighboring Benin and Ivory Coast of sponsoring the violence.

Unemployed Ukrainians should be stripped of access to Germany’s unemployment and welfare benefits system, the leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU), Markus Soeder, has said. He added that deportations and voluntary departures should be stepped up as part of a cost-cutting scheme.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, Germany has been the main destination for Ukrainian refugees in the EU, ahead of neighboring Poland. Of the 1.3 million people it has taken in over the past four years, only 341,000 were employed as of June 2025, according to government figures. The authorities in Germany have increasingly warned that the cost of supporting refugees is straining public finances.

In an interview with Bild published on Saturday, Soeder called for a reduction of payments under Buergergeld, Germany’s primary tax-funded welfare and long-term unemployment scheme, in an effort to secure funding.

“The legal framework must now be changed so that Ukrainians are no longer financed through the Burgergeld system,” he said.

Soeder, who is minister-president of Bavaria, urged the country’s authorities “to increase deportations and voluntary departures to drastically reduce costs.”

The EU is planning to exclude Ukrainian men of conscription age from the temporary protection system. The scheme has been in place for Ukrainians since 2022 and was extended in June until March 2027. The mechanism guarantees the right to residence, work, healthcare, social assistance, and access to education across the EU.

Last year, Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned that the employment rate among Ukrainian refugees living in Germany is unacceptably low.

Russian Parliament Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin has said the issue of Ukrainian refugees is becoming an increasing challenge for Europe and could develop into a new migrant crisis.

Germany and the Netherlands will return around 2,000 looted cultural artifacts to Ghana, the African nation’s foreign minister, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, said on Saturday.

The pledge was unveiled during the Next Steps Conference, where the Dutch and German ambassadors presented Ghanaian President John Mahama with a catalogue of the items set to be repatriated. The catalogue, however, has not yet been made publicly available.

The conference also saw Denmark acknowledge its role in the transatlantic slave trade. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen apologized for the country’s involvement and pledged support for preserving the forts and castles built by Denmark in present-day Ghana, saying the effort would help safeguard historical memory, promote truth-telling, and prevent similar injustices from being repeated.

According to Mahama, the groups will help develop practical pathways for restitution, historical accountability, and legal redress.

“We do not seek to reopen old wounds. We seek to heal those wounds,” he said. “We do not seek division. We seek justice, understanding, and reconciliation grounded in truth”.

The initiative follows a Ghana-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution adopted in March that recognized the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity”.

The same month, Paris returned the sacred Djidji Ayokwe talking drum to Cote d’Ivoire. The drum had been taken during the colonial period in 1916 and held in France for more than a century.

NATO and the EU’s ongoing militarization is starting to resemble plans for Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, a senior Russian diplomat has said.

Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko made the remarks in an interview with Izvestia published on Monday, June 22, the date Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union in 1941, an assault historians describe as the largest invasion in military history.

By some estimates, the Red Army suffered up to 4 million casualties within the war’s first six months alone, with millions more taken prisoner, though the Soviet Union eventually succeeded at stopping the Nazi onslaught at the gates of Moscow. Germany’s offensive benefited from military and economic support from numerous European countries, with volunteers from officially neutral nations such as Spain also joining the fight.

“Of course, we proceed from the premise that they are really preparing for a military clash with Russia somewhere around 2030,” he added.

Grushko also sounded the alarm over the resurgence of neo-Nazi ideology, stressing that Moscow is drawing attention to the dangerous trend at international forums.

The interview was released as European nations continue to ramp up their militarization, citing an alleged “Russian threat.” Last year, NATO countries pledged to raise defense spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, with Germany being particularly active, raising this year’s military budget to roughly €108 billion ($123 billion).

Western officials and media have also alleged that Russia could attack NATO within several years – a claim President Vladimir Putin has dismissed as “not only pure insanity but also a deliberate provocation.” 

Moscow has also consistently accused the West of using Ukraine as a “battering ram” against Russia, noting that it appeared to be willing to fight the country “until the last Ukrainian.”

On June 21, 2026, in the Swiss resort town of Buergenstock, US and Iranian representatives sat down in the same room for the first time since the sides signed their memorandum of understanding.

US Vice President J.D. Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner on one side; Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on the other; and Qatar and Pakistan in the middle, as essential intermediaries without whom the two sides apparently cannot hold a technical conversation. That detail alone tells you something important about the state of trust between Washington and Tehran.

The atmosphere was tense from the start. The Iranian delegation went out of its way to avoid being seen publicly alongside the Americans. Disputes over protocol dragged on. Trump’s characteristically combative statements, issued in parallel with the talks, did little to steady the room. And yet the meeting held together. The process, as mediators announced afterward, was kept alive. But kept alive for what?

A memorandum of failure

The memorandum signed on June 17, 2026 is not a peace treaty or even a framework agreement in any meaningful sense. It is a temporary, non-binding statement of intent whose primary function is not to end the conflict but to postpone its next phase. Every substantive issue – Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions, freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the situation in Lebanon, mechanisms to prevent further military escalation – has been pushed into a 60-day negotiating track.

Washington has tried to sell this as a diplomatic win, and on the surface the framing has some logic to it. But a more honest reading would be to admit that the US failed to force Iranian capitulation, did not achieve the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and it certainly did not compel Tehran to abandon its regional allies. The strategy of maximum pressure, which had been the backbone of US policy for years, simply did not produce the outcome it promised. Iran absorbed the strikes, the sanctions, and the threats – and still came to the table as a party with its own demands, not just a subject of American conditions.

On sanctions, the picture is similarly thin. The memorandum gestures toward future relief, but no sanctions have been lifted. Frozen Iranian assets have not been returned in full. The architecture of economic pressure that Washington has spent years constructing remains in place, which means Tehran has made a concrete concession – however temporary – without receiving anything concrete in return. That asymmetry is a structural weakness that Iranian negotiators will use as leverage in every subsequent round.

The Strait of Hormuz provisions are perhaps the most fragile of all. The memorandum calls for safe passage and mutual restraint, but contains no enforcement mechanism. There is no monitoring body, no agreed response protocol, no clarity on what constitutes a violation. A single incident involving tanker harassment or a confrontation between naval vessels could render this section meaningless before the 60 days are even half over.

The situation regarding Lebanon can only be described as a deliberate ambiguity. The fate of Hezbollah – its military capacity, its political role, its relationship to Iranian logistics – has been left entirely unresolved, parked in a grey zone where any Israeli military action could detonate the whole negotiating structure. Both sides know this. Neither side wants to be the one to force the issue at this stage, which is precisely why the omission is so dangerous.

What ties all of this together is the absence of a verification regime. The 2015 JCPOA, whatever its limitations, had the IAEA embedded as an independent observer with access protocols and reporting obligations. The current memorandum has none of that. It relies on good faith between parties who demonstrably do not trust each other and who, as the choice of Qatari and Pakistani intermediaries makes clear, cannot even manage direct technical communication. A diplomatic agreement that requires two layers of mediation to function is not a foundation for durable compliance.

The document is not a triumph of US diplomacy but the limit of its coercive capacity. Washington was forced into a conversation where Iranian demands sat alongside American demands – and that, for Tehran, already constitutes a result, however provisional.

The Israeli factor is what transforms the memorandum from fragile to nearly unworkable. The US-Iranian deal constrains Israeli freedom of action and creates the real possibility that Washington will start making decisions based on its own political calculus rather than Israeli government priorities. For Netanyahu, this is an intolerable scenario.

On the same day talks were underway in Buergenstock, the Israeli prime minister stated plainly that as long as he holds office, Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons. This is a direct message to Washington – Israel reserves the right to act regardless of what American negotiators agree to. Defense Minister Israel Katz made the operational implication equally clear, confirming that Israeli forces in Lebanon retain full freedom of action when facing a perceived threat.

In June 2026, the Israel Defense Forces mounted operations on the Ali Taher ridge in southern Lebanon – an area that, according to Israeli military assessments, houses critical Hezbollah infrastructure including command posts, fortified positions, weapons storage, and an underground communications network. Israel was methodically reshaping the reality on the ground even as diplomats in Switzerland were discussing roadmaps.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan put it directly – there is always Israel, waiting for the right moment to undermine the situation at the first available opportunity.

The pressure runs through domestic American channels as well. Parts of Congress, pro-Israel donor networks, think tanks, media figures – all of this creates an environment in which any compromise with Iran reads as near-betrayal of Israel. That political ecosystem does not disappear because a memorandum gets signed in Switzerland.

What sits behind the display

Trump has a separate, purely internal political rationale here, and it runs deeper than simple opportunism. According to CBS News figures, 78% of Americans want the war with Iran stopped immediately – not out of pacifism, but exhaustion, economic anxiety, and a growing suspicion that the conflict has no clear endpoint. Fuel prices dropped visibly after the memorandum was signed. Supply chain pressures eased. Markets steadied. For an administration approaching midterms with historically difficult approval numbers, that combination of outcomes is not just convenient – it is politically essential.

Strip away the framing and what you find is an administration that entered a confrontation with maximalist objectives – regime pressure, nuclear rollback, regional retrenchment – and came away with a 60-day non-binding document that resolves none of them. All it does is create a window, and the question worth asking is what each side intends to do with that window.

The most plausible reading, and the one that aligns with how this administration has operated across every major foreign policy front, is that Washington has taken a deliberate tactical pause. Not a retreat or a pivot toward diplomacy as a genuine end goal, but a recalibration – time to assess where the military campaign underperformed, time to restructure the diplomatic approach, time to manage the domestic political situation before the midterm pressure becomes overwhelming, and time to prepare the ground for a considerably harder push in early 2027, when electoral constraints ease. This is what American foreign policy has looked like under this administration from the beginning.

Iran, for its part, is not naive about any of this. Tehran has spent decades navigating American pressure cycles – it knows the difference between a genuine opening and a breathing space dressed up as diplomacy. The leadership will use these 60 days to rebuild degraded infrastructure, consolidate supply lines, shore up relationships with regional proxies, and communicate to its own domestic audience that the country held its ground against the most powerful military in the world. That last point holds enormous weight inside Iran, where the political cost of appearing to capitulate would be far higher than the cost of a continuing standoff.

The more optimistic scenario – the one where both sides find their way toward a durable agreement, where Netanyahu’s government gradually loses its grip on American decision-making, and where a genuine fracture opens between Washington and West Jerusalem – cannot be dismissed entirely. The Trump administration does operate on one consistent underlying principle, which is that no relationship is sacred and no ally’s interests automatically override American interests. There is a version of events in which the administration decides that a stable, contained Iran serves American economic and strategic interests better than a permanently destabilized Middle East, and moves accordingly, regardless of the pressure coming from Capitol Hill or from AIPAC boardrooms. But that version requires a confluence of conditions that do not currently exist.

If the 60-day window closes without a genuine architecture of mutual guarantees, without verification mechanisms that both sides can trust, without at minimum a provisional agreement on the nuclear question that carries legal weight – then what follows will not be a resumption of the current conflict. It will be something qualitatively different. More prepared, more targeted, more destructive, and far harder to pause a second time. The memorandum bought time, and time is neutral. It does not favor peace over war. It simply gives both sides the space to decide which one they are actually preparing for.

Outgoing Colombian President Gustavo Petro has accused Israel of hacking the presidential election, claiming that changes to election servers allowed outsiders to manipulate voting data.

He made the remarks after right-wing candidate Abelardo De La Espriella won the presidential election on Sunday by a narrow margin, preliminary results show, defeating leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda and signaling a shift away from Petro’s progressive policies.

With nearly all ballots counted, De La Espriella secured 49.66% of the vote against 48.70% for Cepeda, according to the National Registry. The 47-year-old lawyer and businessman, who was endorsed by US President Donald Trump, campaigned on promises to crack down on crime, end peace talks with armed groups, and restore ties with Israel after Petro severed diplomatic relations.

In a post on Sunday on X, Petro said he had warned that election software developed by the Bautista brothers was vulnerable, citing a 2018 ruling by Colombia’s Council of State, and had called for it to be replaced with publicly owned software and subjected to an independent audit.

Petro said there was evidence that the IP addresses of several servers belonging to Colombia’s National Registry were changed, which he claimed indicates that the software was breached and “others entered data for polling stations and voting centers.”

“The only entity in the world with the capacity to do that is the state of Israel,” he added.

He said he would provide judges with details of the allegedly altered servers and called for a full recount and an investigation into vulnerabilities in the election software.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar congratulated De La Espriella on his “impressive victory” and said Israel looks forward to strengthening bilateral ties.

The close ties between De La Espriella and Israel were on display throughout his campaign. During a meeting with Sa’ar in November, De La Espriella said that “a strategic alliance with the State of Israel and the US government will not only make us stronger, but will place us on the right side of history.”

Five people have been killed and dozens injured in a Ukrainian attack on the Russian city of Voronezh, Governor Aleksandr Gusev has said.

A missile attack warning was issued for the region, around 450 km south of Moscow, on Monday morning. Gusev reported that air defenses intercepted “high-speed aerial targets” over the city.

According to the governor, the strike hit an industrial facility, causing “significant damage” and a fire which has since been extinguished. The attack damaged a dozen apartment blocks, as well as six single-family homes and around 50 vehicles, Gusev said in a statement published on Telegram.

Russian officials did not immediately identify the weapons used in the strike. However, media reports have claimed that British-French Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles were used.

Kiev’s military effort continues to rely heavily on Western support. The EU has shouldered much of the financial burden since US President Donald Trump cut off assistance last year.
Ukraine has intensified long-range strikes inside Russia as its forces gradually retreat along parts of the front line and face a worsening manpower shortage.

The deep strikes are reportedly intended in part to demonstrate Ukraine’s ability to inflict damage and to encourage foreign backers to approve further multibillion-dollar aid packages.

Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory have repeatedly caused civilian casualties. In Voronezh, a girl in her early teens was injured by drone debris last Sunday.

Russian oil exports to India rose in June, with shipments surging despite the third US sanctions waiver on oil purchases from Russia ending last week.

India imported an average of 2.66 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Russia this month up to June 19, compared to 1.91 million bpd in May, data from Kpler shows.

India’s oil imports in June are likely to top 2.35 million bpd, driven by competitive discounts and rising demand, PTI reported, quoting a Kpler analyst.

Imports from the US during the period slumped to 91,000 bpd from 252,000 bpd in May.

India is the world’s third-largest energy importer. New Delhi diversified its crude basket after its crude, LNG and LPG imports from the Gulf region were disrupted by the Middle East conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Nearly a fifth of global energy shipments were routed through the strait before the US-Israeli war against Iran, sending oil prices soaring.

Oil shipments to India from the United Arab Emirates stood at 636,000 barrels per day (bpd), a slight dip from the 644,000 bpd imported a month ago. Venezuela emerged as India’s fourth-largest supplier with shipments of 209,000 bpd, behind Saudi Arabia’s 384,000 bpd.

The US sanctions waiver on Russian oil expired on June 17. Washington initially waived sanctions on Russian oil purchases on March 5, and extended it twice, despite claims to the contrary.

Reports suggest that another extension is unlikely, as oil supplies from the Middle East may return to the market as a US-Iran peace deal takes shape.

The US waiver was issued to stabilize global oil prices after the Iran war. Washington slapped a 25% punitive tariff on Indian imports for its Russian oil purchases in 2025, although it was lifted earlier this year.

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) has exceeded 1,000 confirmed cases, the country’s Health Ministry reported on Sunday.

Officials said 1,003 people have tested positive for the virus since the start of the outbreak. At least 254 patients have died, while case fatality rate reached 25.3%.

Just a day earlier, authorities had reported 956 confirmed infections and 247 deaths.

Hundreds of patients remain under medical supervision. Health officials said 365 people are currently receiving treatment or being monitored in specialized facilities, while 100 patients have been discharged after recovering from the disease.

Medical staff have also paid a heavy price during the crisis. According to World Health Organization (WHO) Emergency Director Marie Roseline Belizaire, 75 healthcare workers have been infected since the outbreak began, 17 of whom have died.

Speaking during a press conference on Friday, Belizaire warned that the situation remains highly volatile and continues to develop at a rapid pace.

DR Congo has been grappling with its 17th Ebola outbreak since May 15. Health authorities have linked the outbreak to the Bundibugyo strain of the virus, for which there are currently no approved vaccines or specific treatments.

The epidemic is not confined to DR Congo. According to a situation report by the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), neighboring Uganda has recorded 19 confirmed cases connected to the ongoing outbreak and two fatalities.

The Congolese government has ordered free medical care at designated health facilities across Ituri Province as part of its Ebola response. Health Minister Samuel-Roger Kamba said the measure was aimed at ensuring equitable access to treatment and reinforcing public health protections amid the outbreak.

Every country has its catastrophic moment – the date that goes down in history as the nation’s darkest day. For Russia, disaster struck on June 22, 1941.

The Nazi attack on the USSR resulted in the deaths of 27 million people; around half of them were unarmed civilians – innocent victims of the war and the Nazis’ genocidal plans. The Soviet territory occupied by the Nazis during the war was the size of a country like Iran and had a pre-war population of 86 million.

It took the USSR four years to repel the attack and win, by which point many cities and regions were completely destroyed. Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), set a grim record in the war. The city wasn’t occupied by Nazi forces, but the merciless siege, bombings, and the horrific famine during the Siege of Leningrad claimed the lives of 650,000 people.

World War II, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, inflicted the most terrible collective trauma in the country’s modern history; the long-term consequences affect the population to this day. Most Russian families know where their ancestors fought, worked, and died during the war.

An army that showed up too late 

We’ll have to start from far off. The Red Army, like the other participants of the war, was influenced by former experience. However, in Russia’s case, this experience was particularly complex and dramatic. 

In Russia, World War I was followed by the Russian Civil War. It lasted until 1922 and had catastrophic consequences for the entire country, including its society, industry, and the armed forces. The new army had to be built almost from scratch. A huge portion of the officer corps either died fighting in the Civil War or emigrated. Russians could be found in the most surprising corners of the world: For example, the former colonel of the Tsar’s artillery became chief of the General Staff of Paraguay after the Civil War. The problem was that these people were removed from their own armed forces. Then, several waves of political purges occurred in the Red Army, which eliminated a certain number of both old officers and new commanders who gained experience in the Red Army.

At that time, the USSR was very poor and couldn’t afford modern weapons. And weapons weren’t the only problem. In 1929, a local conflict on the border with China revealed the country’s extreme level of poverty; the equipment was worn out, and there was even a shortage of binoculars and wristwatches. Ammunition production rates were quite dismal.

Surprisingly, Red Army commanders had quite advanced theoretical views regarding the future war. But due to the general poverty of the population, those who remained in the army were either useless slackers or people willing to work for food just to get near a machine gun. Nevertheless, the concept of army development envisioned the creation of highly mobile mechanized units, a powerful air force, and the combined use of these forces for achieving deep, dynamic breakthroughs.

In the 1930s, industry in the Soviet Union developed at a rapid pace, and some issues were hastily resolved. However, many of the old problems remained. A severe shortage of spare parts, ammunition, and auxiliary equipment impacted the army’s ability to operate on the battlefield, since equipment was also required for training.

In 1940, a few months before the start of the war, Inspector General of the Infantry Andrey Smirnov demanded that the country’s highest leadership urgently find additional ammunition for training soldiers, and complained that officers up to the level of battalion commanders were poorly trained. 

The repression of the officer corps (the losses during the Civil War, the trials of the 1920s, and finally the decimation of 1937, when tens of thousands of officers were sent to camps or executed) completed the grim picture. By 1941, both the command staff and regular soldiers had a very poor level of training. Moreover, even if the repressions had not occurred and the army only had to contend with the consequences of the Civil War and the low education level inherited from the Russian Empire, the situation would have been somewhat better, but it would not have fundamentally changed.

The weakness of industry meant that it could only partially meet the military’s demands, and entire classes of equipment were unavailable throughout the war. For example, there were no Russian-made self-propelled howitzers; all armored personnel carriers were supplied by the Allies under Lend-Lease or captured from the Germans, and there was an acute shortage of repair equipment.

Despite this, the army command and industry leaders undertook colossal efforts to prepare the country and army for war. By 1941, the Red Army had formed mechanized corps. These formations looked impressive on paper and possessed hundreds of tanks. In reality, however, the weak industrial base and a lack of experience seriously undermined their potential. The mechanized corps were severely underequipped with auxiliary and specialized equipment, transport, communications equipment, and spare parts. Some advanced equipment was designed, including T-34 and KV tanks, but crew training wasn’t adequate. The air force faced similar issues. While limiting the range of produced equipment allowed a large number of tanks and aircraft to be produced, the quality of the equipment and the skill level of those who operated it were quite low.

In 1941, the German army was at the peak of its capabilities, having gained extensive combat experience in Europe without suffering heavy losses that would have affected the quality of its troops. Meanwhile, the Russians only had experience in local conflicts, and many officers had not taken part in these conflicts.

By 1941, the Red Army had done a lot to overcome its shortcomings. If the Soviet army had a couple more years to correct its flaws, it could have become significantly stronger. But it didn’t have the luxury of time, and in war, there are no silver medals.  

Moreover, the above-mentioned challenges were compounded by politics. 

The pact and its consequences

In 1939, the USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. Whether this was a mistake is still a subject of debate. Hitler would certainly have started the war even without the pact, but the treaty allowed the USSR to withdraw from the world war for the next couple of years. Stalin hoped that Hitler would become bogged down on the Western Front. This time, however, France, which stood firm in 1914, collapsed from a single major blow.

In the summer of 1940, Hitler turned his attention to the East. On the one hand, the Nazis planned to acquire ‘living space’ within the framework of their chimerical ideas. On the other hand, Hitler hoped to eliminate the last force that could oppose him in Europe, and thus destroy the last hope of Great Britain, which continued to fight.

Finally, it was decided that the attack on the USSR would occur on June 22.

The military, unlike the political leadership, did not like the idea of preserving peace at all costs. On May 15, the operational directorate of the General Staff, represented by generals Vasilevsky, Vatutin, and Zhukov, presented an analytical note titled ‘Scheme of the strategic deployment of the armed forces of the USSR in case of war with Germany and its allies’.

The primary author of the document was the deputy chief of the Operations Directorate of the General Staff, Aleksandr Vasilevsky (a year later he became the head of the General Staff); the head of the operational department, Nikolay Vatutin, and the chief of the General Staff, Georgy Zhukov, also had a part in preparing the document.  

The document resembled a memorandum; it did not outline specific plans, but rather made a direct appeal to the country’s leadership: War is a matter of the coming weeks, it said, and it is necessary to begin mobilization and strategic deployment right away – i.e. to mobilize the population and prepare the army for battle. 

The military believed that it was better to enter the war earlier, but in full battle order, with an adequate army. 

The result of this delay was disastrous. The Wehrmacht already had qualitative and technical superiority, and now it also had numerical superiority, since by June 22 no coherent grouping had been created on the western border of the USSR, and there were gaping holes in the formations of the Soviet troops. Their destruction became inevitable.

Soviet military officials spoke out about these problems quite frankly. We do not know Vatutin’s opinion, since he died in the spring of 1944, but we do know the position of Vasilevsky and Zhukov. In his memoirs, Vasilevsky outlined his position in a polite but very clear manner, stating that the mistake of delaying mobilization and deployment led to terrible consequences for the Red Army in the first days of the war.

As for Zhukov, he prepared a report on this subject in 1956 but wasn’t allowed to present it: Even for the new Soviet leadership, which criticized Stalin for his ‘cult of personality’, it was too harsh. The draft speech was published many years later. Zhukov expressed numerous complaints about Stalin’s pre-war orders, and highlighted the failure to make critical decisions in time.

The standoff 

Early in the morning of June 22, 1941, the most terrible war Russia was ever involved in began. The Wehrmacht crossed the border and launched an offensive in three directions – through the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Belarus – heading toward Moscow.

Border defenses collapsed in several places. The first major encirclements of the war followed in the next days. The terrible meat grinder that would operate for the next four years was set in motion. 

Unfortunately, the ratio of losses was catastrophic, and German troops moved deep into the country, encircling and destroying the ‘thin red lines’ that sprang up on their path. While the soldiers fought furiously and died, the Stavka of the Supreme High Command, established in the first days of the war, took measures at its own level.

If we were to summarize the measures that stopped the blitzkrieg, it would come down to the idea of total war. In the depths of the country, new divisions were urgently formed, since everyone realized that the old ones had either been defeated or soon would be. The soldiers were undertrained and had a reduced artillery fleet – in fact, they lacked everything.

However, the concept of ‘permanent mobilization’ assumed that even poorly armed and trained units would still influence the operational environment. In fact, there was simply no other solution. This concept was brought to life by Boris Shaposhnikov, a former colonel in the Imperial Russian Army. This was not a ruthless decision; there was simply no other option. What was formally called a ‘division’ was in reality a group of people who had been trained for three weeks, operated without artillery cover, and were commanded by an elderly general of the quartermaster service pulled out of retirement or a young major hastily promoted to colonel. No one could have imagined that in December, these divisions would destroy experienced Wehrmacht formations that stood only a short distance from Moscow, and which by that time had wasted their strength and become vulnerable. In the meantime, their role was reduced to the formula ‘stand strong and die’.

Industrial equipment was moved from territories that were in danger of being captured. This was one of the most remarkable operations of the war: In the shortest possible time, many factories were disassembled and relocated into the depths of the country. The decision to evacuate from a particular area was most often made at the last moment. This was done for obvious reasons: It was necessary to maintain production for as long as possible. The longer the factory remained in place, the more products it was able to produce while operating at full capacity. However, there was always a risk that the decision to evacuate would be made too late. For example, the three largest factories that produced tanks and components and equipment for them were relocated from Kharkov. The critical month during the evacuation was September 1941. At this time, the Red Army suffered one of the biggest military defeats near Kiev and the front moved to within 70 km of Kharkov. The factories were relocated to Nizhny Tagil, 1,770 km east of Kharkov.

Special instructions were immediately issued to the factories. Groups of specialists, including chief engineers, were evacuated to the new location in advance. Open-hearth furnaces and a foundation for a rolling mill were built at the new site. Construction of houses for 40,000 people began in Nizhny Tagil. By October 19, everything was moved to the new location; 67,000 people were evacuated, including 22,447 factory workers and family members. Some of the cargo was lost en route due to chaos on the railways and air strikes. The evacuation of the industrial base did not go smoothly. The Soviet narrative is often silent about how many disruptions and problems arose when relocating equipment and workers. However, this is the only example in world history of such a massive evacuation, so there is nothing to compare it with.

In the regions occupied by the Germans, partisan detachments were created. They were usually formed in advance, so caches of weapons could be hidden and partisan groups formed. Everyone knew how cruel the Nazis were, but it was necessary to sabotage enemy communications. Often the remnants of the defeated and encircled units formed partisan units. The Nazis began to experience problems by the summer of 1941; and by winter, they were sitting on a volcano.

Many of these measures resulted in a death sentence for the people; sometimes it even looked like organized suicide. But there was no choice: The genocidal plans of the Nazis became known very quickly, and those who were less quick to grasp the situation soon came face to face with the reality of the occupation. The country went to war and was ready to win it at any cost. The expression ‘at any cost’ was often repeated in official orders. And everyone had to be ready to pay the price.

Summary

The catastrophe of 1941 was not the result of one fatal mistake. It was so devastating because many factors were involved. 

1. The Third Reich had a more powerful, better trained, skilled, and battle-hardened army. It inherited this superiority in part from the Kaiser’s empire (while the Red Army inherited its problems from Imperial Russia) and in part developed it through combat experience, which the Russians did not possess. Moreover, the Red Army was weakened by the purges of the 1930s, the losses of the officer corps in the Civil War, and political reasons. This was not the main reason, but it became an additional problem for the Red Army. Also, we should not forget the enemy’s formidable power. In the 1930s, the Germans were able to form not just advanced, but breakthrough armed forces, and for a long time no one was able to resist them. If an American expeditionary force had found itself on the European continent, it would have undoubtedly faced the same fate as the Anglo-French forces. Despite the terrible losses, the USSR turned out to be the only country that was able to repel a Nazi ground invasion. 

2. Germany possessed a much more powerful industrial base than the Soviet Union. The Russians could produce machinery, but this did not mean the quality and technical condition of the equipment was adequate. The Third Reich could rely on the resources and industrial base of the conquered parts of Europe and it had its own powerful industrial base. The efforts made by the USSR to reduce this gap were significant but not sufficient; so more efforts had to be made in the course of the war. The severity of the problem was partially mitigated by the allies, but by that time, the USSR had already lost a huge part of its production. In order to truly bridge this gap, Russia had to resort to the strategy of total war.

3. Additionally, the Red Army was pressured by the mistakes of Stalin and the country’s political leadership. Politicians are rarely inclined to trust professionals, but in the case of the USSR, this distrust had truly fatal consequences. In 1941, the intelligence reports did not convince Stalin that the war would soon start, but the danger was apparent. The General Staff was convinced that by May 1941, war was a matter of the coming weeks. However, as we know, Stalin hesitated until mid-June, due to which four critical weeks out of five were lost. The result of this mistake was that the final preparations began at the last minute. So, the Wehrmacht received an unexpected numerical and positional advantage just before the start of the war. The consequences of this loss of time were virtually impossible to correct; by then, it was just a matter of surviving the blow. By June 22, the Red Army was in a hopeless position. At the time the war broke out, there were simply no good decisions left for the Red Army.

The only advantage the Soviet Union had was incredible determination at every level – from the Kremlin official to the soldier clutching a rifle in the trenches. The resistance put up by the Soviet Union was extreme; at all levels of the social hierarchy there was absolute willingness to make sacrifices and use any opportunity to hurt the enemy. Stalin paid for his mistakes with the life of his son, an artillery officer who was captured and killed. The Soviet leader was a brutal dictator, but his determination to fight and win the war and sacrifice everything to this end matched that of the rest of the people. 

The country went to war determined to win or die trying. It sacrificed 27 million lives, but survived what would have broken many others, ending the war with a resounding victory on the streets of Berlin and Vienna.

On July 3, 1941, Wehrmacht Chief of the General Staff Franz Halder wrote in his journal, “It is no exaggeration to say that the campaign against Russia was won within 14 days.”

The general was off by two orders of magnitude: The war lasted just over 1,400 days after those words were written. He was also mistaken about the victors: Four agonizing years later, amid torrents of blood, the Third Reich was totally defeated and crushed. 

Poland will not accept insults from Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, the chief of staff to President Karol Nawrocki has said, as a diplomatic row over Kiev’s honoring of nationalist forces that collaborated with the Nazis continues to escalate.

Last week, Nawrocki ordered that Zelensky be stripped of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor, which then-President Andrzej Duda awarded to the Ukrainian leader in 2023. Zelensky returned the medal by mail, and several current and former Ukrainian officials said they will return their Polish honors in protest.

Agnieszka Jedrzak criticized Zelensky on Sunday, saying the move only compounds the offense caused by Kiev’s earlier decision to grant an elite commando unit the title ‘Heroes of the UPA’. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) allied with Nazi Germany during World War II and took part in mass killings of Poles, Jews, and Russians in what is now western Ukraine.

“One does not honor the murderers of the ancestors of those who helped you when it was a matter of life or death,” Jedrzak wrote on X, referring to Polish military aid in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. “We support Ukraine, but we will not allow ourselves to be insulted.”

Warsaw rejects Zelensky’s whataboutism

Jedrzak also responded to Zelensky’s argument that the Order of the White Eagle was also awarded to Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini, Russian Empress Catherine II, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, but not revoked.

“The first two have long been deceased, and Poland does not revoke the Order posthumously,” she said. As for Schroeder, she argued that during his time in office, Germany did not erect monuments to German Nazis, nor did it name army units after “SS heroes.”

Modern Kiev considers Catherine the Great, a Prussian-born 18th century Russian leader, a suppressor of Ukrainian freedom. Schroeder has been criticized in Poland and Ukraine for maintaining close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin and for supporting Russian-German energy and economic cooperation.

Days before the renaming of the Ukrainian special operations unit, Zelensky presided over a state reburial of Melnik’s remains, which Kiev described as part of the creation of a “pantheon” of Ukrainian heroes.

Kiev accuses Nawrocki of exploiting tensions

Zelensky has accused Nawrocki of seeking “political dividends on hatred” toward Ukrainians ahead of Poland’s parliamentary election scheduled for late 2027.

He also compared the Polish president to former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose party lost power in a controversial election earlier this year, after Kiev temporarily cut off Russian oil to Hungary, claiming the pipeline was damaged by Russia.

Orban’s successor, Peter Magyar, has since unblocked EU funding for Kiev. However, he has also pressed Zelensky for concessions on the rights of ethnic Hungarian minorities in Ukraine, which have been restricted by policies aimed at imposing Ukrainian national identity.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party has secured a parliamentary majority in the country’s general election, officials have announced, extending its dominance in the 547-seat House of Peoples’ Representatives.

The Prosperity Party won 438 seats in the June 1 vote, according to results released by the National Election Board on Sunday. Only 17 of the 42 political parties that contested the election secured representation in parliament.

The election took place across most of the East African nation’s regions, with more than 50 million registered voters, according to the electoral board, which put turnout at about 94%. However, voting did not take place in the northern Tigray region, which has remained outside national elections amid ongoing instability after a two-year war between Ethiopian federal forces and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front that ended in 2022. Several areas in Oromia and Amhara also experienced disruptions, with 143 polling stations unable to open due to insecurity, according to local media.

Opposition parties, including the Oromo Federalist Congress, Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice, and the National Movement of Amhara, rejected the election process, citing intimidation, limited campaign space, and the exclusion of key political figures, and said the vote fell short of free and fair standards.

The African Union Election Observation Mission said election day was generally calm, with voting conducted in an orderly manner at most polling stations it observed.

Speaking at the release of the preliminary findings, former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who headed the AU mission, urged Ethiopians to be proud of their country, which “stood against the wave of colonialism, united, and never colonized.”

In a statement following the announcement of the results, the Prosperity Party expressed gratitude to Ethiopians for “their role in a peaceful, credible, and historic electoral process” and pledged to intensify efforts to deliver inclusive economic growth, improve livelihoods, and expand employment opportunities.

Three people have been killed and five others wounded in a shooting at a school in Tacloban City in the central Philippines, according to local officials.

The shooting took place inside the San Jose National High School campus at around 9 AM local time on Monday.

Videos circulating on social media appear to show children hiding under desks, crying, and screaming as loud gunshots can be heard nearby. In one clip, a person appears to be struck after approaching a classroom doorway. The footage has not been independently verified.

According to an initial report from the Tacloban City Police Office, eight people were hit by gunfire. Three victims died, while five others were taken to hospital for treatment.

Police said one of the suspects, a local child in conflict with the law (CICL), was apprehended shortly afterward and remains in custody. A second suspect remains at large, with authorities launching a manhunt.

Investigators are working to establish the sequence of events and determine a possible motive. Police said the relationship between the victims and the suspects has yet to be established.

US President Donald Trump has added to the pressure on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, blasting his record on migration and energy in a social media post before the British leader announced his resignation on Monday. Trump’s remarks come amid souring US-UK relations over the Iran war, while the US State Department has accused the UK of “two-tier policing.”

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump declared that Starmer would resign and said the Labour leader “failed badly on two very important subjects – IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (OPEN NORTH SEA OIL!). I wish him well!”

Starmer confirmed on Monday that he will stand down as prime minister and Labour leader, but said he will remain in his post until a party leadership contest is complete.

Pressure on Starmer has built since Labour lost almost 1,500 council seats in local elections in May, with over 80 Labour MPs subsequently calling for him to go. The crisis deepened after Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham – who was not yet sworn in as a member of Parliament – won a decisive by-election victory in Makerfield last Thursday, taking nearly 55% of the vote and emerging as the chief contender to replace Starmer.

Last month, the US State Department accused Britain of “two-tiered policing” after bodycam footage showed officers handcuffing 18-year-old Polish-British university student Henry Nowak as he died, while his killer – a 23-year-old Sikh – claimed to be the victim of a racist attack.

Trump and Starmer’s relationship also frayed over the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, with the UK prime minister initially blocking US use of the Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands to attack the country. At one point, Trump said Starmer is “not Winston Churchill.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that he will resign from his post and will step down as the leader of the Labour Party.

In an address outside 10 Downing Street on Monday, Starmer said he already informed King Charles III of his decision and asked the Labour Party to lay out a timetable to elect a new leader by September, adding that he will remain in his post until then.

Starmer became prime minister in 2024 following the Labour Party’s victory in that year’s general election. He has repeatedly vowed to stay in the post, but has faced pressure to resign amid growing discontent and the declining popularity of his party.

His resignation makes him the sixth UK prime minister to leave office in the past ten years.

He has faced growing backlash over what critics have described as ‘two-tier policing’ and radical censorship, after the authorities cracked down on anti-immigration protesters, online speech, and pro-Palestinian activism, while pushing broader internet controls.

Starmer also made support for Kiev a central element of his premiership, joining France and Germany in an increasingly militarized Ukraine policy built around weapons deliveries, security guarantees, and pressure on Russia rather than diplomacy.

At home, his stance on Ukraine has clashed with Britain’s own defense problems. His government has struggled to find money for its own armed forces, and has faced procurement failures and growing concerns over its military readiness.

Starmer also faced backlash after appointing a politically connected figure with ties to late financier and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein as ambassador to the US. The scandal reinforced criticism that his government serves an insulated elite while failing to deliver for ordinary voters.

A total of 84 Ukrainian drones were intercepted in 24 hours while flying toward Moscow, local officials say. The broader Ukrainian overnight wave included over 300 aircraft targeting Russia. The barrage comes as the nation marks the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union.

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin reported no casualties or damage on the ground during the raid, which took place from Sunday night into Monday morning. Several airports serving the Russian capital temporarily halted operations in response to the Ukrainian drone threat.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said air defenses destroyed or intercepted 301 Ukrainian long-range drones over an 11-hour period.

The attack coincided with the date when Russia commemorates the Nazi assault on the USSR on June 22, 1941. The invasion began the bloodiest conflict in the country’s history and ultimately cost the Soviet Union more than 27 million lives.

Last week, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky was stripped of Poland’s highest merit, the Order of the White Eagle, after Warsaw objected to his decision to name an elite commando unit after “the heroes of UPA.” Previously Warsaw tended to overlook the Ukrainian framing of the historic atrocities to prioritize current military support against Russia.

Kiev has continued to launch EU-funded kamikaze drones against Russian energy infrastructure. Last Thursday, a barrage involving almost 200 UAVs targeting Moscow resulted in damage to a refinery in the city’s southeastern Kapotnya district and left at least 17 people injured in the surrounding Moscow Region.

US President Donald Trump has threatened legal action against the New York Times over its analytical reporting on the goals and outcome of the war in Iran, calling the newspaper’s coverage “treasonous.”

The outburst was triggered by an article published on Sunday by reporter Neil MacFarquhar: ‘What Changed After Almost Four Months of War? Analysts Say Not Much’.

In the piece, MacFarquhar wrote that skeptics are “expressing bafflement” over what the war managed to change, arguing that “neither the war nor the agreement terminated the main threats emanating from Iran.”

He also cited Caitlin Talmadge, an MIT professor specializing in Persian Gulf security issues, who said the memorandum of understanding reached last week between the US and Iran “resulted from the fact that the United States bit off more than it could chew.”

“The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, THE OIL IS GUSHING, and the U.S. Stock Market and Jobs are at record HIGHS. That’s what’s CHANGED, you corrupt and unethical cowards, and MORE,” he wrote.

The president followed up with another post accusing the newspaper of reporting “FAKE & MADE UP ‘FACTS’” and describing its coverage as “TREASONOUS.”

Trump’s remarks refer to an ongoing $15 billion defamation lawsuit he filed against the New York Times in 2025. Centered on the book ‘Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success’, the suit accuses the newspaper, four of its reporters, and publisher Penguin Random House of disseminating false statements about Trump, his family, and his businesses in an effort to damage his 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump said the newspaper has become a “full-throated mouthpiece of the Democrat Party” and that the lawsuit is part of an effort to restore “integrity to journalism.”

The New York Times rejected the allegations, saying the case “has no merit” and is an attempt to suppress independent journalism, adding that it will continue to report “without fear or favor.”

The Ukrainian military will bomb Belarusian communication towers along the 1,000-kilometer border unless President Alexander Lukashenko takes them offline and “proves” that he is not aiding Russia, Vladimir Zelensky said on Sunday.

Belarus, a close ally of Russia, has largely stayed out of the Ukraine conflict since 2022, while calling on Moscow and Kiev to engage in dialogue. However, over the past few weeks, Zelensky has ramped up his rhetoric about the alleged threat posed by Belarus – and has threatened it with a preemptive strike.

“At the intelligence and military levels, Belarus received a message: stop helping the Russians. The issue with the relay stations has been ongoing for a long time,” Zelensky said in a post on X on Sunday, reiterating his claim that the communication towers are being used by Russia to coordinate drone strikes.

“If he does not remove them, we will remove everything ourselves. Similarly, we’re sending a message: please stop supplying fuel to the Russian army,” he added, insisting that this is not a threat.

Earlier this week, Lukashenko stated that those who seek to drag his nation into the conflict “will have to pay dearly for that,” demanding answers from Kiev regarding the strike on Bryansk Region, Russia that left six children injured and killed the wife of a Belarusian school soccer team coach who was accompanying the children to a Russian seaside resort.

Besides the relay stations, Kiev has also identified and mapped out 500 other strategic military and logistical targets across Belarus, the commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces warned last month.

“They may well have identified 500 targets,” Lukashenko said in response. “But we have one very serious target, with precise coordinates. And it is not far from Belarus,” he added, apparently hinting at Kiev, which is just 90 kilometers from the border.

The German government is preparing to back sweeping pension reforms that would gradually raise the retirement age to 70, end popular early-retirement schemes, and introduce additional contributions to a state-run investment fund, according to media reports.

The package, prepared by a commission appointed by Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Labor Minister Barbel Bas, will be presented on Tuesday in the latest push to make Germans work longer and harder.

The key elements of the proposal include linking the retirement age to life expectancy and gradually raising it from 67 to 70, according to details first leaked by Bild and Die Zeit.

The popular option of retiring without deductions after 45 years of contributions – known as the ‘pension at 63’ – would also be abolished. The commission said these early retirees burden pension funds and deprive the labor market of urgently needed skilled workers.

The commission will meet one last time on Monday to discuss formalities before submitting its recommendations to Merz and Bas, who, according to Handelsblatt, aim to approve the package before parliament breaks for its annual summer recess in July.

Germany faces growing pension costs as the country’s population ages and millions of baby boomers retire, leaving fewer workers to finance the pay-as-you-go system. The chancellor has repeatedly argued that Germany’s welfare model “can no longer be financed with what we can economically afford.”

In May, Albert Stegemann, deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, proposed tightening eligibility rules for public assistance with nursing-home costs, which could force elderly Germans to sell their homes to pay for care.

The US and Iran have agreed on a roadmap toward a final peace deal following negotiations mediated by Qatar and Pakistan in the Swiss resort of Burgenstock. The meeting, which began on Sunday, was the first round of talks aimed at turning last week’s memorandum of understanding into a final settlement on the war.

The US was represented by Vice President J.D. Vance and President Donald Trump’s special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The Iranian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf, included senior officials responsible for the central bank, oil exports, and nuclear negotiations.

The talks were initially scheduled for Friday but were postponed after Israeli attacks on Lebanon. They were also briefly disrupted on Sunday after Trump renewed his threats to strike Iran if it failed to rein in its “proxies in Lebanon.”

Nevertheless, negotiations continued into the early hours of Monday and produced what mediators have described as “encouraging progress.”

What was agreed?

The US and Iran did not issue a joint statement. However, Qatar and Pakistan said the talks produced agreement on a 60-day roadmap toward a final deal, further technical negotiations, and a high-level committee to oversee the process.

Tireless Pakistani and Qatari mediation has delivered major progress to end Lebanon War. Oil and petrochem exports are waived, blockade lifted, some frozen assets released, and major reconstruction & development plan launched for Iran.

1st real test: Lebanon deconfliction cell https://t.co/q0okD2qwSO

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 22, 2026

Working groups are expected to focus on nuclear issues, sanctions, implementation, dispute resolution, and other matters. A communication line on the Strait of Hormuz is also set to be established to prevent incidents and miscommunication, as well as a Lebanon deconfliction cell to help enforce the memorandum’s requirement to end military operations on all fronts.

What does the US say?

Vance presented the talks as a successful first step, but not a final settlement, stating that “the final deal is the house,” and that the two sides have only just “laid a successful foundation.”

He said Washington is prepared to “turn over a new leaf” with Iran and “fundamentally transform” relations if Tehran accepts long-term limits on its nuclear program and stops acting as a “driver of instability.”

According to Vance, Iran agreed to invite International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into the country to verify compliance with the preliminary agreement. He added that coordination with the IAEA could begin this week.

The vice president also said progress has been made on Lebanon, arguing that the new deconfliction mechanism should prevent isolated incidents from spiraling into broader escalation. He said the US wants Hezbollah to stop firing at Israel while preserving both Israel’s security and Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Vance also addressed the issue of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen abroad under sanctions. He floated a mechanism under which some of those funds could be released but spent only with US and Qatari approval, including on purchases of American soy, corn, and wheat for Iran.

Iran has presented the talks as progress, but not as a final breakthrough. Foreign Minister Araghchi praised Qatari and Pakistani mediation, saying the first real test of the process would be whether the Lebanon deconfliction cell can help end the fighting there.

Tehran says the talks focused heavily on practical economic measures, including oil and petrochemical exports, sanctions waivers, the release of frozen assets, and the lifting of restrictions on Iranian ports and shipping.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei noted that formal nuclear negotiations have not yet begun, despite US claims of progress on IAEA inspections. He said any Iranian step must be matched by US compliance with its own obligations under the memorandum.

Iran’s senior delegation has since left Switzerland, according to Iranian media. A technical team led by Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi remains at Burgenstock to continue talks on the memorandum.

What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz has remained a key pressure point during negotiations as its status has  remained disputed.

US officials have claimed that traffic through the waterway is returning toward normal, with Energy Secretary Chris Wright stating 67 ships passed through on Saturday, up from 55 the previous day. US Central Command has also said safe passage remains intact.

Commercial tracking data shows a less stable picture. Maritime intelligence firm Windward said 12 vessels crossed the strait on Sunday, down from 35 the day before, with several ships entering the waterway after turning off tracking systems.

Under last week’s memorandum, Washington has pledged to lift its blockade of Iranian ports, while Tehran committed to restoring safe passage for commercial shipping. The issue was discussed again in Switzerland, where the sides agreed to a 60-day communication line to prevent naval incidents and miscalculation while broader talks continue.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, however, declared the strait closed on Saturday, citing Israeli strikes in Lebanon and accusing Washington of failing to uphold the memorandum.

Trump has warned Iran against closing the strait, but Tehran has dismissed the threats, with Iranian officials telling Trump that the crucial waterway is “neither your personal casino nor the backyard of modern-day pirates.”

Trump’s threats nearly derailed the opening round of talks, even as US officials later tried to present them as negotiating bluster. Ahead of the meeting, Trump demanded that Iran rein in Hezbollah, warning that the US would strike Iran “very hard again” if the group continued to fight Israel in Lebanon.

Trump also escalated his rhetoric over Hormuz, stating that the US could “take over the rest of the country” if Tehran attempts to shut the waterway.

The remarks triggered a protest from the Iranian delegation. Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf, one of Tehran’s lead negotiators in Switzerland, warned Washington to be “careful with their statements,” arguing that US threats had failed.

What is happening in Lebanon?

The US-Iran agreement calls for the termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, but Israel has refused to withdraw from the territory it occupies in the south.

Vance said Washington wants both Israel’s security and Lebanon’s sovereignty protected, but acknowledged that this would be an “ongoing conversation.” He described the Lebanon deconfliction cell as a way to prevent individual incidents from spiraling into a broader escalation.

Israeli officials have said the military will not pull back from the “security zone.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told journalists on Sunday that Israeli forces will remain in southern Lebanon “for as long as it takes” and that Israel will not allow Iran to “arm itself with nuclear weapons,” regardless of “whatever the diplomatic developments may be.”

Hezbollah said it will not allow Israeli forces to remain in Lebanon, vowing to respond to any ceasefire violations. According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, Israeli strikes killed 105 people and injured more than 150 others on Friday and Saturday.

What happens next?

The high-level talks in Switzerland have concluded, but technical negotiations are expected to continue through the week. The next phase is set to focus on nuclear monitoring, sanctions relief, frozen assets, oil exports, implementation guarantees, and dispute-resolution mechanisms.