Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

An RT video uses a quote from the wartime prime minister praising the Red Army for ‘tearing the guts out of’ the Wehrmacht

RT has released an AI-generated video of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill speaking about the crucial role of the Soviet Union in the defeat of Nazi Germany and other Axis powers in World War II.

As the world prepares to mark the 80th anniversary of the Allied victory next week, the video responds to a tendency in the West to overlook or downplay the USSR’s contribution. The Soviet Union destroyed the bulk of the German forces and lost around 27 million people in what is known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War.

In the video, Churchill is shown reacting to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s remarks during a visit to the White House in February. “No two countries have done more together to keep people safe,” Starmer said. “And in a few weeks’ time we’ll mark… the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe. Britain and America fought side-by-side to make that happen.”

Churchill’s quote used in the video is authentic, taken from a letter to Joseph Stalin. “I shall take the occasion to repeat tomorrow in the House of Commons what I have said before, that it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine and is at the present moment holding by far the larger portion of the enemy on its front,” he wrote on September 27, 1944.

The letter was written as the Red Army was on the offensive, following its decisive victory over the Wehrmacht in the Battle of Kursk.

The billionaire has accused the “legacy media” of waging a propaganda campaign against him and trying to portray him as a Nazi

US government efficiency chief and tech billionaire Elon Musk has accused the American “legacy media” of waging a concentrated “character assassination” effort against him, claiming they would have “immediately” killed him “in reality” if offered such an opportunity.

The Space X and Tesla CEO made the remarks on Saturday in an interview with Lara Trump, a Fox host and the US president’s daughter-in-law, during which he reflected on the fallout of his speech at the inauguration of Donald Trump back in January.

During the event, Musk made gestures that were perceived by some as Nazi salutes. The billionaire, however, continues to insist that his actions were deliberately misrepresented by the mainstream media and had nothing to do with Nazi gestures.

“Obviously, I’ve not harmed anyone in my life, so it’s an outrageous thing to claim that I’m a Nazi,” he claimed. “If you repeat a lie, you know, the sort of ‘he’s a Nazi lie’ enough times, some people actually believe it, especially people that still believe the legacy news, you know.”

Propaganda works because people want simple narratives. But the truth is messier, and it’s worth fighting for. I’m not here to play their game. I’m here to build a better future, no matter how many lies they throw my way.

The main “issue” with the Nazis was not their “mannerisms” or their “choice of dress,” but the “fact that they killed millions of people,” Musk argued.

The billionaire also defended the US president, stating that Trump has been the target of a similar “propaganda” campaign for over 20 years already. The US leader is “not a violent person,” Musk said, and “in fact has done a lot to prevent wars and stop wars, which is the very opposite of being a Nazi.” 

Musk claimed that the media’s hatred of him is very personal and that his critics would not hesitate to assassinate him if presented with such an opportunity. He did not elaborate on who exactly he suspected of being capable of a such an act.

“They’re trying every angle to get me. If they could press a button and kill me in reality, they’d press it immediately. But since I’m a little hard to kill, they’re resorting to character assassination instead,” he claimed.

The US envoy to the bloc has reportedly warned European member states of a potential boycott by the US president unless they agree to increase defense spending

US President Donald Trump could snub NATO’s upcoming summit unless European member states commit to significantly higher defense spending, Germany’s Der Spiegel reported on Friday.

US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker has repeatedly demanded that European member states shell out 5% of their GDP on defense, as opposed to the military bloc’s previous target of 2%, according to the outlet, citing “confidential reports” from German officials in Brussels. Whitaker reportedly warned that failure to meet the new benchmark could result in Trump declining to attend NATO’s summit in The Hague scheduled for late June.

Der Spiegel noted that during a phone call with German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius last month, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth “conveyed the administration’s intent for European allies to assume primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defenses,” and urged his counterpart to “actualize defense spending increases,” as reported in a readout published by the Pentagon.

In an interview with The Free Press last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the current arrangement within the military bloc as the US and a “bunch of junior partners that aren’t doing their fair share.”

Hegseth has echoed the sentiment, proclaiming that the “time of the United States… being the sole guarantor of European security has passed. It’s long overdue Europe has to step up, fund its military, and lead.” He similarly stated that NATO’s current 2% defense spending target is insufficient.

Last month, Trump said he would not rule out withdrawing some or all of the 84,000 US troops currently stationed in Europe since Washington foots the bill for the continent’s security, while not getting “reimbursed by much.”

As of 2024, 23 of the 32 NATO member countries had reached the 2% benchmark set in 2014, according to the bloc’s own estimates cited by the BBC. The US currently spends around 3.5% of its GDP on defense and is NATO’s biggest overall contributor.

The country’s ambassador to Russia has told RT he hopes for a “deescalation of tensions” with India amid concerns over possible military action

Pakistan will respond with the “full spectrum of power” if India attacks it or disrupts vital water flows, the country’s ambassador to Russia, Muhammad Khalid Jamali, has said as tensions remain escalated between the two nuclear-armed neighbors following a deadly attack against civilians in Kashmir. 

Speaking to RT on Saturday, the ambassador said that Pakistani intelligence has evidence of planned military aggression from New Delhi, which has accused Islamabad of supporting cross-border terrorism on its soil. “There are some other leaked documents whereby it has been decided to strike certain areas of Pakistan,” Jamali said. “So that makes us feel that this is going to happen and it’s imminent.” 

The ambassador warned that Pakistan is prepared to respond to any aggression: “We in Pakistan will use the full spectrum of power, both conventional and nuclear.” 

He also reiterated Islamabad’s position regarding the Indus Water Treaty, a key agreement between India and Pakistan, which New Delhi suspended last week as a part of its diplomatic response to the attack. “Any attempt to usurp the water of the lower riparian, or to stop it, or to divert it would be an act of war against Pakistan and would be responded to with full force of power including full spectrum of power,” the envoy said. 

Jamali, however, urged de-escalation, noting the potential danger given that both countries possess nuclear weapons. “As the two countries are two nuclear powers, there is all the more need to deescalate the tensions.” Pakistan has earlier called for “neutral and credible investigations” into the Kashmir attack. “I think the role of the international community comes in. And in this regard, we expect that powers like China and Russia can participate in those investigations,” he added. 

New Delhi earlier reduced the staff at the Pakistani High Commission, expelling Pakistani diplomats, and closing its land border – and Islamabad responded with reciprocal measures. The Indian government also suspended visa services for Pakistani nationals. On Saturday, New Delhi announced a set of further measures aimed at downgrading already severed trade ties with Pakistan.  

READ MORE: ‘Our hearts bleed today’: How terrorist attack shook fragile stability in Kashmir

The terrorist attack occurred in the afternoon of April 22 in Baisaran Valley, a popular tourist destination around 6km from the town of Pahalgam. The Resistance Front, a militant group believed to be linked to the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, has reportedly claimed responsibility, prompting New Delhi to accuse Islamabad of supporting cross-border terrorism. Police in Kashmir say they have identified three suspects, two of whom are Pakistani nationals, in the attack.

The Washington Post is reporting today that recently-ousted National Security Advisor Mike Waltz may have been involved in activities even more nefarious than inviting journalists onto highly sensitive Signal group chats. It appears that what really angered President Trump is less Waltz’s incompetence (or worse) in keeping sensitive military communications secure, but rather his taking an active role in doing the bidding of a foreign government.

As the Post reported, in advance of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s February visit to the United States the US National Security Advisor to President Trump…

…appeared to have engaged in intense coordination with Netanyahu about military options against Iran ahead of an Oval Office meeting between the Israeli leader and Trump, the two people said.

That means that Mike Waltz was working with a foreign government to maneuver President Trump into a situation where war seemed the only option left to deal with Iran. That kind of manipulation is a classic neocon move and one that Waltz’s ideological allies managed with great success against President George W. Bush regarding Iraq.

According to one insider quoted in the article, Waltz, “wanted to take U.S. policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the US hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution.”

That means the former NSA was working with a foreign leader to limit the diplomatic and military options his boss could choose from, i.e. he was working to hobble the United States so as to achieve an objective of a foreign regime.

The WaPo piece continues…

‘If Jim Baker was doing a side deal with the Saudis to subvert George H.W. Bush, you’d be fired,’ a Trump adviser said, referring to Bush’s secretary of state. ‘You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not a president of another country.’

To his credit, President Trump recognized that Waltz was blowing Bibi’s smoke at him and rather than bite at the trap sprung for him the President saw through the game and became annoyed possibly at both of them. The fiasco one month later, where Waltz claimed that neocon scribbler Jeffrey Goldberg’s contact information had somehow been “sucked up” into his phone and then presumably spit out again when it came time to invite top Administration officials onto a call to discuss military strikes on Yemen, may have been the straw that broke Trump’s waning patience in the man.

Last month, the Grayzone published leaked audio of Israel lobby AIPAC’s CEO, Elliott Brandt, “describing how his organization has cultivated influence with three top national security officials in the Trump administration – Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Director Mike Waltz, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe – and how it believes it can gain ‘access’ to their internal discussions.”

Was the Waltz/Netanyahu trap for Trump the result of this “cultivated influence” that Brandt is bragging about? And if so, how much deeper does it go?

Whatever the case, it’s lucky for Waltz that he was “only” acting as an agent for our Greatest Ally ™ and Only Democracy in the Middle East ™. Otherwise he’d be soon enjoying the hospitality of Bukele’s All Male B&B rather than the rather more luxurious digs at 50 United Nations Plaza.

Moscow has called the move “blasphemous” and “disrespectful” due to Kiev’s open glorification of Nazism

Ukrainian troops will take part in the World War II Victory Day parade in London on May 8 at the invitation of the UK government, the British Ministry of Defense has announced. Moscow has condemned the move as “blasphemous” and “disrespectful” due to Kiev’s open glorification of Nazism.

Victory in Europe Day (VE Day) is celebrated in the West on May 8 to commemorate Nazi Germany’s surrender in 1945.

In a post on X on Saturday, the UK MOD said Ukrainian troops will take part in a military procession commemorating the event alongside 1,000 British servicemen. The ministry claimed that Kiev’s participation in the event “reminds us that Ukraine is now at freedom’s front line.” UK Defense Secretary John Healey described it as “fitting” that Ukrainian troops will be present at the event.

Moscow has condemned London’s decision. “Inviting followers of neo-Nazi elements to Victory Day celebrations is not just disrespectful to those British veterans who gave their lives during World War II. It is blasphemy,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Saturday.

Commemorations of WWII-era nationalist figures linked to Nazi Germany have been common in Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalists hold annual torchlight marches in Kiev, Lviv, and other cities in honor of Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which collaborated with the Nazis and took part in the massacre of more than 100,000 Poles, Jews, Russians, and Soviet-aligned Ukrainians.

Throughout the conflict with Russia, Ukrainian troops have on numerous occasions been filmed displaying Nazi symbols, including patches of SS units and swastikas. Italy’s Rai News 24 apologized last year after a journalist interviewed a Ukrainian fighter wearing a cap with the emblem of the ‘Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler’ SS division.

Germany previously expelled seven Ukrainian soldiers undergoing military training in the country because they were wearing Nazi symbols.

READ MORE: German state media shows Nazi insignia from Ukrainian boot camp for kids

Ukraine’s notorious Azov unit, a neo-Nazi formation established in 2014 and later integrated into the National Guard, has been accused of war crimes and was designated a terrorist organization by Russia in 2022. Although the original Azov Battalion was defeated in the 2022 Battle of Mariupol, co-founder Andrey Biletsky launched the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade under the Azov banner in 2023, which remains active.

Russia has repeatedly warned of a Nazi revival in Ukraine and has accused Kiev of embracing neo-Nazi ideology while whitewashing WWII collaborators. President Vladimir Putin listed “denazification” among the goals of Russia’s military operation against the Kiev regime, along with demilitarization and neutrality.

One of the world’s, oldest and most dangerous conflicts went critical this past week as nuclear armed India and Pakistan traded threats of war. The Kashmir conflict is the oldest one before the UN.

In my book `War at the Top of the World’ I warned that the confrontation over Kashmir, the beautiful mountain state claimed by both Islamabad and Delhi, could unleash a nuclear war that could kill millions and pollute the planet.

After three wars and many clashes, it seemed the two bad neighbors had allowed the Kashmir dispute to fade into the background as their relations slightly improved.

Then came the murder last week of 26 Indian tourists at Pahalgam, a Kashmir beauty spot, by Muslim insurgents. Kashmir was roughly divided between India and Pakistan in 1947. The larger part of Kashmir was annexed by Indian troops as the entire region was scourged by massacres and rapine.

As a result, India’s portion of Kashmir became the only Muslim majority state in India. Kashmiri Muslims have waged a bloody struggle since the 1980’s to leave India or join Pakistan. Today, 500,000 Indian troops and an equal number of paramilitary police garrison the restive province.

I’ve been under fire three times on the Line of Control that separates the two Kashmirs and at 15,000 feet altitude on the remote Siachen Glacier. I was with Pakistani President Musharraf after he tried to seize Kargil which lies above Kashmir.

The outside world cared little about the India-Pakistan conflict until both Delhi and Islamabad acquired nuclear weapons. Their ‘hatred of brothers’, as I called it, pits fanatical Hindus against equally ardent Muslims who share centuries of hatred and are being whipped up by politicians.

Right wing Hindu militants in Delhi demand reunification of pre-1947 ‘Mother India.’ Pakistan has about 251 million citizens; India has 1.4 billion and a much larger GDP. Pakistan would be unable to resist a full-bore attack by India’s huge armed forces. So, it relies on tactical nuclear weapons to compensate for the dangerous imbalance.

But both sides nuclear arsenals are on hair-trigger alert and pointed at the subcontinent’s major cities. A decade ago, the US think tank Rand Corp estimated an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange would kill three million immediately and injure 100 million. Such damage would pollute most of the region’s major riverine water sources all the way down to Southeast Asia.

Given the region’s poor communications and often obsolete technology, nuclear arsenals must be kept on high alert lest they be surprised and decapitated by a sudden missile attack from across the border. Accidents are frequent. Anyone who has traveled across India knows about this.

India’s right-wing politicians are loudly demanding revenge strikes against Pakistan as PM Modi stirs up anti-Muslim hatred in India – following the example set in America by his new ally, President Donald Trump. Pakistan is calling on its key ally, China, for support. India and China are at scimitars drawn over their poorly demarcated Himalayan border –another legacy of British imperialism.

India claims Pakistan’s intelligence service ISI was behind the Kashmir attacks. Pakistan denies Indian charges. I’m unsure. A decade ago, as a war correspondent, I joined Kashmiri mujahidin guerillas operating against Indian forces. At the time, Pakistan was quietly supporting the insurgents. I was extensively briefed on Kashmir by ISI officials.

Today, it’s uncertain if Pakistan is involved, as India claims. India, for its part, also supports rebel groups in Pakistani Baluchistan and around Karachi. India routinely commits atrocities against Muslim Kashmiri citizens. Muslim Kashmiris have attacked local Hindus and Sikhs.
India just threatened to shut off the rivers leading from Tibet that nurture Pakistan’s wheat farmers. Pakistan threatens to breach any Indian dams on the Indue River and its tributaries with nuclear weapons.

Everyone wants beautiful, green Kashmir.

Reprinted with permission from EricMargolis.com.

Vatican firefighters have installed the all-important chimney on the roof of the Sistine Chapel ahead of next week’s conclave to select a new pope.

The temporary chimney, from which black smoke issues until a pope is elected, at which point white smoke pours forth, was installed on 2 May.

The installation of the chimney is a key step in the lead-up to the conclave, along with officers from the Swiss Guards and the Vatican Gendarmerie, the sovereign nation’s tiny police force, sweeping the famous frescoed chapel for listening devices and bugs, reports the Daily Telegraph.

“They are setting up chairs, benches, tables, the chimney and the stoves, they are removing cameras, they are removing telephones – any electronic devices,” said Luciano Gagliano, a senior manager for the Vatican Museums, which are adjacent to the Sistine Chapel.

“The Sistine Chapel is completely isolated for the entire duration of the conclave. It is off limits for everyone except the cardinals and restricted members of Vatican staff. Everyone has to swear to keep it secret for their entire life. If you reveal one word – excommunication.”

A group of 133 cardinals, eligible to vote because they are under the age of 80, will enter the Sistine Chapel on Wednesday, 7 May, for the first round of voting in the conclave.

From Thursday onwards, there will be four rounds of voting each day – two in the morning and two in the evening.

The proceedings will be conducted in Latin, the official language of the Holy See. Even cashpoints in the Vatican have a Latin option, notes the Telegraph.

After every two rounds, the cardinals’ ballot papers, on which they write the name of the person they want elected pope, are burned in one of two special stoves that are being installed inside the Sistine Chapel.

Black smoke billowing from the chimney will indicate that no decision has been reached – a two-thirds majority is required. Once white smoke emerges it signals that the next leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics has been chosen.

In the past, the Telegraph notes, the colour of the smoke has been ambiguously grey, so cartridges containing chemicals are added. Black smoke will be created by cartridges containing potassium perchlorate, anthracene – a component of coal tar – and sulphur. White smoke will be created using a cartridge packed with potassium chlorate, lactose and chloroform resin.

The first of the two stoves being installed, dates back to 1939 and will be used to burn the cardinals’ ballot papers. The second stove is relatively new, dating to 2005, and will be used to burn the cartridges that will produce either black or white smoke.

The potential length of the conclave is of increasing speculation. The last two were relatively swift, lasting two days, with Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio chosen as pope after five rounds of voting.

But this time there is speculation the conclave could be much longer due to a combination of factors including the higher number of cardinals participating and the divergence of views regarding the direction that the Church should not take in the wake of Pope Francis’s reign.

RELATED: Could this be the longest conclave in modern history?

Photo: Firefighters install a temporary chimney on the roof of the Sistine Chapel, Vatican, 2 May 2025. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.)

The post White smoke chimney installed at Sistine Chapel for conclave first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post White smoke chimney installed at Sistine Chapel for conclave appeared first on Catholic Herald.

After riding a wave of criticism of Democrats for suppressing freedom of speech, President Trump has just put the quietus on Amazon, which had the audacity to contemplate including the price of Trump’s tariffs in its shopping carts.

Upon hearing of Amazon’s plan, Trump went ballistic, calling Amazon’s plan a “hostile and political act.” According to an article in Aljazeera, Trump telephoned Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to express his displeasure. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt even pulled the Red card, pointing out that “Reuters recently wrote [that] Amazon partnered with a Chinese propaganda arm.”

Alas, following the lead of major law firms and universities that have incurred Trump’s wrath, Amazon quickly capitulated, announcing that it would not share the tariff information with its buyers.

Trump was ecstatic, announcing “Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved a problem very quickly and he did the right thing.”

The episode reminded me of what Lyndon Johnson did soon after being elevated to the presidency after the JFK assassination. According to Robert Caro’s biography of Johnson, there were two newspapers in Texas that were investigating Johnson’s official corruption. While he was vice-president, Johnson could do nothing about it. But as president, things were different. He picked up the phone, talked to the editor or publisher of both newspapers, and informed them in no uncertain terms that he wanted the investigations terminated. Johnson mentioned the possibility of IRS audits and the federal government’s regulatory powers.

Both newspapers knew that the president of the United States wielded the power to do very bad things to them. Both investigations were immediately shut down and never pursued again. Johnson, no doubt, was as ecstatic as Trump.

Of course, Trump wouldn’t have to mention the IRS or some federal regulatory agency or the possibility of some new congressional Internet law to Bezos. By now, everyone is fully aware of the power of any U.S. president to do very bad things to people through the overwhelming regulatory and tax powers of the U.S. government.

What was wrong with what Amazon was contemplating? Nothing. Nothing at all. Amazon was simply going to inform Amazon buyers of the truth about what Trump’s tariffs were costing them. If that isn’t an exercise of freedom of speech, I don’t know what is.

But Trump obviously does not want American buyers of goods and services to see how much money his tariffs are costing them. He obviously just wants them to see how much money his tariff tax is bringing into the federal government, as if that is something good.

Convinced that Amazon’s plan to disclose the truth about the cost of his tariffs to American consumers was a “hostile” act, Trump and his minions immediately went on the attack and quickly won their war against Amazon. In the process, by striking a harsh and effective blow against the fundamental, God-given right of freedom of speech, Trump was guilty of what he criticized Democrats for doing.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

Officials have said the Abdali Weapon System, which has a range of 450km, is meant to safeguard Islamabad “against any aggression”

The Pakistani military has successfully carried out a test launch of a surface-to-surface missile called the Abdali Weapon System that has a reported range of 450km (280 miles), according to defense officials. The drill comes as tensions between Pakistan and its neighbor and regional archrival India remain elevated following the deadly terrorist attack in India’s Jammu and Kashmir.

In a statement on Saturday, the Pakistani Armed Forces announced that the launch carried out earlier in the day “was aimed at ensuring the operational readiness of troops and validating key technical parameters, including the missile’s advanced navigation system and enhanced maneuverability features.”

READ MORE: India claims Pakistan broke ceasefire again – media

Islamabad’s military top brass observed the exercise, while President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed confidence that Pakistan’s Strategic Forces are capable of ensuring “credible minimum deterrence and safeguard national security against any aggression.”

Hours before the test, the Hindustan Times reported that the Indian authorities perceived the planned Pakistani ballistic missile test as a “reckless act of provocation” and a “dangerous escalation” of Islamabad’s “hostile campaign” against New Delhi.

READ MORE: Tensions rise in India-Pakistan standoff: Key updates

Relations between Islamabad and New Delhi  sharply after terrorists gunned down 26 civilians in the Baisaran Valley, a popular tourist destination, on April 22.

READ MORE: India blocks high-level Pakistani social accounts amid tensions – media

The Resistance Front, believed to be tied to the Pakistani-based organization Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility for the attack, though later reports indicated that the group had distanced itself from it. Indian police identified three suspects, claiming that two of them are Pakistani nationals.

In the wake of the attack, India accused its neighbor of aiding and abetting armed militants in their cross-border incursions – a claim Pakistan has vehemently denied.

The limited deployment of Pyongyang’s soldiers in Kursk managed to avoid a lot of potential pitfalls

On April 26, 2025, during a report to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov mentioned that, in Kursk Region, soldiers of the Korean People’s Army (KPA) operated alongside Russian servicemen.

“Soldiers and officers of the Korean People’s Army, fulfilling combat missions shoulder to shoulder with Russian servicemen, demonstrated high professionalism, resilience, courage, and heroism in battle while repelling the Ukrainian invasion,” Gerasimov stated.

The next day, the Central Military Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea issued a statement saying that “The victorious completion of the operation to liberate areas of the Kursk region is a triumph of justice over injustice, and a new chapter in history demonstrating a strong military alliance between the DPRK and Russia – the highest strategic level of allied and brotherly relations between the peoples of the two countries.”

It was noted that the decision to deploy DPRK military units was made by Kim Jong-un based on the provisions of the Russia-DPRK Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty.

On April 28, Russian President Vladimir Putin personally referenced the KPA fighters:

“The Russian people will never forget the feat of the Korean special forces fighters. We will always honor the Korean heroes who gave their lives for Russia, for our common freedom, on par with their Russian brothers-in-arms,” according to a statement on the Kremlin’s website. Putin thanked Kim Jong Un for deploying troops in support of the war with Ukraine, promising that their bilateral friendship, forged on the battlefield, would continue to strengthen.

South Korea and the United States immediately condemned the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia, calling it a violation of UN Security Council resolutions prohibiting military cooperation with Pyongyang. Seoul accused Pyongyang of mocking the international community and called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Russia. A US State Department spokesperson blamed “North Korea” and other third countries for “perpetuating the Russia-Ukraine war,” adding that the deployment of DPRK troops to Russia and any Russian compensation in return must end.

As it happened

On June 19, 2024, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un signed the Treaty on Comprehensive Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Article 4 of the treaty provided for the immediate military assistance by all available means in the event that “one of the parties finds itself in a state of war due to an armed attack by one or more states.” As emphasized by the Russian Foreign Ministry, this clause represented an “exclusively defensive position.” Although Western and South Korean media immediately began discussing the possibility of military action, the reference to a “state of war” implied a very specific definition of conflict.

In the early morning of August 6, 2024, the Armed Forces of Ukraine invaded Kursk Region, which altered the course of the Russian campaign and created the conditions for appealing to Pyongyang for assistance – the “core” territory of the Russian Federation had come under aggression.

On November 1, 2024, during negotiations in Moscow with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, DPRK Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui officially confirmed for the first time that Pyongyang was providing assistance to Moscow: “From the very beginning of the special military operation, the respected Comrade Chairman of State Affairs Kim Jong-un instructed us to unwaveringly and powerfully support and assist the Russian army and the Russian people in their sacred war, without regard to others.”

That same month, the treaty was ratified. It is believed that around this time, Kim Jong-un concluded that “the emerging wartime situation met the conditions for activating Article 4 of the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the DPRK and the Russian Federation,” and decided to involve North Korea’s armed forces in the war, notifying the Russian side of his decision.

Shortly afterward, the first KPA fighters appeared at Russian training grounds. The exact number of military personnel remains unknown, but according to estimates by South Korea’s National Intelligence Service, over 10,000 troops were sent to Russia in the fall of 2024, and another 3,000 in the winter of 2025. Given the likelihood of rotation, this is not a very large number.

At the same time, starting at a certain point, the Russian authorities neither confirmed nor denied information about the presence of North Korean forces, consistently avoiding direct answers. Meanwhile, in Ukrainian propaganda, the topic of North Korea began to gain traction as early as the beginning of October.

On April 24, 2025, the DPRK’s leading newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, published an article dedicated to the sixth anniversary of the first summit between Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un. The article stated that the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership had created a “guarantee for preserving peace and security on the Eurasian continent.” It further emphasized that “the DPRK and Russia are strengthening cooperation, jointly enhancing defense against the reckless conspiracies of hostile forces, and will build a new world together based on the new treaty.”

The piece asserted that “the vile attempts of hegemonic forces, which sought to plunge Eurasia into chaos through confrontation and war, are being thwarted. The changing era and the complex international situation clearly prove that developing strong friendly relations was the right decision.”

Why North Korean forces were sent to the Kursk Region

Setting aside the Western propaganda narrative that “things are going so poorly at the frontline that Moscow cannot succeed without help from allies,” and without access to classified information, two interrelated reasons behind this decision can be identified.

The first reason relates to the way the military operation is being conducted by the Russian side. Aiming to place minimal wartime burdens on society and to involve as few unwilling participants as possible, the Russian leadership strives to keep the military operation and civilian life separate – avoiding mobilization and waging a war of attrition while preserving its own personnel as much as possible. This approach makes the campaign protracted and slow, whereas achieving decisive successes requires additional, well-prepared human resources.

The second reason stems from Article 8 of the Russia-DPRK Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership: “The Parties shall establish mechanisms for conducting joint activities aimed at strengthening defense capabilities in the interest of preventing war and ensuring regional and international peace and security.”

One of the shortcomings of the Korean People’s Army (KPA) is its insufficient training and preparedness for the specific demands of modern warfare, which became evident during the Russian military operation. The KPA possesses a certain reputation and many strengths; however, that reputation is largely based on past narratives and/or displays of individual martial prowess – demonstrations that do not necessarily correlate with the skills required to survive in modern combat, where what matters most is not the ability to break bricks with one’s head, but the ability to dodge FPV drones.

Despite all its strengths, the KPA lacks experience in the kind of modern warfare that the Russian army is currently gaining.

Additionally, a shortage of resources – caused by economic isolation and the aftermath of the “Arduous March” – has led to a chronic lack of fuel and spare parts, preventing the KPA from regularly conducting large-scale exercises across all branches of the military, such as those held by South Korea or in joint US–South Korean drills. There is also no known record of regular command-and-staff exercises aimed at cultivating officers and generals en masse who are prepared for modern warfare.

Of course, the lack of real combat experience is characteristic of both North and South Korea (the only countries to have been consistently engaged in military action since the early 21st century are Russia, the US, and Israel). Nevertheless, such circumstances may lead to an insufficient understanding – especially at the middle and lower levels – of the demands of contemporary warfare, even though Kim Jong Un, who has received a military education, is well aware of what conducting war in the modern age entails.

Therefore, the military cooperation between the two countries was aimed at enriching the KPA with practical experience, with their deployment in Kursk Region serving as a kind of final internship. Initially, the focus was on training at military ranges, familiarizing troops with new weaponry and updated protocols (for instance, the advent of drones altered the previously standard reaction to the command “Air!” traditionally used to alert personnel of approaching bombers). Only afterward was this experience reinforced under combat conditions. It is claimed that even their deployment to the front line was gradual, beginning with assigning them to relieve duties in the rear.

It is important to note that although the military operation spans several fronts, North Korean forces did not cross Russia’s “old” borders. In this author’s view, this was also due to several reasons.

First, the legal basis for the participation of the DPRK military in combat operations was laid out in the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Article 4 of the document explicitly states that in the event of an armed attack on one of the parties, the other is obliged to immediately provide military and other assistance using all available means. Repelling an attack on Russia’s core territory fits within this definition.

Second, this limitation curtails the potential of Ukrainian propaganda to depict “atrocities against civilians” or to portray efforts to capture or persuade North Korean soldiers to defect and be used in propaganda campaigns.

Third, the small size of the contingent and the limited scope of their mission helped avoid a number of problems and risks that might have arisen had the cooperation been structured differently.

Concerns that did not materialize

What problems were largely avoided? Let’s begin with the technical challenges of integrating the KPA with the Russian Armed Forces.

The deployment of a large, entirely foreign contingent into the military operation zone – especially if introduced into combat without prior preparation – would have caused numerous administrative, logistical, and even communication difficulties, particularly due to the number of interpreters required to ensure effective communication and coordination not only at the headquarters level but also “in the field.” However, given the small size of the contingent, these issues were resolved on the spot.

The fact that the North Koreans had their own sector of operations helped avoid the risk of the KPA being used as a tool to solve internal problems. Had North Korean units been subordinated to Russian formations and placed under Russian command, Russian commanders might have faced a dilemma when tasked with conducting operations likely to result in significant casualties: should they send their own subordinates or deploy well-prepared foreign troops?

Everyone recognized this issue, and it’s no coincidence that enemy propaganda actively promoted the narrative of North Koreans being used as cannon fodder. Meanwhile, gaining effective combat experience as a unit is only possible through rotation after reaching an acceptable loss threshold. A unit that suffers excessive casualties cannot pass on its experience to newly arrived reinforcements or upon returning to permanent duty stations.

However, it appears that the Russian authorities opted for a different strategy: the North Koreans were given their own sector and operated there more or less independently.

There was also concern about how Russian society would react to North Korean assistance.

Although Article 20 of the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership specifically addresses the issue of “strengthening coordination in countering disinformation and aggressive information campaigns,” a significant portion of the Russian population remains influenced by long-standing anti-Pyongyang propaganda, and the image of North Korea in the public consciousness remains rather odious.

In this context, the opposing side counted on a reputational blow to the Russian leadership: the internationalization of the war would be perceived by part of Russian society as proof that Moscow lacked the strength to secure victory in Ukraine on its own and was therefore forced to enlist such allies – despite the fact that the military operation is regarded by many as an internal matter for Russia.

However, the absence of North Koreans from the public eye meant the issue was barely discussed, and the narrative of “nothing would have worked without them” never took hold in the public consciousness. Additionally, the negative perception of the DPRK was partly offset by rhetoric about combat brotherhood, the understanding that their presence could reduce overall casualties, and the lack of any reports of misconduct by the North Korean troops.

The limited role assigned to the KPA also helped reduce the risk of further internationalization of the conflict. The West could have used the “North Korean card” to justify sending a NATO contingent to Ukraine “in response to the KPA invasion.” However, from, nothing the West could have interpreted as an “invasion of Ukraine” by North Korean forces occurred. Additionally, the new US policy and the EU’s unwillingness to accept serious risks played a role in tempering the response.

As for the so-called “reputational risks for Russia,” from the Western perspective, Russia has already been cast as a menacing superpower that has seized half the world and hungrily eyes the other half. The level of demonization and Russophobia in the West is so extreme that the involvement of the KPA is unlikely to have any critical impact on Russia’s image.

It is also worth noting that the situation did not provoke a new surge of tension in East Asia. Military activity within the Washington–Tokyo–Seoul triangle has continued at the same pace as under the Biden administration, and the South Korean leadership is primarily concerned not with the presence of North Korean soldiers on Russia’s western borders, but with the risk of breakthrough military technologies being transferred to the DPRK. The US course toward creating an Asian equivalent of NATO or expanding NATO eastward has not accelerated as a result.

What’s next?

The recognition of military cooperation has undoubtedly strengthened the ties between the two countries, and in this context, South Korean media are actively discussing whether Kim Jong-un will attend the Victory Day Parade in May or the Eastern Economic Forum in the fall. There is no direct confirmation of this yet, but the participation of DPRK military personnel in the May celebrations appears likely.

The combat brotherhood will be glorified: most likely, distinguished members of the KPA will receive Russian military honors, and a monument will be erected in the DPRK, similar to those dedicated to Soviet soldiers or Chinese People’s Volunteers.

To this, we can add the rise of popular mythologization. Thanks to the efforts of both enemy propaganda and patriotic bloggers, North Koreans in the SMO have become part of the “barracks legends” – the kind of stories told in the gear room.

Military cooperation itself is also unlikely to come to an end, though the form it will take remains an interesting topic for discussion. The more probable scenario is that the training of soldiers and officers on Russian territory will continue and become more open, but without direct combat involvement.

A less likely possibility is that KPA personnel will continue to provide assistance, although an increase in the size of the North Korean contingent and/or its deployment beyond the pre-2022 Russian borders would raise concerns related to the costs and risks outlined above.

At the same time, the KPA in reality and the KPA in the post-truth world will remain two different entities. Those who want to see North Koreans – even where they are not present – will find them, and everyone will believe in the version of events that suits them best.

What about the situation on the Korean Peninsula? The demonstration of the Moscow–Pyongyang alliance reduces the risk of an armed conflict, similar to the dynamics of the Cold War.

Our side will not strike first, and the risks of a regional conflict escalating into a broader or nuclear confrontation are simply too high. As for everything else – we should watch the level of confrontation between the US and China, which will require Donald Trump to coordinate with allies, as well as the policy of South Korea’s future president.

One of the most powerful prayers on the face of the Earth is the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

This applies especially to the dying.

Our Lord once told Saint Faustina these words:

What an amazing promise made by Our Lord! He will stand between the dying person and His Father as the merciful Savior!

Let me share with you a conversation I once had and how it relates to the life of Saint Faustina regarding praying this Chaplet for the dying.

I spoke with a nurse who said she had prayed the Divine Mercy Chaplet with one of her dying patients.

As she prayed, she felt something “swoosh” by her and exit the room. This account blew me away, partially because of the story itself, but also because of a similar account from Saint Faustina.

Faustina, the great saint of Divine Mercy, recounted a similar experience during her lifetime. What made Saint Faustina’s experience different is that she saw what happened behind the scenes, beyond the veil, in the realm of the supernatural.

Saint Faustina describes it in her writings. Our Lord said to her:

Saint Faustina then stated:

As if this episode was not enough to convince us to pray the Chaplet for the dying person, Our Lord attached this promise as well:

These promises, simply put, are enormous and amazing.

Given that praying this Chaplet takes about 5-7 minutes, this is an awesome, life-giving work of mercy that is within everyone’s means.

Let us be convinced that through the testimony of Saint Faustina and the secretary of God’s mercy, one of the greatest things we can do for a dying person is to pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for them.

God’s mercy is amazing.

He wants all His children home with Him, no matter how dark their sins are or how many demons wait for them.

Jesus said to Saint Faustina,

With all the encouragement I can possibly muster, I exhort you: the next time you hear someone is dying, especially those close to you, take 5-7 minutes, and pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for them. Help the Lord save them.

What an amazing thing it is to cooperate with the ushering of a soul to eternal life in the Father’s house–to make demons flee when the rays of Divine Mercy show forth.

Let’s end with this prayer right from the lips of Saint Faustina:

The right-wing Reform UK has won control of ten of 23 local authorities up for grabs

The right-wing Reform UK party has won 677 out of more than 1,600 seats in England’s local elections, while the Labour and the Conservative parties suffered heavy defeats across the country.

As results began to trickle in on Friday, the party led by firebrand and Brexit proponent Nigel Farage emerged as the strongest performer in contests held in 23 local authorities across England, winning control of ten councils. These included eight taken from the Conservatives – Derbyshire, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, North Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and West Northamptonshire — along with Doncaster from Labour and Durham, where no party previously had a majority.

Reform also won hard-fought parliamentary by-elections in Runcorn and Helsby, snatching victory from Labour by just six votes after a recount. As a result, the party now controls five seats in the UK Parliament.

According to a BBC projection, if a general election were held today, Reform UK would receive 30% of the vote, ahead of Labour at 20% and the Conservatives at 15%. However, the next general election is not due until May 2029. The last one was held last year and saw Labour secure a landslide victory, riding a wave of public dissatisfaction with the economic policies of the Tories.

Commenting on his party’s strides, Farage remarked: “In post-war Britain, no one has ever beaten both Labour and the Tories in a local election before. These results are unprecedented… Reform can and will win the next general election.”

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that while he felt a “sharp edge of fury,” he said he understood the voters’ choice while promising to “go further and faster in pursuit of… national renewal.” Meanwhile, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch bluntly acknowledged that the elections were a predictable “bloodbath,” stressing that the Tories must continue work to rebuild trust in the party.

Reform UK’s rise has been driven by voter frustration over high levels of immigration, the rising cost of living, and what many see as years of mismanagement by both major parties. The party campaigned heavily on promises to cut migration – including by small boat crossings – lower taxes, and reduce council spending, positioning itself as the only alternative to what it calls “a failed political establishment.”

With just four days to go until the conclave to elect a new pope begins, cardinals are addressing a variety of challenges the next pontiff will have to face. During a flurry of pre-conclave meetings happening in the Vatican, discussions have seen both criticisms of the late pontiff, with a call for more clarity from his successor, but also praise and a call for continuity with Pope Francis’s policies.

Cardinals have now been meeting for eight days in pre-conclave general congregations, during which they are getting to know one another and offering interventions on the state of the world and the Church, to establish a profile for the next Successor of Peter.

During the first general congregations, there was significant criticism of Pope Francis and his legacy among more conservatively minded members of the “old guard”; however, recent interventions have highlighted Francis’s emphasis on evangelisation and synodality.

Weighing in on the profile of the next pope, Italian Cardinal Camillo Ruini, 94, vicar emeritus of Rome, in an open letter to cardinals ahead of the conclave said Francis’s papacy is something “that questions and deeply shakes the Church”.

A conservative giant, Ruini said he hoped the Church of the future would be charitable, but “doctrinally secure, governed according to the law, deeply united within itself”.

He insisted on the need for “certainty of truth and the security of doctrine”, but lamented that Benedict XVI’s papacy was “undermined by his poor aptitude for governing”.

“This is a concern that applies to all times, including the near future,” he said, and stressed the need to overcome both internal and external threats to the Church’s unity.

Likewise, conservative German Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller told Italian newspaper La Reppublica that there was “unanimous appreciation” for Pope Francis’s attention to migrants, the poor, and to overcoming disparities between “the center and the periphery”.

However, he said Francis was “too ambiguous” at times, whereas Benedict XVI offered “perfect theological clarity”.

“Everyone has their own charisms and abilities and I think Pope Francis had them more in the social dimension,” Müller said, voicing his belief that the next pope should provide clarity on Pope Francis’s authorisation for blessings of individuals in same-sex unions, as well as his choice to appoint a woman prefect to the Dicastery for Religious, as it is an “ecclesial body” and not an administrative role.

He also underlined the need to draw a firmer line in dialogue with Islam and with China going forward, not allowing for a “relativistic” attitude toward violent instincts in Islam, and being firm in now allowing “that communists appoint bishops”.

German Cardinal Walter Kasper, 92, also gave an interview to La Reppublica in which he praised Pope Francis’s commitment to synodality and said it ought to be a guide for the future.

“I don’t think we can go back, it would be senseless. I think that we can move forward, even with a new pope,” he said, saying the faithful themselves “voted with their feet” in terms of what they want in a pope when they turned out in droves for Francis’s funeral, which was attended by around 200,000.

Kasper voiced his conviction that the Church will “move forward in the footsteps of Pope Francis. This is his central message: Jesus Christ preached mercy, he lived mercy, and he died for us on the cross out of mercy, and therefore mercy is so central to the faith of the church.”

“I hope that [the cardinals] will reach a consensus very soon on the next pope, in the footsteps of Francis,” he said.

Speaking to journalists after a May 2 general congregation meeting, Colombian Cardinal Jorge Enrique Jimenez Carvajal, 83, archbishop emeritus of Cartagena, said the Church needs a pope who can speak to all corners of the world, “And help to bring a light of hope to so many people who are living such a difficult life.”

“Pope Francis marked the world and marked society,” he said, adding that the next pope can come from anywhere, and that geography doesn’t matter.

“We ask God that he be the best possible. May he have a very big heart where everyone fits, all men, all women, all those who suffer,” he said, stressing the need for “more continuity than anything else”.

During that morning’s session, he said, a bishop had given a speech analysing the word “continuity”, and how to understand the last three papacies – John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis – with the “hermeneutics of continuity”.

“It was very interesting,” Carvajal said, noting that continuity implies certain elements of the past “being born new and the new is being created…the Church cultivates continuity.”

While a certain level of tension in coming to a decision on a new pope is normal, Carvajal said, polarisation is a problem, because “the Church is an institution that doesn’t go for polarisation. In fact, it believes that polarisation, ordinarily or almost always, is harmful.”

“What the Church seeks is more is to promote unity…unity must be built, and it is hard to build, because today it seems different, because there are different situations,” but that is the Church’s task, he said.

Regardless of whatever decision is made and whoever gets elected, Carvajal said the cardinals are “unanimous” on the need to support the next pope.

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni in regular daily press briefings has highlighted several topics being addressed during the general congregations, including the emphasis on evangelisation, the need for the Church to speak to younger generations, and the need for the Gospel to be preached effectively “from the parishes to the Curia” in Rome.

The topics of financial and clerical abuse scandals have also been addressed as “wounds” that continue to afflict the Church, and the need for more awareness so as to identify “concrete paths for its healing”.

One of the most glaring issues the new pope will have to face is the Vatican’s crippling deficit and its looming pension crisis. While Pope Francis took various measures to get on top of the problem, it is unresolved and remains one of the most immediate priorities for the incoming pontiff.

On Wednesday, April 30, several prelates gave presentations on the Vatican’s financial situation, with American Cardinal Kevin Farrell, chair of the Committee for Investments, speaking about its role and activities.

Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, chair of the Supervisory Commission of Cardinals of the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), the so-called Vatican Bank, spoke about its current situation, while Spanish Cardinal Fernando Vérgez Alzaga, president emeritus of the Governorate of Vatican City State, offered details on the Governorate, including some renovation works.

Polish Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, Apostolic Almoner, also spoke about the commitment of the Dicastery for the Service of Charity.

Other topics that have come up in discussions include liturgy, the importance of canon law, and the value of synodality, a buzzword of Francis’s papacy that implies a more collaborative style of leadership with an emphasis on making the church a more welcoming and inclusive place for all its members.

The connections between synodality, collegiality and mission in the Church were highlighted, as was the need to overcome secularism and to overcome polarisation and divisions in society. The value of synodality in this regard was highlighted, “in close connection with episcopal collegiality, as an expression of differentiated co-responsibility,” Bruni said on May 2.

References have also been made to documents of the Second Vatican Council, particularly the apostolic constitutions Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes, and how to foster more priestly and religious vocations.

Reaching a consensus for the new pope will be a challenge for the cardinals, as there are more of them – 135 electors participating, instead of the 115 and 117 of the past two conclaves – and they are on the whole far more diverse, with many being unfamiliar with Rome and unable to speak Italian.

Two electors, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, archbishop emeritus of Valencia, and Cardinal John Njue, archbishop emeritus of Nairobi, Kenya, are unable to participate due to illness, meaning the number of electors present in Rome voting will be 133.

Carvajal in his comments to journalists noted that “many of us did not know each other” prior to coming to Rome for pre-conclave meetings, but he said the fact that there is so much diversity, and that they are now getting to know each other better, is a gift for the Church.

On the whole, the body of cardinals who will elect Francis’s successor is younger and more diverse, reflecting Pope Francis’s desire for a more global Church that better reflected realities on the ground.

The average age of cardinal-electors (those under 80) is 70 years old; however, there are several who are in their mid-40s and mid-50s, including Cardinal Mykola Bychok of Saints Peter and Paul of Melbourne (Ukrainian), who is 45; Cardinal Giorgio Marengo of Mongolia, 50; Américo Manuel Cardinal Alves Aguiar of Setubal, Portugal, 51; Indian Syro-Malabar Cardinal George Jacob Koovakad, prefect emeritus of interreligious dialogue, 51; and Lithuanian Cardinal Rolandas Cardinal Makrickas, coadjutor archpriest of St. Mary Major, 53.

Some 80 per cent of the cardinal-electors were appointed by Pope Francis, more of whom come from the global south than in previous conclaves.

Whereas 51 per cent of cardinal-electors came from Europe in 2005 and 2013, this year only 43 per cent are from Europe, whereas the percentages of those from Latin America, Asia and the Pacific, and Africa and the Middle East have increased by several percentage points.

This year Latin Americans make up 18 per cent of the cardinal-electors, whereas Asia and Pacific cardinals make up 16 per cent, and cardinals from Africa and the Middle East represent 14 per cent. North American cardinals, who made up 11 per cent in the past two conclaves, are now nine per cent.

With Francis’s appointees, there are now more voting cardinals from Asia and the Pacific than there are from Italy, which marks a significant departure from the past. There has also been a noticeable drop in cardinals from the Curia, going from 27 per cent in 2013 to just 20 per cent now.

There are no serious contenders among the US contingent, apart from Cardinal Robert Prevost, a Chicago native who spent nearly 30 years as a missionary in Peru with his Augustinian order, as he is considered moderate, while the others are viewed as being either too far to the Right, or too far to the Left.

Four cardinal-electors still need to arrive to Rome prior to the start of the conclave May 7, which will begin with Mass and the swearing of the oath of secrecy that morning, and the closing of the Sistine Chapel doors and casting the first vote that evening.

The chimney from which black or white smoke will pour out of after the various ballots has already been installed, and the Sistine Chapel itself is being prepared with a special floor, and tables and chairs for the voting sessions.

After the first vote on Wednesday, 7 May, two votes will take place each morning and each afternoon until a new pope is elected.

Photo: Cardinal Camillo Ruini prays during a papal Mass for the 14th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops at St Peter’s Basilica, Vatican, 25 October 2015. (Photo credit should read ANDREAS SOLARO/AFP via Getty Images.)

The post FEATURE: Cardinals assess Pope Francis’s legacy as they debate Church’s future ahead of conclave first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post FEATURE: Cardinals assess Pope Francis’s legacy as they debate Church’s future ahead of conclave appeared first on Catholic Herald.