Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

The Ukrainian leader’s refusal to discuss territorial concessions is prolonging the conflict, the US president has said

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky could lose the entirety of his country if he continues stalling talks with Russia, US President Donald Trump warned in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday.

Zelensky had publicly announced that Kiev will not even discuss officially recognizing the Crimean Peninsula as Russian, a key tenet of a Washington-backed peace proposal which it was to present at a meeting with officials the country's European backers on Wednesday. Following the rebuttal the top members of the US delegation withdrew from the planned talks, leading to the meeting being “downgraded” at the last minute. 

“This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago,” Trump wrote, accusing the Ukrainian leader of prolonging the conflict.

READ MORE: White House accuses Zelensky of megaphone diplomacy

Crimea’s predominantly ethnic-Russian population voted to join Russia in a referendum in 2014, following a Western-backed armed coup in Kiev. Trump took to his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, declaring

The situation for Ukraine is dire – He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country.

Trump reiterated that Zelensky has a weak bargaining position in the negotiations. “We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE,” he wrote.

The US has been pushing for a  resolution to the conflict, while at the same time trying to secure a minerals extraction deal with Ukraine to recoup some of the billions of dollars spent on arming the country. However, Trump and his administration have been growing impatient with the pace of the negotiations on both fronts, signaling that they may abandon the efforts.

If the US determines that “not enough movement is happening, we may need to move on to other priorities,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an interview with the Free Press published on Tuesday.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated in response that a peace deal with Ukraine is unlikely to be concluded in an expedited manner due to the complexities of the negotiations. Moscow has said it has always been ready to engage in peace talks, provided they ensure a permanent solution that addresses the root causes of the conflict – while any temporary ceasefire would be used by Ukraine’s Western backers to rearm the country’s military.

A group of retired officers, including over two dozen generals, has urged Parliament to debate troop presence and lethal aid for Kiev

A group of high-ranking French veterans has called for increased oversight of the country’s military involvement in Ukraine.

In a letter sent to the heads of both houses of Parliament, the former officers urged lawmakers to hold a formal debate on weapons supplies and the continued presence of French troops bolstering Kiev’s war efforts.

The letter, titled the ‘Citizen Resolution’, was published earlier this week on Place d’Armes, a platform for current and former service members to express views on national policy. It included a public call for citizens to sign the resolution in support.

The authors argued that France’s military involvement in Ukraine without a parliamentary mandate, and arms deliveries without public debate, violate the French Constitution and Criminal Code. They claimed that no clear communication has been made to Parliament about the possible presence of French troops in Ukraine since 2022, despite the legal obligation to inform lawmakers of any “military intervention.”

The letter has urged the parliament to publish “all information” about troop presence in the Journal Officiel, the country’s official gazette, and to “organize a debate with a vote on the continuation of this intervention” within 15 days of receiving the letter.

The document also noted that the French-Ukrainian security pact signed last year – which included €3 billion in aid and multi-year military support – has not been ratified by Parliament, despite the Constitution requiring such ratification for treaties having major financial implications for the state.

“The lack of regular parliamentary ratification raises the question of the legality of the supply of weapons from the French army reserves to Ukraine for use against Russia, with which our country is not at war,” the letter states.

The letter also highlighted President Emmanuel Macron’s recent remarks about potentially deploying troops to Ukraine and sharing nuclear capabilities with European partners. The authors argued that such decisions require parliamentary debate to ensure legitimacy.

Commenting on the letter, the head of the Place d’Armes association, Jean-Pierre Fabre-Bernadac, told Sud Radio it reflects heightened public concern about the country’s involvement in Ukraine.

“Is it a fable? Is there a reality of French troops on Ukrainian soil? This will be clarified by the National Assembly and the Senate,” he said. “The army is at the service of the nation. It is not at the service of a man or a regime.” He noted that his association did not write the text but that it was instead prepared by military professionals, including 26 former army generals.

The heads of the Senate and National Assembly have not yet publicly responded to the letter, while the mainstream French media has largely been quiet about its existence. However, the document has been signed by over 14,000 people since its release.

Despite numerous reports of Western troops in Ukraine, Kiev’s backers have avoided confirming any official deployments. Russia has repeatedly opposed the presence of Western forces under any pretext in the combat zone, warning that such a move would be treated as direct involvement in the conflict.

Australian authorities are facing a backlash following the cull in a national park in Victoria state

Australian authorities are under fire following the culling of hundreds of koalas in the state of Victoria.

Around 700 koalas have been shot by snipers from helicopters flying over Victoria's Budj Bim National Park, in an act of euthanasia following a devastating bushfire that scorched over 2,000 hectares of habitat.

The fire left many koalas injured, dehydrated, and without food, prompting authorities to initiate the cull in early April as a means to prevent further suffering.

Animal welfare organizations have voiced alarm over the wellbeing of orphaned joeys left behind, media reported on Tuesday.

However, the approach – deploying snipers to shoot the animals from helicopters – has sparked swift and widespread backlash.

Activists have raised concerns that decisions were being made by veterinarians and shooters from distances of up to 30 meters, increasing the risk of mistakenly killing healthy koalas—including mothers still caring for their joeys.

”The use of aerial shooting should be treated as a last resort,” Friends of the Earth Melbourne said in a statement, urging authorities to pause the cull and allow independent observers access to the site.

”This is the first time that koalas have been killed by shooting from a helicopter in Australia,” the organization said. “Aerial culling of koalas is an Australian first and sets a nasty ethical precedent.”

The animal protection organization Koala Alliance echoed concerns about vulnerable young joeys potentially being left behind to starve or succumb to exposure.

”If koalas were shot out of trees, this means many joeys would be left to suffer and die. It’s despicable. It’s cruel,” the group said in a statement on Facebook.

The regional government has defended its decision to conduct an aerial cull of koalas in Budj Bim National Park, citing expert assessments and veterinary advice.

However, calls for an independent review of the culling process have been growing, with activists urging for more humane and precise methods of wildlife management.

Kiev’s backers are said to be urging security guarantees to be included under Trump’s reported proposal to acknowledge Crimea as Russian

The UK and France are “open to a scenario” in which Kiev would concede territory to Russia in exchange for Western security guarantees and aid, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing an insider.

London and Paris have emerged as the leading backers of Kiev’s war effort against Russia, after US President Donald Trump announced his intention to distance America from the crisis. Washington expects Ukraine and its European NATO allies to respond this week to its proposed compromise truce before presenting it to Moscow.

European leaders are wary of acknowledging Russian sovereignty over Crimea and freezing the hostilities along the current front lines – concepts reportedly outlined by Trump administration officials in Paris last week – the WSJ said on Tuesday. According to the newspaper’s source, the UK and France would prefer a deal with no formal territorial changes, “like the cease-fire that ended the Korean War.”

That armistice, signed in 1953 by military officers from North Korea and the US, was never endorsed by South Korea, which continues to reject the authority of the government in Pyongyang. Without a formal peace agreement, the Korean War remains technically unresolved.

Current hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough have been dampened by remarks from Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. On Tuesday, he publicly dismissed certain ideas reportedly included in the Trump administration’s peace plan. Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously cautioned that the US could “move on” if either party delays progress.

Moscow has accused the EU and UK of trying to undermine Trump’s mediation efforts. Paris and London have suggested a post-ceasefire deployment of Western troops in Ukraine, a scenario that the Russian government has deemed unacceptable under any circumstances. Washington has ruled out any future military involvement in Ukraine, asserting that European nations should handle its security.

Russian officials argue that a lasting peace can only be achieved by addressing the fundamental causes of the conflict, including NATO’s expansion in Europe since the 1990s, and the rise of radical Ukrainian nationalism. According to Moscow, the Zelensky government aims to eradicate “all things Russian” within the nation.

The interagency position was designed to facilitate the prosecution of alleged crimes related to the Ukraine conflict

The administration of US President Donald Trump has reportedly eliminated a position within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that was responsible for sharing evidence of alleged Russian war crimes.

Mandated by a bipartisan bill passed in 2022 in response to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, the Intelligence Community Coordinator for Russia Atrocities Accountability Act (ICCRAA) was enacted as part of the 2023 Intelligence Authorization Act.

According to anonymous sources cited by the Washington Post on Tuesday, both the ICCRAA and the interagency working group it led have been terminated.

Previous reports indicated that the Trump administration had withdrawn from collaboration with an EU-led initiative aimed at investigating Russian nationals in connection with the Ukraine conflict, halted a Justice Department program for training Ukrainian prosecutors on handling these cases, and closed an inquiry into Kiev’s allegations that the Russian authorities kidnapped Ukrainian children.

Two major priorities of the Trump agenda include slashing government spending on programs deemed unnecessary and concluding the Ukraine conflict.

The efforts to resolve the conflict reportedly reached a critical juncture this week, with Washington anticipating reactions from Kiev and European NATO members regarding its proposed compromise ceasefire deal before presenting it to Moscow. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cautioned last week that the US could “move on” to other issues if the negotiations stall.

Neither Rubio nor Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who outlined the ideas last week at a gathering in Paris, will attend this week’s discussions with Ukrainian officials in London, according to Axios. However, Witkoff is expected to travel to Moscow for follow-up talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Reports indicate that the US is proposing formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over the former Ukrainian region of Crimea, which voted to join Russia following the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has rejected this, reiterating on Tuesday that Kiev’s claim to the peninsula is non-negotiable.

The US peace framework reportedly includes “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and the eventual lifting of sanctions

Washington has presented Kiev with what US President Donald Trump has called the “final offer” to end the Ukraine conflict, according to a report by Axios. The Kremlin, however, has urged the public to rely on official and primary sources for developments in US-Russia talks.

The one-page document was reportedly drafted following Trump envoy Steve Witkoff’s four-hour meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month, and was presented to Ukrainian officials in Paris last week, Axios reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the discussions.

Under the proposed deal, the US is said to be prepared to grant “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and unofficially acknowledge Moscow’s “de facto” control over the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, as well as the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye.

The plan also includes provisions for lifting post-2014 sanctions on Moscow and enhancing bilateral economic cooperation. In addition, Washington would formally oppose Ukraine’s bid to join NATO.

In return, Ukraine would reportedly receive a “robust security guarantee” from a coalition of EU and other like-minded countries. The proposal does not detail how a purpoted “peacekeeping” operation would function.

Russia has rejected the deployment of NATO forces, or troops from members of the bloc under a “coalition of the willing” to Ukraine under any pretext.

The framework also promises Kiev unimpeded access to the Dnepr River and potential compensation for reconstruction efforts, although it does not specify where the funding would originate. The plan references a minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, which Trump expects to be signed on Thursday.

Another component of the proposal, according to Axios, involves designating the area around the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant as neutral territory under US administration. 

Washington reportedly expects Kiev to respond to the proposal during a multinational meeting in London on Wednesday. Both Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will skip the event, with General Keith Kellogg, another Trump envoy focused on Ukraine, leading the US delegation instead. Witkoff is expected to travel to Moscow for a follow-up meeting with Putin.

Rubio warned last week that the US could abandon the peace initiatives and “move on” to other issues if the negotiations fail. Trump said on Monday there is “a good chance of solving the problem” this week.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly ruled out ceding any territory to Russia and continues to urge the US and other allies to provide sustained military support.

Moscow has stated that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum held after a Western-backed coup in Kiev – and the four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022, is not open to negotiation. Russian officials insist that any peace agreement must address the “root causes” of the conflict. Putin has also said that a viable ceasefire would require Western nations to halt arms deliveries to Ukraine.

US presidential envoy Keith Kellogg will represent Washington instead

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will not attend Wednesday’s Ukraine talks in London, despite earlier plans to take part, the State Department has confirmed. President Donald Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, has also withdrawn from the meeting, according to the Financial Times, and is expected to visit Moscow instead.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce cited scheduling conflicts as the reason for Rubio’s withdrawal from Wednesday’s talks, insisting this does not signal a change in the US commitment to the peace process.

“Secretary Rubio is a busy man… And so when there’s certain plans, they’re conditional. And in this particular instance, while the meetings in London are still occurring, he will not be attending. But that is not a statement regarding the meetings; it’s a statement about logistical issues in his schedule,” Bruce told journalists on Tuesday.

General Keith Kellogg, another Trump envoy tasked with negotiating with Kiev directly, will represent Washington at the London discussions. The talks will include officials from the UK, France, and Germany – countries that advocate continued military support for Ukraine – as well as representatives from Kiev.

The London talks follow a series of high-level meetings in Paris last week, where Rubio and Witkoff held discussions with European and Ukrainian officials. According to the New York Post, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov reportedly told the US envoys that Kiev is “90%” aligned with Washington’s proposed peace framework, which has not yet been made public.

Sources cited by the Washington Post on Tuesday claimed that the US proposals include formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and potentially lifting sanctions on Moscow as part of a future agreement. Meanwhile, the Financial Times claimed that Russia is prepared to halt the hostilities along the current front lines.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged the media and public to rely on official sources regarding developments in US-Russia talks on the Ukraine conflict, warning that “a lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications.” Both Washington and Moscow have officially confirmed that Witkoff will travel to Russia for talks “later this week.”

Moscow has stated that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum held after a Western-backed coup in Kiev – and the four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022, is not subject to negotiation. Russian officials maintain that recognizing the “reality on the ground” is essential to achieving a lasting peace.

A garden without a gardener: Western Europe drifts as the world rebuilds

The defining trait of today’s Western Europe is not unity or strength – it is the complete absence of a vision for the future. While the US, Russia, China, India, and even Latin America actively shape and debate their long-term direction, Western Europe remains stuck in nostalgia. Its politicians are not building tomorrow but clinging to yesterday’s comforts. The continent’s political imagination seems limited to one goal: Maintaining the status quo of a world that no longer exists.

This backward-looking mentality has transformed the EU into what can best be described as a “terrarium of like-minded people” – an ecosystem where each actor competes for influence, all the while privately despising the others. In theory, the EU was designed to create a shared geopolitical force. In practice, that unity has been reduced to cynical self-interest and mutual sabotage.

Germany wants to preserve its economic dominance, sending constant signals to Washington that it alone is a stable transatlantic partner. France, despite its limited military capabilities, flexes what remains of its armed forces to assert superiority over Germany and southern Europe. Britain, once an outsider, is suddenly interested in being part of “Europe” again – but only to stir division and feed the fires of confrontation with Russia.

Poland plays its own game, maintaining privileged ties with the US and remaining aloof from Franco-German maneuvering. Italy conducts foreign policy like an independent middle power, working with Washington and Moscow alike. Smaller European states scramble for relevance, knowing full well they are pawns on someone else’s board.

Brussels, meanwhile, produces a steady flow of bureaucratic theater. Figures such as Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas make loud proclamations, but everyone knows they lack real power. They are political actors without a stage, reading from scripts that no longer matter. The spectacle of European unity has become hollow – not only in appearance but in substance.

Western Europe’s decline didn’t begin yesterday. But the last 15 years have exposed how brittle the EU’s foundations truly are. After the Cold War, the dream of a strong, united Europe gained some traction: A common currency, common foreign policy, even whispers of strategic autonomy from NATO.

That dream died in Iraq in 2003, when Paris and Berlin briefly opposed Washington’s invasion. But when France rejoined NATO’s command structure in 2007, it signaled the end of any real independence. The Americans, with British support, had reasserted dominance.

The euro, once hailed as the tool of European power, became Germany’s weapon of economic control. Southern and eastern member states were locked into a financial order they could not escape. Germany imposed its will during the eurozone crisis and the pandemic alike, and was hated for it. Smaller nations resented their role as appendages to the German economy, with little recourse.

So when the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, the rupture of Russian-German ties was quietly welcomed across the continent. France, which gave little to Kiev, now enjoys more diplomatic prestige than Germany, which gave billions. Poland’s foreign minister practically celebrated the sabotage of Nord Stream – not because it harmed Russia, but because it weakened Berlin.

EU enlargement, once seen as the triumph of European power, has become a liability. For two decades, expanding eastward was treated as a geopolitical project aimed at absorbing former Soviet spaces. But it failed to give Western Europe more clout with Washington. The new members did not submit to Berlin or Paris; they looked to the US instead. In the end, the EU overreached, alienated Moscow, and gained nothing substantial in return.

Having failed at building a real foreign policy, the EU is now desperately trying to preserve what it has. But without a dream of the future, politics loses meaning. Western European life has become a loop of managing decline, while tensions within the bloc grow sharper.

Britain may have left the EU, but geopolitical pressure has pushed it back into the game. Unable to solve its own domestic crises – with four prime ministers in three years – London doubles down on anti-Russian rhetoric to stay relevant. But it doesn’t want to fight, so it pushes its continental allies to do it instead. It’s classic British strategy: Let others bleed.

Most Germans would love to restore ties with Russia and get back to cheap energy and easy profits. But it can’t. The Americans are firmly entrenched on German soil, and Berlin’s military-industrial elite wants NATO spending to continue. Southern Europe, impoverished and increasingly resentful, can no longer sustain German prosperity. France hopes to exploit this, imagining itself as Europe’s new nuclear umbrella. Macron talks big, but everyone knows he rarely delivers.

This brings us to 2025. As tensions with Russia and China rise, EU leaders have been lining up to visit Washington. Except, of course, for the Germans, who are still trying to form a government after chaotic elections. From Poland to France, each leader went to ask Trump for preferential treatment. Divide and rule is still the American playbook, and the Western Europeans keep falling for it.

In the East, Hungary and Slovakia have had enough. Years of lectures from Brussels on LGBT rights and liberal values have created deep resentment. They now speak openly of aligning with Russia or China. Spain and Italy, meanwhile, are refusing to see Moscow as a threat. Italian PM Giorgia Meloni deals with Washington bilaterally and doesn’t pretend to represent broader European interests.

The European Commission, tasked with representing the EU, has become a parody of itself. Kallas, recently named high representative for foreign affairs, immediately overstepped her role by demanding tens of billions in new aid for Ukraine. The backlash was swift. In the EU, power over money stays with national governments. Even von der Leyen, as compromised as she is, knows better than to touch those coffers without permission.

What is left of Western Europe today is a political shell. A group of aging powers clinging to past glories, locked in competition with each other, lacking the will to act but refusing to step aside. Their one shared goal: to be seen in the room when Washington, Moscow, and Beijing make decisions. But it won’t be as equals – it would be as supplicants.

For now, the Americans hold the leash. Only the US can impose discipline on its European satellites and give their politics a sense of direction. Russia watches all of this with measured patience. Because ultimately, if stability returns to Europe, it will be because Washington permits it – not because Brussels earned it.

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

Kiev and its European backers will be meeting with officials from Washington in London this week

The US will propose a peace deal that involves the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and freezing the Ukrainian conflict front lines, at a meeting with officials from Kiev and Western Europe this week, the Washington Post has reported, citing sources.

US President Donald Trump’s envoy Keith Kellogg is set to meet foreign ministers and security advisers from France, Germany, the UK and Ukraine in London on Wednesday. Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will reportedly skip the meeting. 

US proposals, presented to Ukraine in Paris last week, also include Washington eventually lifting sanctions against Moscow under a future accord, people familiar with the matter told the outlet on Tuesday. One Western official reportedly described the pressure on Ukraine as “astounding.”

European officials are expected to push for security guarantees for Ukraine and postwar reconstruction efforts, possibly funded in part by frozen Russian assets, the report said.

Trump has threatened to walk away from a Ukraine peace initiative if progress is not made soon. He told reporters on Monday that he would be releasing details of the US proposals “over the next three days.” 

Witkoff, who has had multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, will visit Russia later this week, Moscow has confirmed. According to one of the Post’s sources, it was “Witkoff’s idea” for the US to designate Crimea as Russian “without forcing Ukraine to recognize it.”

Crimea held a referendum to join Russia in 2014 following a Western-backed armed coup in Kiev. The new Ukrainian government, along with its Western backers, has refused to recognize the vote’s legitimacy.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has ruled out relinquishing any territorial claims against Russia and has urged the US and other nations to continue providing military aid – a policy the Trump administration has said it will end.

Moscow insists that the status of Crimea, the city of Sevastopol, and the four former Ukrainian regions which voted to join Russia in 2022, is not up for negotiation. Russian officials have emphasized that recognizing the “reality on the ground” is key to achieving lasting peace.

The levies target products manufactured in Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam

Washington has set tariffs of up to 3,521% on solar imports from Southeast Asia, according to information published by the US Department of Commerce on Monday. The hikes follow allegations that Chinese-owned manufacturers operating in the region had violated trade rules.

The tariffs target imports from Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam, countries that collectively supplied over $12.9 billion in solar equipment to the US last year, according to Bloomberg.

Known as antidumping and countervailing duties, the measures aim to counteract the impact of what the US Commerce Department deems to be unfair subsidies and pricing practices.

The decision was made following a petition lodged by the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, which represents several US-based manufacturers. The domestic firms alleged that Chinese solar manufacturers operating factories in the four Southeast Asian countries exported panels at prices lower than production costs and benefited from unfair subsidies that undermine the competitiveness of American products.

The penalties vary by company and country: Jinko Solar's products from Malaysia face combined dumping and countervailing duties of 41.56%, Trina Solar's Thai-made goods are subject to 375.19% tariffs, and Cambodian suppliers, who did not cooperate with the probe, face punitive levies of up to 3,521%.

Critics of the measure, such as the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), argue that the tariffs would hurt US solar manufacturers by increasing the cost of imported cells, which American factories use to assemble panels, Reuters noted.

The International Trade Commission, an independent, nonpartisan US federal agency that investigates trade-related matters, is set to vote in June to determine whether the domestic industry was materially harmed by the imports, a necessary step for the tariffs to take full effect.

After similar duties were imposed on solar imports from China roughly 12 years ago, Chinese firms responded by setting up operations in other nations that weren’t affected by the tariffs, noted Bloomberg.

READ MORE: China announces retaliatory sanctions against US officials

The new levies will come on top of the broad tariffs introduced by US President Donald Trump, which have jolted global markets. So far, Trump has imposed tariffs of 145% on Chinese imports, and threatened a further possible hike to 245%.

China has accused the US of “bullying,” retaliated with a 125% tax on US products and vowed to “fight to the end.”

Pete Hegseth faces accusations of mishandling classified information tied to Yemen bombings

The Pentagon is at war with its own chief, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.

In an interview with Fox and Friends on Monday, Leavitt affirmed US President Donald Trump’s full confidence in Hegseth’s leadership.

“This is what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you and working against the monumental change that you are trying to implement,” she stated. Leavitt alleged that those opposed to Hegseth resent his commitment to “standing up for the war-fighter” and are resorting to “leaking and… lying to the mainstream media” to undermine him.

President Trump’s administration has risen to defend Hegseth following a New York Times report published last Sunday, which accused him of sharing sensitive information regarding operations in Yemen with his wife and brother, who lacked security clearance.

The NYT article is tangentially related to the ‘Signalgate’ scandal, which erupted in March after The Atlantic revealed it had accessed an internal chat among Trump administration members discussing attacks on Yemen’s Houthi rebels. This leak was attributed to National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who reportedly mistakenly saved editor Jeffrey Goldberg’s contact under an incorrect name before sending him an invite.

According to the NYT, Hegseth had another private chat group on the Signal app with a dozen members from his inner circle, including his wife. Hegseth’s spokesman, Sean Parnell, claimed that the Times was attempting to bring the Signalgate story “back from the dead.”

Last week, three Pentagon officials who were suspended amid an internal investigation into alleged leaks released a joint statement denouncing their alleged mistreatment.

Senior adviser Dan Caldwell, deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick, and Colin Carroll, chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, claimed that “unnamed Pentagon officials have slandered our character with baseless attacks on our way out the door.”

In an opinion piece for Politico, former chief Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot argued that Hegseth is “presiding over a strange and baffling purge that will leave him without his two closest advisers of over a decade,” namely Caldwell and Selnick, as well as other key staff members.

Beijing has denounced the exercises as destabilizing and warned against provocations over Taiwan

China has vehemently condemned joint US-Philippines military drills that kicked off on Monday, accusing Manila of colluding to undermine regional stability and provoke tensions over Taiwan.

The 2025 Balikatan exercise, which started on April 21 and runs through May 9, involves around 14,000 troops from the US and the Philippines along with contingents from Australia and Japan. Several other countries have sent observers. 

The drills include live-fire training, amphibious landings, aerial surveillance, and a simulated island defense operation near the Luzon Strait, close to Taiwan. Fighter jets, warships and an array of weaponry including a US Marine anti-ship missile system will also be involved in the “full-scale battle scenario,” American and Filipino military officials have said.

At a press conference on Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun slammed the exercise, stating that while the international community is facing “the impact of unilateralism, protectionism, bullying, and hegemony… drills like the Balikatan undermine regional peace.

“The Philippines, in collusion with countries outside the region... has undermined regional strategic stability, damaged the region’s economic growth prospects, and openly stood in opposition to regional countries,” the spokesman said.

Guo went on to condemn the use of the Taiwan issue as an excuse to strengthen regional military deployment and provoke tension and confrontation, stressing that the matter is “purely China’s internal affairs.”

“Those who play with fire will get burned,” Guo cautioned.

Taiwan has governed itself since 1949, when nationalist forces retreated to the island after losing China’s civil war. Beijing maintains that Taiwan is part of China and has opposed any form of foreign involvement in the issue. Only a handful of nations currently recognize the island’s sovereignty, and most of the world, including Russia, adheres to Beijing’s One China policy.

While Washington also officially recognizes Taiwan as part of China, it has nevertheless maintained unofficial relations with the government in Taipei and has supplied billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to the self-governing island over the years.

Washington officials have had “very good meetings” with leaders in both Moscow and Kiev, according to the US president

US President Donald Trump has said that he will reveal his plan to settle the Ukraine conflict later this week. According to the New York Post, the White House proposal could include the deployment of Western European troops to the country to uphold a possible ceasefire.

The announcement follows last week’s remarks by Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who hinted that Washington could give up on its efforts to stop the fighting unless it sees tangible progress towards peace made by Russia and Ukraine.

“I will be giving you a full detail over the next three days,” Trump said on Monday, referring to his plan.

“But we had very good meetings on Ukraine, Russia… We will see how that works,” he told journalists.

The New York Post reported on Monday, citing a senior US administration official, that Russia and Ukraine are currently discussing Trump’s proposal internally.

The terms for peace “are not yet set in stone,” but the US president’s plan could include the deployment of Western European troops to Ukraine once the fighting ends, the source said.

According to the official, the so-called “‘resiliency force’ is part of the security guarantees that the Ukrainians want and we hope they get.”

A separate peacekeeping force to monitor a possible truce, which would look like a “joint commission” of Russians, Ukrainians and a third, non-NATO country is also being discussed, the source said.

The US could also be involved in it, but not as “boots on the ground, but the monetary force, along with a third party,” the official added.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s plan could include the official recognition of Crimea as Russian territory by Ukraine.

Russia has categorically ruled out the possibility of Western European troops being deployed to Ukraine. It has said repeatedly that any peace deal must address the “root causes” of the conflict, including NATO’s eastward expansion and Kiev’s aspirations to join the US-led bloc.

Moscow also demanded that Kiev recognize not only Crimea, but the People’ Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions as part of Russia. The Ukrainian leadership has so far rejected the idea of making any territorial concessions to Russia.

READ MORE: Trump wants a deal. Putin wants victory. Ukraine will get what it deserves

Last week, Russian UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia stressed that a full ceasefire is “simply unrealistic at this stage,” accusing the West of using negotiations as a cover to rearm the Ukrainian forces.

Ron Johnson suspects “an awful lot” is being covered up about the attacks

Republican US Senator Ron Johnson has suggested that new congressional hearings into the September 11 attacks may be forthcoming, citing unanswered questions surrounding the official narrative and the handling of evidence.

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four passenger airliners, crashing two into the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan. A third plane struck the Pentagon, while the fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed due to fires ignited by debris from one of the nearby towers.

During an interview with conservative commentator Benny Johnson which was published on Monday, Senator Johnson questioned several aspects of the 9/11 investigation, including the collapse of Building 7.

“I don’t know that you can find structural engineers – other than the ones that have the corrupt investigation inside NIST – that would say that that thing didn’t come down in any other way than a controlled demolition,” he said.

Senator Ron Johnson drops BOMBSHELL:

Tells us that 9/11 Hearings are being planned, Building 7 was potentially a "Controlled Demolition"

“Structural Engineers say that thing didn't come down in any other way than controlled demolition. Molten steel. Destruction of evidence. We… pic.twitter.com/aBQzCakll7

Johnson, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, also criticized the removal and destruction of physical evidence from the site, calling it “totally contrary to any other firefighting investigation procedures.”

“Where’s all the documentation from the NIST investigation? There are a host of questions that I want and I will be asking, quite honestly, now that my eyes have been opened,” he added.

When asked whether the public might see hearings on the issue, Johnson replied, “I think so.” He further suggested that President Donald Trump, “being a New Yorker himself,” might have an interest in reopening the case: “What actually happened in 9/11? What do we know? What is being covered up? My guess is there’s an awful lot being covered up in terms of what the American government knows about 9/11.”

Johnson also said he recently spoke with former Congressman Curt Weldon and plans to “work with him to expose what he’s willing to expose.”

Earlier this month, Weldon urged Trump to appoint “people of impeccable integrity” to lead a commission to “study the facts” surrounding 9/11.

In an interview with journalist Tucker Carlson, Weldon dismissed the label of conspiracy theorist, suggesting that the CIA and the government have long engaged in disinformation. “You know, what gets me is reporters who call people conspiracy theorists. Well, that’s all the agency does! They’re the ones who create the conspiracies,” he said. “They have whole courses for their agents on how to make people look like they’re conspiracy theorists.”

The 9/11 Commission Report, released in 2004, remains the most comprehensive US federal review of the attacks. However, critics have pointed to omissions and the continued classification of key government documents. Johnson also referenced a bipartisan effort with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in 2023 to obtain unredacted FBI files. “We wanted to get those answers, those documents for the families. Again, we didn’t get squat from the FBI,” he said.

The US president is reportedly not interested in informal diplomatic contact with China on trade

US President Donald Trump has stifled almost every channel of diplomatic outreach with China, aiming to deal directly with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, as the trade war between the two superpowers escalates, Politico has reported citing anonymous sources.

The increasing tit-for-tat duties between the US and China is part of a broader US tariff campaign against more than 90 countries, said to be aimed at addressing unfair trade imbalances. While Trump has paused the hikes for most countries for 90 days, Beijing was excluded and faces a 145% tariff. China has retaliated with 125% tariffs on US goods and restricted certain key exports.

The US president is adamant about direct negotiations with Xi, and has stifled other diplomatic avenues, Politico wrote on Saturday, citing anonymous former US State Department officials and an industry official.

Trump has not authorized White House delegates to engage with Beijing, the outlet cited its sources as saying. In addition, the Senate has not confirmed a US ambassador to China, Trump has not nominated an official to lead a diplomatic effort, and Washington has thus far not reached out to the Chinese embassy, Politico reported.

“The backchannels don’t work because President Trump doesn’t want them to,” Ryan Hass, former director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia at the National Security Council during the Obama administration, told the outlet.

“Trump wants to deal directly with President Xi in the same way he has with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” he said.

Washington is waiting for Beijing to reach out and call first, CNN wrote earlier this month, citing anonymous officials.

“China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it,” Trump has said. “They’re proud people.”

Additionally, Washington intends to use negotiations over potential tariff exemptions to pressure US trading partners to curb their ties with China and ramp up pressure on Beijing, the Wall Street Journal reported last week, citing unnamed sources.

In a statement on Monday, the Chinese Commerce Ministry stressed that it would retaliate against any country that takes such a deal “at the expense of China’s interests.”

Oman is known for its pragmatic, neutral, and peaceful policies – what’s the significance of its rapidly-growing friendship with Moscow?

The Sultan of Oman, Haitham bin Tariq Al Said, is planning a visit to Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This visit carries particular significance against the backdrop of a new phase in nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States, in which Oman is once again playing the role of mediator. The country’s involvement reaffirms its status as one of the few neutral and respected actors in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Historically, Oman has repeatedly demonstrated a unique ability to serve as a reliable and impartial intermediary in international conflicts – especially in the complex and sensitive context of US-Iran relations. Thanks to its balanced foreign policy, non-interference doctrine, and ability to maintain the trust of adversarial parties, Muscat has become an indispensable channel for confidential diplomacy in the Persian Gulf region.

Perhaps the most prominent example of this role came in 2013, when Oman hosted secret direct talks between the US and Iran. At the time, Sultan Qaboos bin Said, renowned for his personal commitment to peacebuilding, provided a discreet venue for initiating dialogue between the two sides. These meetings, conducted under strict confidentiality, proved to be a turning point and laid the groundwork for subsequent multilateral negotiations that ultimately led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, colloquially known as the Iran Nuclear Deal) – widely regarded as one of the most significant achievements in international diplomacy in the past decade. Analysts at Christian Science Monitor and Foreign Policy referred to Sultan Qaboos as “the architect of backchannel diplomacy,” without whom the deal in its final form would likely have been impossible.

Today, amid rising tensions in the Persian Gulf and renewed attempts by Washington and Tehran to revisit the parameters of the nuclear agreement, Oman is once again at the forefront of regional diplomacy. From 2023 to 2025, Muscat hosted a series of closed-door, indirect meetings between Iranian and American representatives, as confirmed by sources within Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and unnamed US officials. These consultations, facilitated by Oman, allowed the parties to discuss mechanisms for limiting Iran’s nuclear program, the phased lifting of sanctions, and maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to reports from WANA News Agency and Middle East Eye, Oman has been actively advancing its own diplomatic proposals, including the establishment of a contact group and a neutral verification mechanism. It has also put forward the idea of a regional dialogue on security and energy stability. Through these efforts, Muscat is positioning itself not merely as a mediator, but as a key architect in shaping a new security framework for the Persian Gulf.

What sets Oman’s approach apart is its lack of aggressive ambition, its consistent multi-vector diplomacy, and its ability to combine discreet backchannel efforts with open support for peaceful initiatives. Unlike most states in the region, Muscat maintains working relationships with both Washington and Tehran, avoids one-sided political alliances, and leverages its neutrality in favor of dialogue. This makes Oman an especially valuable partner in the eyes of the international community, which seeks to avert direct confrontation between two long-standing geopolitical rivals.

Oman’s role in these negotiations goes beyond technical mediation – it is strategic in nature. Omani diplomacy aims not only to ease tensions but to establish a sustainable foundation for regional balance. Amid ongoing geopolitical turbulence, Muscat offers a model of “quiet strength,” grounded in dialogue, diplomatic flexibility, and strategic patience.

Thus, Oman’s efforts to revive the US-Iran dialogue reaffirm its status as a unique and indispensable mediator in the Middle East. The Sultanate once again demonstrates that even a relatively small state can play a crucial role in global affairs – provided it possesses trust, a solid reputation, and the ability to listen to all sides of a conflict. Oman’s diplomatic activity strengthens its position not only as a regional moderator but also as a key international partner capable of playing a constructive role in addressing global challenges.

Russia and Oman: On the path toward a world majority

Over the past two years, bilateral relations between the Sultanate of Oman and the Russian Federation have significantly deepened, reaching the level of strategic importance. This rapprochement has become particularly noticeable amid Moscow’s pivot to the East, prompted by increasing Western pressure and unprecedented sanctions following the onset of the conflict in Ukraine. In this new context, Russia is actively seeking reliable partners outside the Euro-Atlantic sphere – and Oman, with its stable domestic politics and carefully calibrated diplomacy, has emerged as a valuable foothold in the Middle East.

For Moscow, the Sultanate represents not only a promising economic partner but also a key political asset that contributes to regional balance and security in the Persian Gulf. Oman’s stance is traditionally characterized by moderation and a refusal to engage in confrontational alliances – qualities that make Muscat a trusted and respected intermediary on both regional and international issues.

For its part, Muscat views the strengthening of ties with Russia as an essential component of its multi-vector foreign policy, which emphasizes maximum flexibility and autonomy. This approach is particularly relevant in an era of growing instability in the Middle East and deepening polarization in international affairs. Despite its historically close ties with the US and the UK, Oman is increasingly charting an independent course. The influence of Western powers in the Sultanate has gradually waned – a trend that became especially apparent after the launch of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza in October 2023. Western support for those actions, particularly from the US and several European nations, sparked public outrage in Oman and intensified domestic calls for a reassessment of the country’s traditional foreign policy priorities.

An additional factor driving Oman’s gradual shift away from its traditional dependence on the West is the country’s active expansion of cooperation with emerging global powers – particularly China and India. These nations are not only increasing their economic and energy footprint in the region but are also expanding military cooperation through joint exercises and security initiatives. This multipolar orientation enables Muscat to strengthen its bargaining position while minimizing the risks associated with alignment to a single geopolitical axis.

Oman has long pursued an independent foreign policy, carefully balancing relations with leading regional and global powers. Muscat seeks to build relationships founded on mutual respect, non-interference, and shared benefit – qualities that make it a vital mediator and diplomatic platform in some of the world’s most complex international conflicts. Adhering to the principle of “friendly neutrality,” Oman remains open to dialogue with all sides: its territory hosts both British and Chinese military facilities, and in recent years, joint exercises have been conducted with the armed forces of the US, China, Iran, and Russia. Until recently, Oman also maintained discreet lines of communication with Israel, though Muscat refrains from publicizing such contacts – especially amid rising tensions in the region.

At the same time, the Sultanate remains firmly committed to its policy of non-intervention and abstention from military coalitions. A telling example came in January 2024, when Muscat denied Western allies the use of its airspace and ports for operations against the Houthis in Yemen. Despite allegations of indirectly facilitating arms transfers, Omani authorities maintained a calm and measured stance, emphasizing that their priority remains regional peace and stability – not entanglement in geopolitical rivalries.

Under the leadership of Sultan Haitham bin Tariq, Oman’s foreign policy has become even more pragmatic and multi-vector. The Sultanate’s leadership stresses the importance of developing diversified economic and diplomatic partnerships, especially with Eastern powers such as Russia, China, and Iran. This direction is complemented by efforts to strengthen ties with regional partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – particularly Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. Such an approach enables Muscat to maintain resilience amid rising instability, competition, and polarization on the international stage.

In the context of the war in Ukraine, Oman has maintained a position of restraint, advocating for a diplomatic resolution while refraining from public support for either side. In an interview with Le Figaro, Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al-Busaidi emphasized that Muscat avoids accusatory rhetoric, stating, “Accusations rarely contribute to peace.” Instead, Omani diplomacy focuses on mediation and dialogue. Demonstrating its independent stance, the Sultanate declined to participate in the 2024 “peace summit” on Ukraine held in Switzerland, once again affirming its neutral yet active position.

The growing importance of Russia-Oman relations became especially evident in 2023–2024, as political and economic contacts between the two countries reached unprecedented levels. In May 2023, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Oman for the first time in seven years, holding talks on key issues of regional security and bilateral cooperation. In July, Oman’s Foreign Minister made a reciprocal visit to Moscow to attend the “Russia–GCC” meeting – marking a symbolic step in the rapprochement between Russia and the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf.

In September, Muscat hosted a high-level Russian delegation led by Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, which included representatives from Rosatom, the Central Bank, and Russian security and energy agencies – signaling serious plans to deepen cooperation in critical sectors.

In December 2023, Crown Prince and Minister of Sports Dhi Yazan bin Haitham Al Said visited Moscow, where he held talks with Putin and discussed youth and cultural exchange initiatives. In 2024, Russia also welcomed the Chairman of Oman’s State Council, Abdulmalik Al-Khalili, and the Speaker of the Consultative Council, Khalid bin Hilal Al-Maawali – underscoring Oman’s interest in institutionalizing inter-parliamentary dialogue and expanding political cooperation. Oman’s participation as a guest of honor at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, with one of the largest delegations, symbolized the growing strategic significance of the bilateral partnership.

All of this reflects the shared ambition of Muscat and Moscow to build not merely ad hoc cooperation, but durable and stable relations based on mutual respect, pragmatism, and the joint pursuit of an alternative framework for international engagement in an era of global transformation.

Deepening economic ties: The path to a reliable partnership

In recent years, economic cooperation between Russia and Oman has shown steady positive momentum, reaching a qualitatively new level and increasingly taking on the features of a strategic partnership. This collaboration aligns with the broader trend of Russia’s pivot to the East in its foreign economic policy and its effort to expand ties with key players in the Persian Gulf. Amid growing global instability and sanctions pressure, Moscow and Muscat are prioritizing a stable and mutually beneficial economic convergence, supported by practical initiatives and high-level engagement.

Currently, around 300 companies with Russian participation are registered in the Sultanate, operating in sectors such as trade, construction, information technology, hospitality, and oil and gas services. Particularly notable is the rising interest from Russian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) seeking new markets and alternative logistics routes. A significant milestone in 2023 was the visit of a delegation of 39 Russian companies, organized by the Russian Export Center. The visit resulted in the signing of several preliminary agreements in areas such as food supplies, mechanical engineering, and medical technologies, as well as the launch of joint investment project discussions in Oman’s free economic zones.

By the end of 2024, Oman had secured its position as one of Russia’s fastest-growing trade partners in the Arab world. Bilateral trade reached $350 million, more than doubling compared to the previous three years. The trade portfolio includes Omani exports of fertilizers, petrochemical products, and aluminum, while Russia supplies food products, timber, metals, machinery, and chemical goods. Logistics cooperation is also gaining momentum – with new container shipping routes between Omani ports and southern Russia beginning to form alternative supply chains that bypass unstable transit regions.

For the first time in 2023, official data on mutual investments was released. According to the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, total investments amounted to $90 million – indicating the emergence of a stable financial and investment platform. Priority areas include agro-industrial development, green energy, digital technologies, infrastructure, and logistics. Plans are also underway to establish a joint investment fund and explore settlement mechanisms in national currencies using digital solutions, including cryptographically secured platforms – particularly relevant amid restrictions on dollar-based transactions.

Tourism is developing particularly dynamically, as one of the most flexible and rapidly scalable sectors of cooperation. In 2024, approximately 11,000 Omani tourists visited Russia, while the number of Russian citizens choosing the Sultanate as a travel destination reached a record 44,000. Oman’s active promotion on the Russian market as a “premium Eastern destination” is supported by improved infrastructure, the introduction of electronic visas, and the launch of new Oman Air routes, including flights to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Sochi.

Russia–Oman cooperation holds vast potential across several strategic areas. Trade and investment remain key sectors, with a focus on the complementarity of export and import profiles – ranging from food and seafood to chemical, medical, and pharmaceutical products. Cooperation in the oil and gas sector extends beyond raw material exchange: joint geological exploration projects, the localization of service operations, and the implementation of digital solutions in extraction and processing are actively under discussion. Further areas of development include energy efficiency, water purification, waste management, and environmental protection – particularly within the framework of a shared climate agenda.

Education, science, and innovation also represent promising avenues of collaboration. Negotiations are underway to establish joint research centers and facilitate exchanges of students, faculty, and experts in petrochemicals, IT, medicine, and engineering. Topics under discussion include the mutual recognition of academic degrees, dual-degree programs, and joint startup incubators.

The fields of digitalization and fintech deserve special attention. Oman has shown keen interest in Russian technologies related to cybersecurity, blockchain, digital identity, and cashless payment systems. At the same time, Russian banks and financial institutions view Oman as a promising platform for piloting and deploying new tools, thanks to the region’s favorable regulatory environment and geoeconomic flexibility.

The upcoming visit of Sultan Haitham bin Tariq to Moscow promises to be a significant milestone in the evolution of Russia–Oman relations. It will reflect not only the high level of mutual trust and political understanding already achieved but also open new horizons for strategic convergence. Amid a profound transformation of the global order, Muscat and Moscow are demonstrating a shared commitment to building a sustainable, multidimensional partnership based on respect for sovereignty, pragmatism, and mutual benefit. In this context, Oman emerges not merely as an important regional player, but as a full-fledged ally in the shaping of a multipolar world – a country with which Russia envisions long-term political, economic, and humanitarian priorities.

Washington reportedly plans to pressure nations seeking tariff relief to reign in their turnover with Beijing

Beijing has issued a warning to countries considering limiting their trade with China in hopes of gaining tariff relief from the US, saying it will retaliate against any such moves.

The administration of US President Donald Trump plans to pressure other countries into limiting trade with China, including imposing monetary sanctions, in return for better trade terms, according to media reports.

China “firmly opposes any party reaching a deal at the expense of China’s interests,” the Commerce Ministry said in a statement on Monday, adding that Beijing would “resolutely take countermeasures.”

Washington’s tariff standoff with Beijing comes amid a broader US campaign targeting dozens of countries. While most of the elevated tariffs were paused for 90 days, allowing for trade negotiations, China was excluded from the reprieve. The total tariff on Chinese goods has been hiked to 145%.

“Appeasement will not bring peace, and compromise will not earn respect,” the ministry said. “Seeking so-called exemptions by harming the interests of others for one’s own selfish and shortsighted gains is like negotiating with a tiger for its skin. In the end, it will only lead to a lose-lose situation.”

The Wall Street Journal reported last week, citing unnamed sources, that the Trump administration aims to use tariff negotiations to pressure US trading partners to limit ties with China.

The plan reportedly involves blocking Chinese goods from transiting through their countries, preventing Chinese firms from relocating to avoid US duties, and rejecting cheap Chinese industrial imports.

Trump has not officially stated he would pressure countries to curb trade with China, but the president has suggested openness to the idea.

“Maybe, yeah, maybe,” Trump told Fox News last week, when he was asked whether Latin American countries should be forced to choose between Chinese and US investment. “They should do that.”

Since the escalation of trade tensions with the US, China has been actively strengthening its ties with other countries, engaging with officials from the EU, Japan, and South Korea. Chinese President Xi Jinping toured Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia last week, where he signed a series of bilateral cooperation agreements and reaffirmed China’s commitment to free and open trade.

“The fact is, nobody wants to pick a side,” Bo Zhengyuan, partner at China-based policy consultancy Plenum told NBC News.

“If countries have high reliance on China in terms of investment, industrial infrastructure, technology know-how and consumption, I don’t think they’ll be buying into US demands. Many Southeast Asian countries belong to this category,” he added.

Giving unhoused individuals the deadly synthetic opioid could eliminate vagrancy, Rex Parris reportedly claimed

A mayor in Southern California is facing a backlash after suggesting the city of Lancaster could address homelessness by providing vagrants with “all the fentanyl they want,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The US has been grappling with a severe opioid crisis.

Originally developed for severe pain management, fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine.

Illicitly manufactured fentanyl has flooded the US drug market, and more than 74,000 Americans died in 2023 from drug mixtures containing the substance, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly double the total number of motor vehicle fatalities tallied that year and over three times the number of reported homicides.

Mayor Rex Parris of Lancaster, California sparked controversy during a February city council meeting after a resident criticized the city’s plan to deal with homelessness by confining them to an abandoned golf course near a residential area, the outlet said on Sunday.

According to footage from the meeting, Parris interrupted the woman’s remarks, saying, “what I want to do is give them free fentanyl.”

“I mean, that’s what I want to do. I want to give them all the fentanyl they want.”

The startled resident responded to the Republican mayor, saying his comment “was not kind.”

Parris, who has served as mayor since 2008, told FOX LA on Friday that he has no “regrets” about his remarks. He clarified that he was referring specifically to unhoused individuals involved in criminal activity who “refuse” assistance, and reiterated his stance on providing them with the highly addictive and often deadly opioid.

“I made it very clear I was talking about the criminal element that were let out of the prisons that have now become 40 to 45% of what’s referred to as the homeless population,” Parris told the outlet.

“They are responsible for most of our robberies, most of our rapes, and at least half of our murders,” he added, without providing any evidence or data to support his claims.

Parris went on to say he hadn’t thought anyone would take his comments “literally,” claiming that fentanyl is “so easy” to obtain on the streets that offering it for free wouldn’t make any difference.

“Quite frankly, I wish that the president would give us a purge. Because we do need to purge these people,” Parris concluded.

In 2013, the Lancaster mayor made headlines for proposing building a Buddhist temple to attract Chinese investment. In 2018, he drew attention again with a push to ban neckties from workplace, citing studies linking them to reduced blood flow to the brain.

Washington reportedly seeks US control over Russia’s Zaporozhye facility

The US intends to assert control over the Russian territory surrounding Europe’s largest nuclear power plant as part of a mediated agreement between Kiev and Moscow, according to the Wall Street Journal. The proposal is part of a reported package of options that the US expects Ukraine to respond to by the end of this week.

Last Thursday, senior members of US President Donald Trump’s administration met with Ukrainian and European officials in Paris. One of their ideas aimed at facilitating a peace agreement between Kiev and Moscow involves designating the land around the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant (NPP) as neutral territory under US control, the newspaper reported Sunday, citing anonymous sources.

The former Ukrainian region hosting the facility voted to join Russia in 2022, though Kiev has dismissed the referendum as a sham. In March, Trump claimed that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky had proposed that the US take ownership of his country’s nuclear power plants. Zelensky, however, refuted this assertion, stating that he and Trump only discussed potential US investments in the Zaporozhye NPP.

Additionally, Washington has suggested recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea, not opposing Russian control over four other former Ukrainian regions, including Zaporozhye, and rejecting Ukraine's bid for NATO membership, according to the WSJ.

However, the list of proposals does not include any cap on the strength of the Ukrainian army or ban on troop deployments by European NATO members in Ukraine, the newspaper noted. If the US, its European allies, and Ukraine achieve a “convergence” this week, the package will be presented to Moscow, the WSJ reported.

Moscow has firmly rejected any proposed NATO presence in Ukraine and has asserted that the Istanbul agreement — a truce proposal negotiated in 2022 that includes limitations on the Ukrainian military — should serve as the foundation for a future peace accord. This plan was rejected by Kiev following intervention from then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Russia has accused the EU and the UK of attempting to undermine Trump’s mediation efforts in order to prolong the conflict in Ukraine. The US president has cautioned that his administration would “just take a pass” if the diplomatic effort becomes too challenging.

The pontiff has passed away at the age of 88, the Vatican has announced

The head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, has died at the age of 88, the Vatican has announced.

Francis began his papacy in March 2013 and was the first pontiff from Latin America. 

“At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the home of the Father. His entire life was dedicated to the service of the Lord and of his Church,″ Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the Vatican camerlengo, said in a statement on Monday morning.

Pope Francis “taught us to live the values of the Gospel with faithfulness, courage, and universal love, especially for the poorest and most marginalized,” Farrell wrote.

“With immense gratitude for his example as a true disciple of the Lord Jesus, we commend the soul of Pope Francis to the infinite, merciful love of God, One and Tribune,″ the cardinal added.

Pope Francis was last seen in public on Easter Sunday when he attended the Holy Mass at St. Peter’s Square in the Vatican.

READ MORE: Doctor reveals how close Pope came to death

His traditional Easter address was delivered by a member of the clergy due to the pontiff’s poor health. Afterwards, the Pope got out of his wheelchair and waved to the cheering crowd from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, saying: “Dear brothers and sisters, happy Easter.”

Earlier on Sunday, the head of the Catholic Church held a meeting with US Vice President J.D. Vance during which he reportedly “lectured” Vance on compassion.

Pope Francis had been discharged from hospital in March after five weeks of treatment for an infection that led to him contracting double pneumonia.

The pontiff was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the Argentinian capital, Buenos Aires, in 1936. He was ordained as a Catholic priest in the late 1960s, and became the archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998. He was created a cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2001.

During his 12-year papacy, Francis positioned himself as a critic of capitalism and globalization and a defender of the poor and disadvantaged. He criticized extravagance and privilege within the Vatican, calling on cardinals and priests to show humility.

The pontiff also repeatedly urged the international community to implement reforms to tackle climate change and labeled the possession of nuclear weapons “immoral.”

His attempts to make the Catholic Church more inclusive caused controversy, with the Pope saying in 2023 that “being homosexual is not a crime.” Earlier this year, Francis allowed gay men to become priests in Italy. He also prompted women to more important, decision-making roles within the Сhurch.

Pope Francis also attempted to address the issue of child sex abuse by Catholic clerics, although there are contradicting views on how successful his efforts were.

He worked towards improving relations between the Catholic Church and other religious denominations, visiting the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq as well as meeting with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill in 2016, in the first such event of its kind.

When we read the various accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels, Acts and Pauline Epistles we can easily be puzzled by some apparent discrepancies in the details.

Pope Benedict in his book, Jesus of Nazareth (Vol II) says, We have to acknowledge that this testimony [of Scripture] considered from an historical point of view, is presented to us in a particularly complex form and gives rise to many questions. (P. 242)

The Pope goes on to explain what he considers to be the reason for this complexity and apparent divergence in some of the details.

What actually happened? Clearly for the witnesses who encountered the risen Lord, it was not easy to say. They were confronted with what, for them, was an entirely new reality, far beyond the limits of their own experience. Much as the reality of the event overwhelmed them and impelled them to bear witness, it was still utterly unlike anything they had previously known. (p. 242).

The Pope then reminds us that Jesus’ resurrection was experienced by them as something far beyond the resuscitation of a corpse. Rather, Jesus had taken up a wholly new and transformed humanity that was beyond anything they could fully describe or had ever experienced.

With all this in mind we are better able to appreciate the ecstatic qualities of the resurrection accounts and appreciate why all their details do not perfectly line up. The accounts have a rather crisp, “lets get to the point” quality; especially the accounts of the first day of the appearances. Frankly, one would be surprised if every detail in the account of an astonishing event were exactly the same. One might even suspect a story that was too controlled and wonder as to a kind of brainwashing or conspiracy having taken place. But as they are, these accounts have every hallmark of the accounts of people who experienced the events truly, but, due to their ecstatic and disorienting quality, recall the details differently or emphasize different facets.

It is important to recall that the Scriptures record the things Jesus actually said and did but they are not written like history is today: Today we attempt or think we write history as an exact chronological and comprehensive analysis of an event or era. But the Scriptures are selective, story-based accounts rather than our modern journalistic approach to history. They will often collect the sayings and deeds of Jesus around certain theological themes, rather than follow an exact time line. The Gosples do not intended to be an exhaustive account of everything Jesus said and did in exact detail (cf Jn 20:30; 21:25). Rather the Evangelists select what is suited to their theological purpose. And yet, despite these distinctions, we must be clear that the gospels are historical accounts, in that they recount the things Jesus actually said and did (cf Dei Verbum # 19)

Now, for the record, there are some apparent, and also real discrepancies in the accounts. The word “apparent” is important though, because not all the discrepancies are real or substantial if we take a closer look at them. Some who wish to cast doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection often wish to make more of these differences than necessary. Many, if not most of the differences can be dealt with quite easily and we are able to ultimately stitch together a reasonably clear account of the resurrection, if we are disposed to do so.

So, lets consider some of the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts:

1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?
2. Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?
3. How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?
4. Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?
5. Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?
6. Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?
7. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?
8. Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?

At one level some react that some of these details are picky. Who cares really who many women went or how many angels? Perhaps,  but it does not seem wise to simply dismiss the differences this way. Some of the differences ARE quite significant. For example, did Jesus appear to them first in Jerusalem? Luke and John are quite clear that he did. But why then do Mark and Matthew completely ignore this and record that the angel instructed the women to have the disciples go to Galilee where they will see him? Now, as has been stated, these differences can be addressed in a thoughtful manner, but they should not be simply dismissed as of no account.

In what follows I propose to address these differences and give possible resolutions. I am also aware, and expect to hear from some who consider any attempt to resolve these matters “simplistic.” You of course are free to propose other solutions and demonstrate how attempts at a resolution fall short. This is what comments are for. If something seems wrong state why and give evidence or an alternative point of view. So, on to possible solutions.

1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (John 20:21), two (Matt 28:1) or three (Mk 16:1) and how many angels were there, one (Mk 16:5, Mat 28:2) or two (Lk 24:4, Jn 20:12)? One solution here is to recall that neither John’s Gospel nor Matthew’s absolutely deny that three women went to the tomb that day. They simply do not mention three whereas Mark does. John especially wishes to focus on Mary Magdalene and may have found it unnecessary to mention the others. Additionally, Matthew and Mark’s mention of one angel need not be seen as an absolute denial that there were two as described in Luke and John. Another solution is simply to acknowledge the discrepancies in the accounts but underscore the fact that the number of women and the number of angels is not the central point. The point is that the tomb was discovered empty by one or several women and they were instructed to tell the apostles what they saw and heard.
2. Matthew (28:8) and Luke (24:9) indicate that the women went and told the disciples of the empty tomb but Mark (16:8) says they were afraid and said nothing. True but in the verses that follow in the appendix to Mark’s own Gospel (Mk. 16:10) Mary Magdalene does in fact tell the apostles. Rather than conflicting with the other texts, Mark may merely supply additional detail about the startled nature of the women, that at first they were startled and said nothing but soon after went on, as Mark in fact says, a did tell the apostles.
3. Mark (16:7) and Matthew (28:9) indicate, according to the angel’s instructions, that Jesus would see them in Galilee but Luke (24:36 and John 20) describe the first appearances in Jerusalem. In addressing this difference we must recall that the gospels are not written as chronological or complete histories. The evangelists selected events from among the many things Jesus said and did and may also have altered the order. John (20:30 & 21:25) explicitly states that his account is selective. Hence we ought not conclude that any one gospel completely details all the resurrection appearances. It is true Mark and Matthew speak only of appearances in Galilee. Thus these accounts might only include the angelic instructions to go to Galilee since that they did not intend to describe appearances elsewhere. In other words it is possible to speculate that the angelic instructions were more elaborate and included instructions as to being prepared to meet Jesus first in Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark however paired these details down in their accounts since they did not intend to include the Jerusalem appearances in their accounts. This may not satisfy our notions of historical accounts wherein we expect and want a complete accounting of all the details. But, as has already been noted the Scriptures simply do not record history in this way. Rather they are selective accounts that open windows on history but do not claim to exhaustively report it. Note also that Matthew and Mark are not clear as to the time frame of the appearances they describe. Luke and John however, set the first appearance in Jerusalem and are rather clear that the day is the same day as the resurrection. Hence we reasonably conclude that the first appearances took place in Jerusalem and later appearances took place in Galilee. In other words the Jerusalem appearances do not conflict with the Galilean appearances in any way. Rather they simply add details that Mark and Matthew, for reasons of their own, chose not to include. Such a conclusion is speculative to be sure. It does, however, help us to see that the accounts do not absolutely contradict each other.
4. Among the Apostles, did Jesus appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)? There seems to be a good case for the fact that the Lord appeared first to Peter even though we do not have a direct account of this appearance in the scriptures. The Gospel of Luke makes mention of it, And they [the disciples traveling to Emmaus] rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”(24:33-34). Paul also records it [The Lord] was raised the third day in accordance with the scriptures…he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles (1 Cor 15:3ff). So it seems a pretty good case can be made that Peter did see the risen Lord before the other apostles. This quote from Paul also helps us recall that the gospel accounts are selective in terms of which resurrection appearances they report. Thus, as we read the various accounts, we get from each of them only a part of the full picture (see John 20:30). According to Paul there were appearances to Peter, to five hundred disciples, and to James. The details of these appearances are left to our imagination. It also follows that we do not need to see the accounts of John and Matthew cited above as conflicting. They may well be describing different appearances.
5. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)? Again, we need not place these texts at odds with one another. Most likely they are describing different appearances. Since the time frame of John is clear that the appearances in the upper room took place on Resurrection Sunday and then a week later we can presume that these appearances took place first. The mountaintop appearance was in Galilee and the time frame is not clear. It may have been days or weeks later.
6. Did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)? At first glance the texts from Luke and Mark do seem to imply that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection. However, a closer look will show that they are rather vague as to the time frame. Mark begins the passage leading up to the ascension with the word “afterward.” How long after the previous appearance is uncertain. Luke’s passage is also vague regarding the time. However Acts (1:3,9) also written by Luke is quite specific that the time of the ascension was forty days later. Thus, Acts need not be seen to conflict with the gospel accounts; it merely supplies the details that are lacking in them. This case is made stronger when we note that Luke is generally accepted to be the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles and it seems unlikely that Luke would directly contradict himself.

So here then is a short tour of some of the apparent discrepancies and possible ways to resolve them.

In the end we simply have to accept that the Gospels do not record history in the same systematic and strictly chronological manner we moderns prefer. But they DO record history. It is for us to accept the evidence and accounts as they are given. The fact is that to develop a precise time frame and blow by blow chronological description may not be fully possible. However, careful study of the texts can help somewhat in this regard.

In tomorrow’s blog I would like to propose a somewhat chronological account that attempts to weave the many strands into one narrative. Such an attempt as we will see involves some speculation given the nature of ancient historical accounts. But it can help us to sort our the many details by trying to order them. So stay tuned for tomorrow.

The post Are There Discrepancies in the Resurrection Accounts? If so, can they be resolved? appeared first on Community in Mission.

Moscow has announced a surprise 30-hour ceasefire to mark Easter

This week in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has seen active combat at multiple locations along the front line, with the hostilities continuing in the border area between the two countries, while Moscow’s troops reported making new advances in Donbass.

On Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a temporary 30-hour pause in fighting with Ukraine, urging Kiev to adhere to the truce as well. The Easter ceasefire took effect at 18:00 Moscow time on Saturday and has lasted until midnight on April 21.

Ukraine’s reaction to the Easter ceasefire will clearly demonstrate whether Ukraine is actually willing and able to participate in the potential negotiations, Putin said. The president urged the country’s troops to stay on high alert and be ready to respond to any potential incidents, citing Kiev’s long history of broken promises and violated deals. 

“Our troops must be prepared to respond to any violations or provocations by the adversary, to any aggressive actions,” he stressed.

Ukraine produced a mixed reaction to the truce offer, with Vladimir Zelensky initially branding Moscow’s move an attempt to “play with human lives.” Later in the day, however, the Ukrainian leader offered a different take on the ceasefire, proposing to extend it beyond the 30-hour period if the truce holds.

“If Russia is now suddenly ready to really join the format of complete and unconditional ceasefire, Ukraine will act in a reciprocal way – as it will be from the Russian side. Silence in response to silence, strikes in response to strikes,” Zelensky said in a statement.

Both sides have accused the other of repeatedly breaking the truce. According to the Russian military, Kiev’s forces made 1,300 attacks in the less than 24 hours since the truce was declared. Zelensky claimed the Russian forces shelled Ukrainian positions more than 900 times, as well as launched some 46 “assault operations” during the period.

The truce ended as scheduled, with the Kremlin signaling some five hours before the deadline it had no plans to extend it with no additional orders concerning the matter issued by the Russian president.

On Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry provided an update on the outcome of the truce, noting a certain lull in the hostilities during the period. However, around 4,900 violations have been recorded, with the Ukrainian forces launching some 3,300 short-range drones at Russian positions, conducting artillery strikes and staging six offensive operations, the military said.

Border warfare 

Over the week, the Russian military has continued its effort to destroy the remnants of the Ukrainian forces that invaded the country’s Kursk Region last year. The Ukrainian zone of control in the area has shrunk to a small strip of land along the border, roughly between the villages of Oleshnya and Guyevo, liberated last week. On Saturday, The Russian Defense Ministry said the troops have seized control of Oleshnya as well.

This week, the main events in the area unfolded in the vicinity of the village of Gornal and the adjacent Belogorsky Monastery. The village and the monastery sit atop of a large hill, with a vast network of chalk caves underneath, which effectively make the location a natural fortress.

According to Russian media reports, some 300 Ukrainian servicemen were holed up at the monastery, with Moscow’s forces attempting to negotiate their surrender or withdrawal in order to avoid inflicting more damage on the facility. The negotiations, however, have ultimately flopped, while the Ukrainian officer who maintained contact with the Russian forces was reportedly murdered by his fellow servicemen. 

The Russian troops stormed the monastery, with some 30 Ukrainian soldiers believed to be still hiding in the caves under it. Drone footage circulating online shows the monastery sustained considerable damage during the hostilities. 

According to the latest estimates by the Russian military estimates, Ukrainian forces suffered extremely heavy losses during the invasion of Kursk Region. More than 75,00 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and wounded in the area, with over 400 tanks, 335 infantry fighting vehicles (IFV), 307 armored personnel carriers (APC), and more than 2,700 other armored vehicles destroyed or captured.

Donbass push

The Russian military has reported making new gains in Donbass, advancing on the flanks of Pokrovsk (also known as Krasnoarmeysk), the largest city remaining under Ukrainian control in the southwest of the Donetsk People’s Republic.

This week, the Russian troops expanded their zone of control to the southwest of the city, liberating the village of Preobrazhenka. Moscow’s forces also seized control of Yelizavetovka. It has seen the most intensive combat over the past few weeks, with the small village repeatedly changing hands, according to media reports. 

Yelizavetovka is located by a strategic road running through Pokrovsk deeper into Donbass. The route has been actively used by the Ukrainian troops for supply, albeit its importance somewhat dwindled as of late due to the proximity of the frontline and the destruction of multiple road bridges in Pokrovsk and its satellite city of Mirnograd. 

The Russian military also made new gains further to the east, liberating the villages of Kalinovo and Valentinovka. The development suggests that Moscow has achieved a tighter grip on the city of Toretsk (also known as Dzerzhinsk), as well as opens way for the potential advance further to the north towards the city of Konstantinovka, a major Ukrainian logistics hub located some 10km to the northwest of Toretsk. 

Geran-2 drones

The past week has seen the Russian military conducting massive strikes on Ukraine’s military industry, stockpiles and other rear facilities. Moscow extensively used Geran-2 (Geranium-2) kamikaze drones during the strikes, with dozens of such UAVs striking targets in Ukraine.

The delta-wing drones have been playing an increasingly important role during the conflict, becoming a key supplement for long-range missile strikes, as well as commonly substituting such sophisticated munitions. 

A large swarm of Geran-2 drones attacked military and industrial facilities in the Ukrainian city of Dnepr (formerly Dnepropetrovsk) on Thursday. The drones made it through anti-aircraft defenses, with over 20 blast reported from the city. Footage circulating online shows its nighttime skyline brightly lit by multiple explosions and fires sparked by the drones. 

A video taken in Sumy this week shows Geran-2 drones striking a staging area where multiple Ukrainian military trucks were parked. The vehicles were destroyed by the drones with a thick plume of smoke emitting from the location. Footage itself was reportedly taken by a new upgraded surveillance version of Geran-2. While some of the drones of the type were previously fitted with cameras, the new variant appears to be a full-fledged surveillance UAV packed with high-resolution adjustable optics, given the quality of the video. 

Geran’s smaller cousin, Gerbera, has apparently received an upgrade as well. The small drones have been widely used alongside their larger counterparts, serving as decoys to uncover anti-aircraft positions and exhaust their ammunition and carrying no explosives on board

Now, however, the drones of the type were apparently turned into full-fledged kamikaze UAVs. A fresh video that emerged online this week, features a Gerbera packed with a warhead and a camera chasing a Ukrainian Buk-M1 anti-aircraft system. The vehicle appears to be converted into a so-called FrankenSAM system, given it carries US-made RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles rather than its native munitions.

The anti-aircraft system sustained a hit into its rear, seemingly catching fire. While the extent of the damage was not immediately clear, the FrankenSAM was likely rendered inoperable wit hits radar pelted by fragments of the drone. 

Hunt for Ukrainian artillery 

The Russian military has continued its effort to hunt down Ukrainian long-range mobile artillery, with multiple pieces destroyed over the week. Several fresh videos feature the Lancet-family drones, which has been playing an increasingly important role during the campaign and become a key short-to-medium range tool in Russia’s arsenal.

A surveillance drone video released by the Russian Defense Ministry shows a Lancet drone taking out a Polish-made AHS Krab 155mm self-propelled howitzer in Ukraine’s Kharkov Region. The artillery piece was caught outside its hiding spot, appearing to be a covered dugout. The howitzer appeared to sustain a perforating hit that ignited its ammo stock and destroyed the vehicle.

Another video circulating online features Lancet strikes on an extremely rare Swedish-supplied Archer 155mm self-propelled artillery system, as well as a strike on Ukrainian home-grown Bogdana 155mm wheeled howitzer, largely analogous to French-made Caesar vehicles. While the video, said to be taken in the south of the DPR does not show the result of the strike on the Archer, it appears to confirm the destruction of the other piece. 

A dramatic compilation of FPV drone strikes, said to be taken in the south of the DPR as well, showcases an intense hunt for a Caesar howitzer. The vehicle was discovered in a wooded strip at a concealed position, but survived the initial hit and its crew attempted to drive away. The vehicle ended up stuck in the open and was hit by another drone, with the strike apparently sparking fire on board.

The crew quenched the blaze, with apparent extinguisher marks captured by the third FPV drone that approached the howitzer when an old Soviet-era ATS-59G artillery tractor arrived to tow the Caesar away. While the unarmored tractor is hardly suitable for battlefield recovery, it managed to survive the first hit and the next drone witnessed the two vehicles attached to one another. The howitzer and the tractor were targeted by several other FPVs, ultimately catching fire and ending up destroyed.

The Russian military has also managed to find and destroy a US-supplied HIMARS multiple rocket launcher, that was tracked down to its hiding position to the west of the city of Kramatorsk. Surveillance drone footage shows the launcher and a soft support vehicle traveling to the hideout, where the high-value asset was hit by a ballistic missile fired by an Iskander-M system.

The strike caused the detonation of the launcher’s ammo stock, with distinctive white smoke trails left by burning solid rocket fuel observed by the drone. At least eight Ukrainian servicemen have been reportedly killed by the strike and the resulting secondary detonation.

The South China Morning Post has cited researchers as saying the 2kg magnesium hydride device generated a 1,000 degrees Celsius fireball

Chinese researchers have successfully tested a non-nuclear hydrogen bomb that created a sustained fireball, far outperforming traditional explosives, the South China Morning Post has reported.

In an article on Sunday, the newspaper cited the researchers’ study published last month in the Chinese-language Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance. According to the report, a team from the China State Shipbuilding Corporation’s (CSSC) 705 Research Institute — a key player in underwater weapon systems — developed a 2kg (4.4lbs) bomb primarily composed of magnesium hydride, with conventional explosives serving as the catalyst.

In a field test, the device reportedly generated a fireball with temperatures exceeding 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,832 degrees Fahrenheit) that lasted for more than two seconds, which is "15 times longer" than what an "equivalent TNT blast" is capable of producing.

In the reaction, magnesium hydride, a compound originally developed as an efficient fuel, rapidly releases stored hydrogen gas, resulting in a sustained inferno.

The novel explosive device’s destructive power thus is said to lie not in its blast pressure, but rather in the ability to generate extreme heat.

The South China Morning Post quoted CSSC research scientist Wang Xuefeng as explaining that its properties also allow for “precise control over blast intensity, easily achieving uniform destruction of targets across vast areas.”

If fully developed, the method could presumably yield a weapon similar to a thermobaric device – ideal for annihilating defensive structures and armored vehicles.

While the production of magnesium hydride used to be mostly small-scale and rather complicated, China has recently developed a cheaper and safer production method and built a plant capable of producing 150 tons of the compound per year.

You can only support the current manifestation of late-stage capitalism, if you believe that massive inequality of wealth is necessary to wealth creation, or if you believe that the total amount of wealth is unimportant so long as a very small minority are extremely wealthy.

“Trickledown economics” is at heart simply a statement of the idea that massive inequality of wealth is necessary to wealth creation. There is no evidence for it.

The truth is, of course, that the poor ultimately benefit only from the economic activity of the poor. But not nearly as much as the rich benefit from the economic activity of the poor.

Taking money off the poor does not lead to an increase in wealth creation. If you look at the billions the Labour government is seeking to remove from the disabled, that is not only money taken away from them, it is money taken out of the wider economy.

It seems astonishing that the Labour Party has forgotten the entire message of Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake. But then, the Labour Party expelled Ken Loach for opposing the genocide of Palestinians.

Those on benefits have a much higher propensity to spend than the more wealthy elements of society as they have no choice; they need to spend all their income to survive and enjoy a minimal acceptable standard of living. This income is spent on the local goods and services they need, again to a much higher degree than that of wealthier people.

Much of this spend benefits the landlord class, but it is almost all within the UK economy and it has a multiplier effect on economic activity. All of this is pretty obvious. By simply taking this money out of the economy (and it has no real relationship to taxes and revenue) the government is reducing the overall size of the economy.

This austerity is the opposite of pro-growth. It is absolutely anti-growth. It achieves the precise opposite of the alleged goal of Labour’s economic policy.

All this is designed to reduce the fiscal deficit, allegedly. But reducing economic activity will reduce revenue. It is a death spiral. If the aim were actually to reduce the fiscal deficit, taxing those who have money would be far more sensible than taking money from those who do not.

But actually that is not the object at all. The object is to convince the neoliberal finance system that this is a safely neoliberal government, willing to hurt the poor and leave the wealthy untouched.

That system brought down Liz Truss for failing to acknowledge orthodoxy on the fiscal deficit. The strange thing is that Truss was actually right on the non-importance of this shibboleth. Where she was wrong was in a desire to decrease still further taxation on the wealthy, rather than increase spending on the poor; but her attitude to deficit was not wrong.

A higher deficit only leads to an increase in interest rates if you wish to seek to maintain the value of your currency in international markets. But like so many of these economic targets, the justification of this is a matter of convention more than reason. I have seen massive swings in the value of sterling over my lifetime, which have had little impact on the UK’s steady economic decline, although a habitual tendency to over-valuation has contributed to the wipeout of British manufacturing industry.

We now have Rachel Reeves wedded to Gordon Brown’s doctrine on fiscal spend, that led to the horrors of PFI and paved the way for austerity. Yet when the Establishment want to bail out the bankers, unlimited money can simply be created, and when they want to boost the military, unlimited public spending is immediately possible.

New Labour’s economic policy is Thatcherism, pure and simple.

The truth is we do not really need economic growth. The UK economy produces enough wealth for everybody to live free of poverty and in real comfort. The problem is the distribution of that wealth. We live in a society where, astonishingly, 1% of the population own 54% of the wealth.

You can argue about the precise statistic but the massive inequality is clear. The cause of poverty is inequality. The answer is to reduce inequality in a variety of ways – not only by progressive taxation but also by changing the ownership structures of enterprises.

The purpose of reducing poverty and increasing comfort for the majority is to spread happiness. Eternal economic growth is not a necessity for this. Happiness is not merely derived from possession of stuff, and owning more stuff is not the panacea.

Happiness arises from comfort, good relationships, active and engaged minds and a balanced society. A society which prioritises the libertine wealthy over caring for its disabled can never be balanced and can never be happy.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: craigmurray1710@btinternet.com

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

The post Starmer’s Thatcherite Economics appeared first on Craig Murray.