Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

The Princess of Wales said the cancer was found through post-operative tests after a major abdominal surgery

Kate Middleton has announced that she is in the “early stages” of chemotherapy treatment after cancer was found following an abdominal surgery which she underwent in January.

Speculation and conspiracy theories have swirled for weeks about the 42-year-old Middleton’s two-month disappearance from the public eye and royal duties. 

In a video statement on Friday, Middleton said that while her condition was thought to be non-cancerous, cancer was found to be present after further post-operative testing.

She explained that her medical team had since advised her to undergo “a course of preventative chemotherapy,” which she understood to have begun last month. She did not disclose the type of cancer, but said she is “well and getting stronger every day.”

Addressing her lengthy and unusual absence from the public eye, Middleton said it had “taken time” to explain her diagnosis to her three children with Prince William and asked for privacy while she continues treatment.

Kensington Palace said it would not be sharing any further information on the Princess of Wales’ medical condition, including the type of cancer.

A message from Catherine, The Princess of Wales pic.twitter.com/5LQT1qGarK

Middleton’s father-in-law, King Charles, also shared a cancer diagnosis earlier this year. Charles’ cancer was found during examination for benign prostate enlargement, Buckingham Palace said at the time, also without revealing the form of cancer.

Sympathy for Middleton poured in on Friday, with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak posting a statement on X (formerly Twitter), saying his thoughts were with the Princess of Wales and her family, praising her “tremendous bravery” in speaking publicly about her diagnosis.

READ MORE: Trump hints he would deport Prince Harry

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters in Washington that the administration “wishes her a full recovery.”

“Our thoughts are with the Duchess of Cambridge and her family members and friends during this incredibly difficult time,” she said.

There is “no indication” that the attack has any connection to Ukraine, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby has said

The White House has condemned a major terrorist attack outside Moscow which unfolded on Friday evening, as masked gunmen breached a concert hall northwest of the Russian capital, leaving scores dead and injured.

Unofficial reports indicate that at least a dozen people have been killed in the attack at the Crocus City Hall, with around 130 wounded, after the gunmen opened fire at the venue and detonated explosives which set the building ablaze.

Speaking to reporters at a briefing in Washington, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the White House sent condolences to the victims of the “terrible” attack, adding that they were trying to gather more information on the incident.

“Our thoughts are with the victims of this terrible shooting attack,” Kirby said. “The images are just horrible and just hard to watch.”

Kirby quickly dismissed any speculation about a potential “connection to Ukraine,” saying there is “no indication” that Ukrainians were involved. 

He also addressed questions about a March 7 security alert issued by the US Embassy in Russia, which had warned that “extremists” had plans for an imminent attack in Moscow.

“I don’t think that was related to this specific attack,” Kirby said.

According to TASS news agency, up to a third of the Crocus City Hall complex has been engulfed in flames, with unconfirmed reports and videos indicating that helicopters have been dispatched to extinguish the fire. The agency also said that special forces soldiers from the Russian Guard have arrived at the location. 

The BBC has revealed plans to build and train its own artificial intelligence model to support its production process

UK national broadcaster BBC has announced it is drawing up plans to create its own artificial intelligence model based on its vast text archives, hoping the technology will help improve its production process.

Earlier this month, the BBC’s director of nations Rhodri Davies told a House of Lords committee that the broadcaster was considering developing an AI program, but was still deliberating as to whether to develop it unilaterally or in partnership with another company.

On Thursday, another spokesperson for the company confirmed the plans in a statement cited by Reuters, saying that the BBC was indeed looking to use its 80-years worth of audio, video and text content to train the program.

The broadcaster stressed, however, that the output of such a model would not be shared with any third parties and would only be used internally. 

However, Financial Times has reported, citing sources within the organization, that the BBC was reportedly in negotiations about selling access to its large library to outside companies to help them develop their own language models.

The BBC has denied the claims, stating that it “has no agreement with any organization to use its archive to train their large language models that power generative AI tools for commercial use.”

The company’s statement comes as a number of large media organizations have already accepted lucrative deals to sell their journalistic archives to the likes of OpenAI to help train their AI programs.

In another statement issued last month, the BBC also stated it was already experimenting with the use of artificial intelligence in its newsroom, but had established certain rules to ensure that anything published would still have human oversight.

As an example, the broadcaster said that it has used AI to come up with summaries to articles and recommendations for headlines for a story. The BBC stressed, however, that the final decision as to what to publish still rests with journalists.

Berlin has joined a Czech-led initiative to buy 800,000 artillery rounds for Kiev

Germany has pledged to donate another €300 million ($326 million) as part of a Czech-led initiative to purchase artillery rounds for Ukraine, Bloomberg has reported, citing anonymous sources familiar with the decision. Czech President Petr Pavel unveiled the scheme at the Munich Security Conference in mid-February, setting the target at 800,000 shells.  

In recent weeks, Ukrainian officials have increasingly been sounding the alarm over the country’s dwindling ammunition stockpiles due to which Kiev’s troops have been badly outgunned on the front line.  

The shortages have intensified amid a months-long deadlock in the US Congress where the Republicans have been refusing to give the green light to President Joe Biden’s foreign aid package that envisages $60 billion for Kiev. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has also accused the EU of failing to deliver on a pledge to deliver a million shells by March.

On Thursday, Bloomberg said that Germany’s contribution to the initiative would cover the purchase of approximately 180,000 shells – the same estimate as the one given on Tuesday by the country’s defense minister, Boris Pistorius. 

Berlin’s participation in the initiative was confirmed earlier this month by German government spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit.

A separate defense aid package for Ukraine unveiled by Pistorius on Tuesday is worth €500 million ($543 million), and includes 10,000 artillery shells from Bundeswehr (German military) stocks, as well as 100 infantry vehicles and 100 unarmored vehicles. 

Germany is Ukraine’s second-largest Western backer, second only to the US. To date, Berlin has donated €17.7 billion in military aid for Kiev, according to estimates by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. 

As for the push to purchase artillery shells spearheaded by Prague, 18 nations have so far committed to it, including Canada, the Netherlands, France, Denmark and Belgium. 

READ MORE: Russia is at war – Kremlin

Earlier this week, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky revealed that Prague had secured 300,000 artillery rounds, with media reports claiming that those could be delivered to Ukraine by June.  

Under the scheme, the Czech Republic raises money and acts as a middleman sourcing the ammunition from countries outside of the EU that are reluctant to supply the rounds directly to Ukraine.  

The Kremlin has repeatedly warned that the ever-growing involvement of Western countries in the Ukraine conflict could result in an all-out confrontation between NATO and Russia. Moscow also insists that weapons deliveries will not change the outcome of the conflict but merely prolong the hostilities.

Sonja van den Ende claims some European nations are actively preparing for a conflict with Moscow

The West wants “a war with Russia” and is actively preparing for this, Dutch independent journalist Sonja van den Ende claimed to RT on Thursday.

Senior civilian and military officials from several NATO member states have recently alleged that Moscow could attack the bloc in the coming years. Speaking to CNBC on Monday, Polish President Andrzej Duda, citing unspecified German research, claimed that Russia could invade NATO in 2026 or 2027.

Duda urged fellow member states to ramp up their defense spending, with a view to creating “such a deterrent that ensures we are not attacked.”

READ MORE: Poland gearing up to get involved in Ukraine conflict – former US Army officer

Van den Ende, who is a contributor at the Tehran Times, Insider Paper.com, and Oneworld.press media outlets, told RT that Western states are the “ones who are aggressive, they are the ones actually preparing themselves to go to war.”

Increasingly bellicose rhetoric from Western officials is no bluff, the journalist argued, citing ongoing efforts to stockpile ammunition and develop military drones, including long-range ones that could theoretically reach Russian territory. Van den Ende added that European nations are now putting their economies on a war footing.

According to the Dutch journalist, however, NATO is not yet prepared for a confrontation with Russia, with countries such as Germany facing severe staffing shortages in their military.

This problem is proving to be particularly serious, van den Ende claimed, noting that many Europeans are not tempted by the prospect of joining the army, let alone fighting in a war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently stressed that Moscow does not intend to attack NATO. Speaking to his supporters over the weekend after winning the presidential election, he suggested that “anything is possible in the modern world,” but added that hardly “anyone is interested” in an all-out military confrontation.

Stanislav Krapivnik told RT that Warsaw is using claims that Moscow is preparing to attack NATO to justify a preemptive strike of its own

The Polish government is “mentally” preparing its population for the country’s direct involvement in the Ukraine conflict, former US Army officer Stanislav Krapivnik told RT on Thursday. He claimed that recent allegations made by top Polish officials regarding Russia’s supposed plans to attack NATO are intended to justify a preemptive military operation.

Over the past several weeks, a number of senior civilian and military officials from multiple NATO member states warned that Moscow could strike the bloc in the coming years. On Monday, the chief of the Polish General Staff, General Wieslaw Kukula, said that “Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO” in the next decade. He added that Moscow “will exploit any opportunity and any emerging weakness that can be operationalized to achieve its own interests.”

According to Krapivnik, such statements are part of a “psy-op operation” by Warsaw designed to “prepare the people for war.” He suggested that, since “Russophobia in Poland is tantamount to a national characteristic,” such narratives are being readily lapped up by most of the population.  

READ MORE: Western troops in Ukraine ‘an open secret’ – Poland

The retired US Army officer predicted that the Polish government would then start advocating a “first strike” to prevent Russian forces from reaching the country’s border.

Krapivnik told RT that, while many NATO countries would like to avoid entering a direct confrontation with Russia, the bloc would inevitably be dragged into a conflict if more ‘trigger-happy’ nations like Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states act first.

He noted, however, that some nations – including Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Greece, and most notably the US – would be unlikely to participate.

Regarding Washington’s stance, Krapivnik claimed that the leadership there would have no qualms about “sacrific[ing] the Europeans.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made it clear that Moscow has no plans to attack NATO. Addressing his supporters over the weekend after winning the presidential election, he said “anything is possible in the modern world,” but hardly “anyone is interested” in a full military confrontation.

French elites are traumatised by the decline of their country, and their leader is throwing his toys out of the pram

France’s position on the world stage today is in a rather strange state of affairs: a country with a solid nuclear arsenal but which has lost all ability to influence its environment. Over the last few decades, Paris has lost what remains of its former greatness on the world stage, ceded its leading position within the European Union to Germany, and completely abandoned the principles needed for its internal development. In other words, the protracted crisis of the Fifth Republic has reached a stage where the lack of solutions to the many problems that have long been overdue is turning into a full-blown identity crisis.

The reasons for this situation are clear, but the outcome is difficult to predict. And the clownish behaviour of President Emmanuel Macron is only a consequence of the general deadlock in French politics, as is the very appearance of this figure at the head of the state, which used to be led by grandees of world politics such as Charles de Gaulle or François Mitterrand.

The last time Paris demonstrated an ability to act on its own in a really important decision was in 2002-2003. At the time, it opposed US plans to illegally invade Iraq. French diplomacy, then led by the aristocrat Dominique de Villepin, was able to form a coalition with Germany and Russia and deprive the American attack of any international legitimacy. The US attempt to unite in its person dominant power capabilities and decisive influence on the right to use them in world politics, i.e. to establish a unipolar world order, failed. This was denied them at the energetic instigation of France, and such an important step in the creation of a democratic world order will be credited to Paris by future historians. 

But that was the end of it. The moral victory in the UN Security Council in February-March 2003 played the same role in France’s destiny as the bloody victory in the First World War, after which the country could no longer remain one of the world’s great powers. Not only the harsh external circumstances, but also the rapid plunge into internal problems, which have not been resolved for almost 20 years, contributed to further decline. Successive presidents were initially unable to adapt the country to the challenges, the causes of which were largely beyond their reach. This was all the more the case as the mid-2000s saw a generational change in politics, with people coming to power who had neither the experience of the Cold War nor the “training” of the generation of leaders who founded modern France.

The “perfect storm” was a combination of several factors. First, society was changing faster than anywhere else in Europe, and the political system of the Fifth Republic was becoming obsolete. Second, there was a loss of control over the basic parameters of economic policy, which were increasingly determined by the country’s participation in the Common Market and, more importantly, the eurozone. Thirdly, the fading of the dream of political union within the EU led to the re-emergence of Germany, a country that lacked the full sovereignty to undertake such a major project on its own. Finally, the world was changing rapidly. It was no longer centred on Europe, which meant that there was no place for France in the list of great powers. 

The attention-seeking of the man who is now formally at the head of the French state are only personal symptoms of the crisis in which the country finds itself. As a result, everything is out of the hands of the current government, and the sheer number of built-in issues is turning anger into meaningless hysteria. Petty intrigues not only accompany big politics, which is always the case, but replace it. The principle of “not to be, but to seem to be” becomes the main driver of state action. France can no longer find a way out of the systemic crisis in the most historically familiar way - revolutionary. 

Indeed, France is a country that has never been characterised by internal stability. Since the Great French Revolution of 1789, accumulated internal tensions have traditionally found an outlet in revolutionary events, accompanied by bloodshed and major adjustments to the political system. France’s great achievements in political philosophy and literature are a product of this constant revolutionary tension – creative thought works best in moments of crisis, anticipating or overcoming them. It is precisely because of its revolutionary nature that France has been able to produce ideas that have been applied on a global scale, raising its presence in world politics far above what it would otherwise deserve. These ideas include the construction of European integration on the model of the French school of government, the oligarchic conspiracy of the richest and most armed powers known as the G7, and many others.

In the 20th century, two world wars became an outlet for the revolutionary energy of the people – France was on the winning side of one and lost the second badly, but miraculously found itself among the subsequent winners. Then came the collapse of the empire, but the losses it caused were partly compensated for by the neo-colonial methods applied by the whole of Western Europe to its former overseas possessions. In Europe itself, France has until recently played a leading role in determining major issues such as foreign trade policy and technical assistance programmes. The main reason for the end of France’s era of revolutionary choices were the institutions of the collective West – NATO and European integration – that it helped create. Gradually, but consistently, they reduced the scope for independent decision-making by the French political elite. At the same time, these restrictions were not simply imposed from outside; they were the product of the solutions that Paris itself found to maintain its influence in world politics and economics, to benefit from the strengthening of Germany’s economy and status and to exploit, together with Berlin, the poor European east and south.

But not everything was under control from the start. The foreign policy upheavals of the first half of the last century spared the country new revolutions, but they left it morally exhausted and humiliatingly dependent on the United States, which the French have traditionally despised. Even now, unlike other Western Europeans, they are uncomfortable with American hegemony. And this only adds to the drama of the situation in Paris, which can neither resist nor fully accept US oppression. The period of Macron’s presidency saw the cruellest lesson taught to the French by their overseas partners: in September 2021, the Australian government rejected a prospective order for a series of submarines from Paris in favour of a new alliance with the US and Britain.

France was unable to make any foreign policy countermove.

The era of comparative calm and dynamism of the 1950s provided the material basis for the colossal system of social guarantees that most outside observers associate with modern France. A stable pension system, a huge public sector and the obligations of employers to their workers are the foundations of the welfare state that was created. Since human memories are short and contemporaries tend to absolutise their impressions, this is how we perceive France – well-fed and well-maintained.

The stability and prosperity of the majority of the population are attributes of a relatively short period of French history – no more than 40 years of good times (1960s-1990s), during which the political system of the Fifth Republic was created and flourished. Irreversible processes in the economy began with the global crisis of the late 2000s and gradually led to problems common in the West, such as the erosion of the middle class and the shrinking capacity of the state to maintain a system of social obligations. In the mid-2010s, France became the European champion in terms of the total debt of the economy, reaching 280% of GDP, and the public debt is now 110% of GDP. The main reason for these statistics is the huge social spending, which leads to chronic budget deficits.

The inability to solve these problems, combined with the destruction of the traditional structure of society, has led to the crisis of the party system. The traditional parties - the Socialists and the Republicans - are now close to, or have already crossed, the threshold of organisational collapse. In the new economy – with the contraction of industry, the growth of the financial and service sectors, and the individualisation of citizens’ participation in economic life – the social base of forces based on coherent political programmes is shrinking. A result of this process was the electoral victory of Emmanuel Macron, the then little-known candidate of the “Forward!” movement, in May 2017. Since then, his party has been renamed twice: “Forward, Republic!” in 2017 and “Renaissance” from 5 May 2022. Macron himself was re-elected president in 2022, again beating the right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen. Who is herself an outsider to the traditional system.

During Macron’s time in the Elysee Palace, the seat of the head of state since 1848, there has been two types of news coming out of France to the outside world. Firstly, reports of mass demonstrations, resulting in no change. Second, loud statements on foreign policy that have never been followed by equally decisive action.

A year after Macron came to power, the country was rocked by the so-called “yellow vests” - citizens angered by plans to raise the price of diesel fuel and then by all government initiatives in the social sphere.

In particular, proposals to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64. At the beginning of 2023, the government returned to this issue and new mass demonstrations swept the country. In the summer of that year, the suburbs of major cities, largely populated by the descendants of Arabs and Africans from former colonies, went up in flames. The majority of the rioters were second and third generation immigrants, demonstrating the total failure of policies to integrate them into French society. In all cases, the official representatives of the workers – the trade unions and the Socialist Party – were unable to play a significant role in controlling the protests or negotiating with the authorities. As a result, the government raised the retirement age by two years, Macron’s biggest achievement so far in the area of social security reform. Between the two rounds of unrest came the coronavirus pandemic, which gave the authorities a couple of years of relative calm almost everywhere. The main result of French domestic politics in recent years has been the absence of both meaningful results from protest activity and serious reforms, which by all accounts the country desperately needs. Apathy is becoming the main feature of public life in France.

An active foreign policy could partially compensate for internal stagnation. But it requires money and at least relative independence. France currently has neither. This is probably why the amount of direct aid that Paris has given to the Kiev regime remains the lowest of any developed Western country – €3 billion, or ten times less than Germany, for example. Incidentally, it is precisely this inability to invest more seriously in the Ukrainian conflict that many associate with Macron’s emotional rhetoric towards both Russia and his supposed allies in Berlin.

Paris more than makes up for its lack of money with loud statements. In 2019, Macron drew global attention by saying NATO had suffered “brain death”. This, of course, stirred emotions among Russian and Chinese observers, but did not lead to any practical action. We simply did not know the new French president well at the time, for whom the connection between words and their consequences not only does not exist, but does not even seem necessary in principle.

It was amusing enough to see French diplomats and experts calling on Russia to limit its public and private presence in Africa between 2020 and 2021. Macron himself has consistently reduced France’s commitments on the continent throughout his time in the Elysee Palace. In the summer of 2023, Niger’s new military government responded calmly to Paris’ calls for African countries to overthrow it. Unable to influence the situation in the country, France closed its embassy on 2 January 2024, finally acknowledging the failure of its policy in the region.

However, to compensate for the de facto withdrawal from a region that has traditionally provided the French economy with cheap raw materials, Macron is looking for new and promising partnerships. Security agreements have recently been signed with official Kiev and Moldova, and there are ongoing talks with the authorities in Armenia. But none of this is producing practical results. Ukraine is firmly controlled by the Americans and their British cronies, Moldova is a poor country without natural resources, and Armenia is sandwiched between Turkey and Azerbaijan, states with which France does not have very good relations. In its current state, Paris generally looks like an ideal sparring partner for governments eager to show their independence. France is big enough for angry words against it to be widely circulated in the media, but too weak to punish excessive insolence. The only interlocutors who now look to Paris with respect are Chisinau and Yerevan, although a biased observer might doubt the latter’s sincerity.

Afterword

The author of these lines has deliberately chosen not to focus on the latest foreign policy brainwave of France and its president – a wide-ranging discussion of the possibility of direct military involvement by a NATO country in the Ukraine conflict. It is, of course, possible that such a high-profile statement was a “clever move” designed to revive discussions within the bloc about the limits of what is possible in the confrontation with Russia, a provocative cry for attention in the election campaign for the European Parliament, or simply a way of keeping the French elite busy. Nevertheless, there is nothing good about Paris’s behaviour: it shows that at a certain stage the game of slogans can reach areas where the risks become too high. And given that modern France is incapable of anything but words, it is frightening to think of the heights of rhetorical participation in global politics that its president is capable of reaching. Given that Paris has some 300 nuclear weapons of its own, even the minimal probability that Macron’s babble will take material form deserves the harshest and most immediate response.

Kiev’s name-and-shame campaign aims to force foreign businesses to cut ties with Moscow

Ukraine could do away with its list of ‘international sponsors of war’ this week following pressure to end the name-and-shame campaign by China, Reuters has claimed, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter. Other countries may also have forced Ukraine’s hand on the issue, the media outlet said.

The blacklist was launched in 2022 and is published on the website of Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention. It features the names of foreign businesses believed to be “indirectly assist[ing] in or contribut[ing] to Russia’s war efforts.”

In practice, any company that pays taxes in Russia can be blacklisted. While inclusion on the list has no legal repercussions, it is intended to damage corporate reputations and pressure companies to cut ties with Russia.

Household names like PepsiCo, P&G, Yves Rocher, Unilever, Metro, Nestle, Auchan, and Xiaomi currently feature on the blacklist. A total of 14 entities in the database are from China – the highest number from a single country.

In its article on Thursday, Reuters quoted one unnamed source saying that “it’s China, but not only China.” They added that France had also exerted pressure on the leadership in Kiev over the inclusion of retailer Auchan and home improvement and gardening retailer Leroy Merlin on the blacklist.

According to the media outlet, Austria and Hungary may also have had a role. The article quoted another unnamed individual saying that there is general dissatisfaction with the fact that entities from countries that support Ukraine were still on the list.

On Tuesday, the Ukrainian government announced that those wishing to access the list would be redirected to the more neutrally named State Register of Sanctions curated by Ukraine’s National Defense and Security Council. The decision was made after a meeting with diplomats from more than ten countries, including the US, China, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, as well as representatives from the EU.

Officials in Kiev on Tuesday acknowledged that many of Ukraine’s partners had raised concerns over the “lack of legal basis for the existence of the ‘international sponsors of war’ list.” They said Ukraine was forced to consider the “negative impact of this list on the adoption of important decisions to stop the Russian aggression.”

The country’s justice ministry agreed earlier this week that it was “unacceptable to disseminate such information in the state’s name without resolving the legal issues.”

In early February, Reuters reported that Beijing had demanded that Kiev remove all 14 Chinese companies from the database, warning that failure to do so “could have a negative impact on our relations.”

A large crowd has breached the concertina-wire fencing and scuffled with Texas National Guard troops

A crowd of migrants has torn down a concertina-wire barrier and broken through a line of Texas National Guard troops while trying to cross into the US from Mexico. The standoff occurred amid a heightened debate over border security, with Republicans accusing President Joe Biden of dereliction of duty. 

Footage of the incident posted online on Thursday shows migrants dragging down a section of the barrier and a group of five National Guardsmen forming a line and trying to stop them.

Many of the men hold up their hands, signaling for the troops not to shoot them, but seconds later, migrants push through, knocking the heavily outnumbered soldiers out of the way and running to the border gate.

This is the moment when TX National Guard became overrun by migrants rioting to get across the border here in El Paso today

We were there and saw it all happen. Absolute chaos here. pic.twitter.com/VN6Kf663ie

The New York Post, which had a reporter on scene, said the incident occurred at a border crossing in El Paso, Texas. About 600 migrants massed on the Mexico side before a section of the border barrier was torn away. After racing to the border gate, the men shouted at the troops on the other side. An unidentified source told the newspaper that the group was pushed back to the Mexico side of the border.

The Texas National Guard was deployed as part of Governor Greg Abbott’s $12 billion “Operation Lone Star” crackdown to stem flows of migrants illegally crossing into the state. Biden’s administration has filed lawsuits against Texas, challenging the state’s authority to put up barriers and police migrant traffic.

The federal government normally has jurisdiction over border security, but Abbott has invoked the state’s constitutional right to self-defense, arguing that Biden’s dereliction of duty has triggered a migrant “invasion.” Earlier this week, a federal court that is hearing one of Washington’s legal challenges temporarily paused implementation of a new Texas law that would allow state authorities to arrest and deport illegal migrants.

Surging illegal immigration has weighed on Biden’s approval ratings as he campaigns for reelection later this year. Scenes like Thursday’s border breach could undermine his efforts to convince voters that Republicans are to blame for record influxes of illegal migrants, drugs and suspected terrorists.

“Today’s attack showed us that yes, it’s a violent invasion,” conservative commentator Mike Cernovich said in a post on X (formerly Twitter). “The true nature was hidden as the regime left the border open. Now? There can be no denial.”

Washington’s Department of Justice has accused the tech giant of monopolistic practices in its iPhone business

US technology giant Apple is being sued by the US government for allegedly building an anti-competitive “moat” around its monopolistic iPhone ecosystem.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its lawsuit on Thursday in New Jersey federal court, alleging that Apple had used “broad-based, exclusionary conduct” to make it harder for Americans to switch smartphones and for companies to provide applications, products and services to iPhone users. The federal government was joined by 16 state attorneys general in lodging the civil claim.

“Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies violate the antitrust laws,” US Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “We allege that Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market, not simply by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating federal antitrust law. If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly.”

The iPhone monopoly has driven Apple’s “astronomical valuation” – the company’s market capitalization of over $2.6 trillion is second only to Microsoft’s $3.2 trillion – at the expense of consumers and other technology companies, the lawsuit argued. The stock dropped 4.1% after the DOJ lawsuit was announced, wiping out over $100 billion in market value.

The case challenges Apple’s so-called “walled-garden” business model, which makes the company’s products largely inaccessible to competitors. It comes just weeks after the EU fined Apple €1.84 billion ($2 billion) for breaking the bloc’s competition laws. The company allegedly blocked providers of rival streaming services, such as Spotify, from informing iPhone users of cheaper music subscription alternatives.

Apple monopolized the smartphone app market by blocking advances from competitors. “By stifling these technologies, and many others, Apple reinforces the moat around its smartphone monopoly not by making its products more attractive to users, but by discouraging innovation that threatens Apple’s smartphone monopoly,” the lawsuit said.

READ MORE: AI could poison Apple: Is the company’s innovation engine running out of steam?

The company denied the DOJ’s claims. The lawsuit could “hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple – where hardware, software and services intersect,” a company spokesperson told media outlets. “It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering the government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology.”

If successful, the lawsuit could force Apple to make changes to some of its most profitable products, including the iPhone and the Apple Watch. It could even lead to the company being forced to sell off some of its businesses to promote more competition. The iPhone had a 64% share of the US smartphone market in last year’s fourth quarter, far ahead of Samsung’s 18% share, according to Counterpoint Research.

US rulers decry the lack of choices for Russian voters, even as they try to take down America’s most popular 2024 candidate

America’s legacy media and political ruling class have thrown a predictably massive hissy fit over last weekend’s Russian election, insisting that President Vladimir Putin’s landslide victory was “preordained” and “stage-managed.” 

Every protest and anti-Putin statement before, during, and after the election was amplified. Every allegation of misconduct was reported with zero scrutiny or skepticism. Washington and its allies decried the results, arguing that the vote wasn’t free or fair. UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron went so far as to call it “illegal.” 

The pearl-clutching over Russia’s vote was the most intense I’ve ever seen over a foreign election. It was so inordinate, in fact, that it reminded me of the nonstop media coverage last month after Russian political activist Alexey Navalny died in a Siberian penal colony. The same media that showed no concern over the death of US journalist Gonzalo Lira in a Ukrainian jail – after he had been tortured, at American taxpayer expense, for daring to criticize the Kiev regime – huffed and puffed for weeks about the death of a Russian citizen in a Russian prison.

Lost in all the hysteria over Putin’s victory is the fact that most of the Russian people like their president. The incumbent won over 87% of the votes, and as even CNN begrudgingly acknowledged before the election, a poll last month showed that Putin had an 86% approval rating. That compares with a 9% approval rating for Navalny, the great Western hope for destabilizing Russia, in a January 2023 poll. And by the way, it also compares with US President Joe Biden’s approval rating of around 38%.

As US policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs explained in an interview this week with Russia-hating podcaster Piers Morgan, Putin’s popularity and reelection reflect the will of the Russian people. “It’s part of Russian culture,” said Sachs, who advised the Moscow and Kiev governments after the breakup of the Soviet Union. “He’s a strong leader. The Russian people expect a strong leader, and we have to deal with a strong leader in Russia.”

Therein lies the problem. Team America is unwilling to accept strong leadership of Russia with broad public support. Having failed to cripple Russia or its leadership through the proxy war in Ukraine, the US and its allies are in no mood to accept the political reality in Moscow. The political pouting was so bad in Berlin that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government refused to refer to Putin as Russia’s president. This is the same government that is mulling plans to ban one of Germany’s most popular opposition parties.

However, for all the Western criticism of Putin and his policies, it’s not easy to argue that he doesn’t try to represent the interests of the Russian people. Unlike most Western leaders, Putin is on the side of his own citizens. He hit the nail on the head when he said Western attacks were directed not at him, but at “the forces that stand behind me, which seek to strengthen Russia – to improve its sovereignty, defense, and economic independence.”

Shrugging off a landslide election as illegitimate is difficult enough. US rulers and their media mouthpieces are doing so with – as usual – a sociopathic lack of self-awareness. Even as Washington condemns the alleged suppression of political opposition in Russia, the Biden administration and its allies are using the court system to prosecute the incumbent’s chief rival, former President Donald Trump, as this year’s US presidential election approaches. By the way, Trump is leading Biden in most polls.

The US ruling class has shown no hesitance to put its thumb on the scale to help Biden and other establishment puppets. For example, just weeks before the 2020 election, over 50 former US intelligence officials helped contain the damage from a New York Post report on Biden family corruption by falsely claiming that it had the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation. Thanks partly to some preemptive nudging by the FBI, social media platforms censored commentary about the bombshell report, which stemmed from documents on a laptop abandoned by Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

America’s rich and powerful banded together to defeat Trump. As Time magazine bragged shortly after Biden took office, an “informal alliance of left-wing activists and business titans” helped change US voting systems and laws leading up to the 2020 election. Among other achievements, the magazine said, the alliance “got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time,” and “successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation.”

As we know, in the Western legacy media’s lexicon, ‘disinformation’ means ‘information that conflicts with our narratives’. The election manipulation in 2020 wasn’t new. A report released on Tuesday by the Media Research Center claimed that US search-engine monopoly Google has been helping Democratic candidates since 2008 by censoring pro-Republican voices. Google’s censorship and manipulation of search results shifted 2.6 million votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton in her failed run against Trump in 2016, according to an estimate by US researcher Robert Epstein. 

As usual in an election year, US officials are hyping potential security threats, including foreign interference. Biden and the establishment media outlets that work on his behalf are touting Trump as a danger to democracy. Ironically, these same voices are demonizing efforts to make elections more secure.

For instance, when Georgia lawmakers passed a bill requiring voters to show ID, the Biden administration sued the state. The administration also sued Arizona for requiring proof of US citizenship for voter registration. It turns out that requiring voters to prove their identity – just as would be required to get a job, board a flight, rent a dwelling, drive a car, open a bank account, receive public benefits, or buy a bottle of wine – is somehow a racist conspiracy to suppress Democrat votes. 

Washington wouldn’t be Washington without its blatant hypocrisy and absurdity. The same country that has refused to respect the will of the people in Crimea and Donbass violently defended the right of self-determination in Kosovo. Some of the same politicians and media voices that branded Trump as an insurrectionist for refusing to accept his 2020 defeat previously refused to accept Bad Orange Man’s 2016 victory.

Also, the same government that condemned Russia’s election as illegitimate has expressed no concern that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky refuses to hold an election at all. Somehow, defending ‘freedom and democracy’ – in a country that has neither freedom nor democracy – does not entail suggesting that the citizens should be allowed to vote.

What really made Washington angry was that residents of formerly Ukrainian territories were allowed to vote in the Russian election. The US and dozens of its allies issued a statement on Monday decrying Moscow’s “illegitimate attempts” to organize voting in “temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.” Residents of those same areas previously voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, but then again, from Washington’s point of view, the democratically expressed will of the people isn’t always an acceptable feature of democracy.

The bloc’s top diplomat has argued that members shouldn’t scare people by exaggerating the threat of direct conflict with Russia

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has insisted that Ukraine’s Western backers will not be sending troops to “die for Donbass,” and they should not needlessly frighten their citizens by hyping the prospect of a direct conflict with Russia.

“I have heard some voices saying ‘war is imminent’,” Borrell told reporters on Thursday before attending the European Council summit in Brussels. “Well, thank God, war is not imminent. We live in peace. We support Ukraine. We are not part of this war; we just support Ukraine.”

The summit is focused largely on efforts to ramp up European support for Kiev amid struggles by US President Joe Biden to secure congressional approval for additional Ukraine aid. Borrell said the aid push is not a question of sending US or European troops to “die for Donbass.” Rather, the aim is to help Ukrainians, so they will not be killed fighting in Donbass.

The EU’s top diplomat made his comments amid escalating rhetoric from European leaders suggesting that more aid should be given to Ukraine because NATO members will be threatened by potential Russian attacks if Kiev is defeated.

French President Emmanuel Macron went so far last month as to argue that Kiev’s backers cannot rule out sending troops to Ukraine. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claimed on Wednesday that Moscow’s ambition “does not end in Ukraine.”

Borrell pushed back against such statements on Thursday, saying that “the call for Europeans to be aware of the challenges we are facing is good, but we do not have to exaggerate, either. And we have to prepare for the future, increase our defense capabilities, augmenting the defense capacities of our industry.”

The diplomat has proposed tapping income generated by Russia’s frozen central bank reserves – estimated at €3 billion ($3.25 billion) annually – to help fund Ukraine aid. He suggested using 90% of the revenue to buy weapons for Kiev and earmarking the remaining 10% to help build up Ukraine’s defense industry. Moscow warned that the scheme amounts to theft and would undermine Western currencies, the global financial system, and the world economy.

READ MORE: EU’s Borrell warns of Ukraine funding vacuum if US stops spending

As Russian forces have made battlefield gains in Donbass in recent months, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned on Tuesday that Ukraine’s very survival will be at risk if the West fails to provide more weaponry to Kiev.

Giorgia Meloni has sued two men accused of pasting her head onto a porn star’s body

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is seeking €100,000 ($108,650) in damages from two men accused of digitally inserting her into pornographic videos that were “viewed millions of times” online.

A court in Sardinia on Tuesday called Meloni to testify against the men in July, Italy’s ANSA news agency reported. The suspects are accused of defamation, and face criminal charges as well as Meloni’s civil suit. 

According to Meloni’s lawyers, the men – a 42-year-old and his 73-year-old father – superimposed the prime minister’s face onto a porn actress’ body and posted several explicit videos to an American porn site. ANSA states that the videos “stayed online for several months and were viewed millions of times by users from around the world.”

The videos were created before Meloni became prime minister in 2022, and the alleged suspects were arrested in 2020, after police identified and tracked down the mobile devices used to post them online.

The eldest suspect has asked to be sentenced to community service in order to settle the criminal component of the case, ANSA reported. A judge will decide on his request next week.

Meloni’s lawyer, Maria Giulia Marongiu, told the BBC that the sum of €100,000 is “symbolic,” and would be donated by Meloni to charities supporting victims of domestic abuse. She filed her lawsuit to “send a message to women who are victims of this kind of abuse of power not to be afraid to press charges,” Marongiu said. 

The term ‘deepfake’ is used to describe highly realistic photos or videos that have been digitally altered – or created from scratch with artificial intelligence – to depict people, typically celebrities or public figures, saying or doing things they never did. US intelligence agencies have warned that deepfake technology could be used to influence elections or help cybercriminals gain access to sensitive information, while the Indian government has threatened tech companies with legal penalties after a slew of deepfake videos featuring actresses and politicians caused a public outcry last year. 

The crewed flight is the first to have been aborted at short notice in the history of Russia’s space program

The launch of a Soyuz-2.1a carrier rocket, which was supposed to bring a Soyuz MS-25 manned spacecraft into orbit, has been aborted by an automatic safety system about 20 seconds before its scheduled liftoff on Thursday. The crew of three astronauts was reportedly declared safe.

The Soyuz was scheduled to blast off at 16:21 local time (13:21 GMT) from the Baikonur launch facility in Kazakhstan ahead of a dock with the International Space Station’s Prichal module at 16:35 GMT.

On board were Russian cosmonaut Oleg Novitsky, Belarusian space flight participant Marina Vasilevskaya, and US astronaut Tracy Dyson.

The head of Russia's Roscosmos space agency, Yuri Borisov, told reporters that the reason for the canceled launch was a voltage drop in chemical power source. The crew handled the emergency situation professionally, he stated.

It marks the first time in Russian manned space exploration that a rocket liftoff carrying a crewed mission has been scrubbed during the countdown, according to historian Alexander Zheleznyakov.

“I don’t remember such an incident that there was a cancellation in such a short time before the launch,” he told RIA Novosti, adding “There were cases when it was canceled a day before for various reasons.” At the same time, he pointed out that similar incidents have occurred worldwide with unmanned launches.

According to Roscosmos, the launch of Soyuz MS-25 has been rescheduled for Saturday, March 23, and will take place at 15:36 local time.

The Israeli military has failed to intercept a cruise missile fired by the militants at the port of Eilat

Yemen’s Houthi militants have struck Israel with a cruise missile, marking the first time that one of the group’s projectiles has reached the Jewish state. The strike follows repeated efforts by the US and UK to destroy Houthi launch sites.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed on Tuesday evening that it tracked a “suspicious aerial target” that entered Israeli airspace and struck an open area near the Red Sea port city of Eilat. 

The IDF then confirmed that the target in question was a cruise missile, and that no casualties or damage occurred. The Houthis later claimed responsibility for the attack.

The Houthis have launched repeated missile and drone attacks on Israel since October. Until Monday, all of the group’s missiles and aircraft had been intercepted en route to their targets either by the IDF, the American or British navies, or the forces of neighboring countries like Jordan. 

The Shia militia, which functions as the de facto armed forces of Yemen, has also vowed to disrupt commercial shipping in the Red Sea until Israel ceases its war with Hamas. Houthi militants have carried out scores of attacks on commercial shipping in the region, including a successful missile strike on an allegedly American-owned liquefied petroleum gas tanker on Tuesday.

From the outset of its campaign, the group said that it would target Israeli or “Israel-linked” shipping, including vessels owned or operated by American or British firms.

The US and Britain responded by deploying naval forces to the region and launching repeated waves of airstrikes against Houthi launch sites and other military facilities in Yemen. The most recent of these strikes took place on Monday, when US Central Command, which oversees American military operations in the Middle East, said that its forces destroyed missiles, drones, and “weapons storage containers” on Yemeni soil.

In a much larger series of strikes in late February, American and British warplanes destroyed 18 Houthi targets across eight locations in Yemen, including underground bunkers, radar sites, and surface-to-air missile batteries, according to the British Defense Ministry.

READ MORE: Red Sea attacks halving Suez Canal trade

These operations have failed to deter the militants, however. Back in January, US President Joe Biden conceded that while the air campaign was not “stopping the Houthis,” it would continue regardless.

Houthi attacks caused a 50% decline in shipping traffic through the Suez Canal in January and February, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported earlier this month. While most Western vessels are now forced to take the longer route around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, the Houthis have told Russia and China that their ships will be allowed to pass through the Red Sea unimpeded in exchange for unspecified “political support,” Bloomberg reported on Thursday.

Vessels from the two countries will not be targeted in the Red Sea or Gulf of Aden, the Yemen-based militant group has reportedly assured

The Yemen-based Houthi militants have told Russia and China that their ships can sail freely through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden without fear of being attacked, Bloomberg reported on Thursday, citing sources.

People with knowledge of the matter told the outlet that the understanding was reached during talks in Oman involving Russian and Chinese diplomats and a top Houthi political figure.

According to Bloomberg’s sources, in exchange for promising safe passage for ships the Houthis want the two countries to provide political support for the rebel group in international bodies such as the UN Security Council.

The Houthi rebels have carried out dozens of drone and missile attacks on commercial vessels traversing the Red Sea, disrupting shipping traffic through one of the world’s most important maritime corridors. As a result, many major shipping companies have stopped using the Suez Canal and are instead redirecting ships around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa.

The Houthis have been attacking ships they believe to be linked to Israel in what they claim is a show of “solidarity” with the Palestinian people in light of the war in Gaza. After the US and the UK conducted a number of strikes on Houthi facilities in Yemen, the group said it would now also attack ships affiliated with both nations.

In a recent such incident, Yemeni missiles struck the merchant vessel True Confidence in the Gulf of Aden earlier this month, causing the first deaths since the militant group started its attacks. The Houthis claimed the vessel was American. However, according to a Bloomberg source, the ship used to be owned by Los Angeles-based Oaktree Capital, but a new non-US company had taken it over.

A senior Houthi political leader, Ali Alqhoom, declared recently on X (formerly Twitter) that the group’s goal is “sinking America, Britain and the West in the swamp of the Red Sea.” 

Last week, the Houthis’ leader, Abdul Malik Al-Houthi, vowed to expand the campaign to the Indian Ocean and hit vessels traveling around South Africa.

Attacks on vessels in the Red Sea region decreased traffic via the Suez Canal, a vital route between Asia and Europe that ordinarily handles about 15% of global maritime trade.

Germany has given Kiev twice as much military aid as the UK, and Berlin has reportedly joined calls for London to do more

Kiev is “disappointed with Britain’s stance” on the conflict with Russia, sources in the UK defense sector have told the Daily Mail.

The UK is being overtaken by Germany and the Nordic states as Ukraine’s leading European backers, the industry operatives, who wished to remain anonymous, told the news outlet in an article published on Wednesday.

The sources also griped that Britain’s leaders are not coming across as bellicose enough compared to French President Emmanuel Macron, who has publicly refused to rule out deploying troops to Ukraine.

“The UK was the first country to give NLAW anti-tank rocket launchers, the first country to pledge tanks, so we received some leeway from Kiev,” one of the sources said. “But we are not pushing through capability thresholds any more. We’ve spent our political capital with [Ukrainian President] Vladimir Zelensky and we are not spending enough on military aid.”

“The Ukrainians are disappointed with Britain’s stance at the moment. Germany has also told the UK it has to do more. From where we once were, it is galling to be told that,” they added.

The UK has delivered less than €5 billion ($5.4 billion) in military aid to Ukraine since 2022, while Germany has sent €9.36 billion and the Scandinavian states – Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway – have sent a combined €9.12 billion, according to a report from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. When promises of future aid are fulfilled, the UK will have sent €9.12 billion, while Germany will have delivered €17.7 billion.

The identity of the Daily Mail’s sources is unclear, as is the veracity of their comments. The Mail has openly lobbied the British government to increase military spending before, most recently when it announced its ‘Don’t Leave Britain Defenceless’ campaign earlier this month. Backed by a number of hawkish former defense chiefs, the campaign calls on the government to spend 2.5% of the UK’s GDP on its military, up from 2% at present.

Speaking at a NATO summit last July, Britain’s then-defense minister, Ben Wallace, complained that London would like “to see a bit of gratitude” from Kiev for the military aid sent by the UK. Wallace’s comments were sarcastically dismissed by Zelensky, before the minister walked them back and insisted that he was not speaking for himself, but for “citizens and MPs across the international community.”

READ MORE: EU state to send more old Leopard tanks to Ukraine – media

“The UK continues to lead military support for Ukraine as the first country to provide lethal aid as well as the first to provide Western main battle tanks and long-range precision strike capability,” the British Defense Ministry told the Daily Mail. “We have committed more than £7 billion [$8.8 billion] of military support to Ukraine, including £2.5 billion in 2024/25.”

Beijing has said it has no intention of using force, unless provoked by the leaders of the self-administered island

The Chinese military is on track to meet a supposed 2027 deadline for a ground operation in Taiwan, a senior US Navy official has told Congress.

Beijing considers the self-governed island to be part of China. Its stated policy is to seek peaceful reunification, but has warned that it will resort to military action if the US-backed administration of Taiwan attempts to declare formal independence.

On Wednesday, Admiral John Aquilino, who leads the US Indo-Pacific Command, spoke at a session of the US House Armed Services Committee about the readiness of the People’s Liberation Army of China (PLA) seize Taiwan. In prepared remarks, he labeled China an “adversarial regime” and “the only country that has the capability, capacity, and intent to upend” the status quo in the Pacific.

“All indications point to the PLA meeting President Xi Jinping’s directive to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Furthermore, the PLA’s actions indicate their ability to meet Xi’s preferred timeline to unify Taiwan with mainland China by force if directed,” Aquilino said.

The purported directive has been alluded to by senior US officials, including CIA Director William Burns, who mentioned it on several occasions in 2023. American military commanders have suggested for years that 2027 may be the time of a decisive conflict for Taiwan, with a 2035 deadline discussed as well. Last April, at another committee hearing, Aquilino said he believed “everybody is guessing” regarding the issue.

Xi reportedly raised the American claims during a meeting with US President Joe Biden in San Francisco last November. The Chinese leader “denied any near-term plans to use force” against Taiwan, mentioned the two purported deadlines, and rejected these statements with “a hint of irritation” in his voice, a senior White House official said, describing the talks to Voice of America on condition of anonymity.

READ MORE: US scraps airborne directed-energy weapon program – media

When asked about the latest assessment on Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian dismissed the attempts by “some people in the US” to “hype up the China-threat narrative to escalate tensions across the strait and instigate confrontation.” The island’s status is a domestic Chinese issue, he said.

The former US president is reportedly concerned about developing dementia after his father suffered from the fatal disease

Former US President Donald Trump has a fear of developing dementia due to his father’s battle with Alzheimer’s disease, according to the Washington Post, which cited several of the billionaire’s former associates.

The outlet claimed to have spoken to a former senior executive at the Trump Organization, who said they had seen Donald Trump interact with his father Fred Trump Sr. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source claimed that “Donald is no doubt fearful of Alzheimer’s.”

“He’s not going to talk about it and not going to admit it,” they told WaPo, claiming that this information was nevertheless relevant in light of Trump’s allegations that current US President Joe Biden is not mentally fit for office.

WaPo also cited Trump’s niece, Mary L. Trump, who reportedly recalled that Donald was seriously upset by his father’s descent into dementia after the patriarch failed to recognize his children at a family gathering in the mid-1990s.

The outlet also cited an interview that Donald Trump gave to Playboy in 1997, in which he stated that seeing his father suffering from Alzheimer’s had left him wondering “out loud about the senselessness of life.”

In recent years, Trump has repeatedly claimed that US President Joe Biden was suffering from severe mental health issues as he could often be seen tripping, getting lost, mixing up world leaders and countries, losing his train of thought mid-sentence, and most recently forgetting NATO’s new ally in confusing Norway with Finland. At the same time, the billionaire has boasted that he himself had passed the Montreal cognitive test with flying colors.

However, some have suggested that Trump’s own mental health may also be slipping, after several gaffes on the campaign trail in recent months, such as confusing South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley with former speaker Nancy Pelosi, and warning that the US could face “World War II” under Biden.

Meanwhile, a recent survey by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 63% of American voters are not very or not at all confident in Biden’s mental capability to serve effectively as president. Trump also did not fare well, with 57% voicing concerns about his mental capacity.

The pair are now set to face off in the upcoming US presidential election, which will be held on November 5.

Paris must give Kiev “the means to enter negotiations” with Moscow, the three-time presidential candidate has insisted

The conflict in Ukraine does not directly affect France’s key national interests, the former leader of the far-right National Rally party, Marine Le Pen, told the BFM TV broadcaster on Wednesday. Le Pen, who led the party for more than a decade argued that “France’s vital interests are not in question.”

The three-time presidential candidate also suggested that Russia does not pose a threat to European nations and that the best thing Kiev’s Western backers can do is ensure that it sits down at the negotiating table with Moscow as soon as possible.

According to the politician, “the only way to help Ukraine is to give it the means to enter into negotiations.” 

Late last month, French President Emmanuel Macron said that, while there was no consensus among Kiev’s backers on a military deployment to Ukraine, “in terms of dynamics, we cannot exclude anything.” Numerous NATO allies were quick to reject his suggestion. However, reports have since appeared in the media, claiming that Paris may have been preparing for such a development for months. 

Reports have also alleged that active-duty military personnel from NATO states are already operating in Ukraine in various capacities – something that Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski appeared to confirm on Wednesday.  

Le Pen accused Macron of “playing politics with war,” suggesting that the head of state may not be fully aware of what is going on on the battlefield in Ukraine. 

She also argued that Moscow was unlikely to attack European countries as it “does not have the military means to engage in a territorial war with the whole” of the continent.

Last week, French legislators voted in favor of a 10-year security pact with Ukraine, which was signed by Macron and his Ukrainian counterpart, Vladimir Zelensky, last month. National Rally abstained, with Le Pen accusing the head of state of “hijacking, exploiting and instrumentalizing a major international crisis for a short-term electoral agenda.”

She has consistently opposed plans to admit Ukraine into NATO and the EU, as well as economic sanctions on Russia, and the delivery of heavy weapons to Kiev.

On Tuesday, the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, claimed that France was preparing to deploy as many as 2,000 troops to Ukraine. 

Over the weekend, Russian President Vladimir Putin told his supporters that fighters from NATO states were already present in Ukraine. He also said a conflict between NATO and Russia could not be ruled out, but added that everyone probably understood the dire consequences of such a development.

The first batch of the fighter jets will arrive from Denmark this summer, Dutch Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren says

The West will deliver the first batch of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine within the next several months, with more to come later this year, Dutch Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren has said. 

Denmark will be the first Western country to supply Ukraine with the advanced aircraft, with the Netherlands to follow soon afterwards, the defense minister revealed in an interview with Reuters on Wednesday, as she wrapped up her visit to Kiev.

“I’m very confident that we will start delivering F-16s this summer... Denmark first, and we have a schedule ... so in the second half of the year, the Dutch F-16s will be going this way,” Ollongren said, without providing details on how many jets would be included in the first shipments. 

She added that it will not be easy for the West to provide Ukraine with all the aid it needs, as the US struggles to approve President Joe Biden’s assistance package earmarking $60 billion for Kiev. Republican lawmakers have opposed the move, demanding that the White House do more to enhance US border security. 

Ollongren also called for ammunition production in the EU to be ramped up amid Ukraine’s complaints that it suffers from a lack of munitions.

“We have to be realistic, and consider the possibility that it might be a lengthy war, and it is better to plan for a long war,” she said.

Western countries announced an international coalition to help Ukraine procure US-designed F-16s and train its pilots last year, with plans to provide Kiev with more than 40 aircraft. 

Denmark has pledged to send Kiev 19 jets of this type. The Netherlands initially promised 18, but later increased the number by six. 

Media reports indicate that Norway could send Kiev five to ten F-16s, with Belgium pledging to support Ukraine with an undisclosed number. 

Ukrainian officials, however, have warned that the country could face infrastructure difficulties in maintaining the US-designed jets. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in November that while the F-16s will certainly add to Ukraine’s capabilities, they will not be “a silver bullet” to fundamentally change the battlefield situation. 

Russia has warned the West that arms shipments to Ukraine will only prolong the conflict without changing the ultimate outcome. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has also said that F-16s would be “legitimate targets” for the Russian military, adding that the shipments will only increase the risk of a direct clash between Moscow and NATO.

State police have been blocked from arresting illegal migrants, hours after the US Supreme Court gave them the green light

The implementation of a new Texas law enabling the state to arrest and expel illegal migrants has again been put on hold, after a federal court ordered it temporarily blocked pending the outcome of a legal challenge from President Joe Biden’s administration.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals imposed the latest delay on Tuesday, just hours after the US Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s emergency request to halt the enforcement of the Texas law. 

The legal whiplash will temporarily maintain the status quo while Texas Governor Greg Abbott feuds with the White House over the influx of migrants across the border with Mexico. Although border security normally falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, Abbott has invoked the state’s constitutional right to self-defense, arguing that Biden’s dereliction of duty has triggered a migrant “invasion.”

On Wednesday, a three-judge 5th Circuit panel heard arguments from both sides on whether the controversial Texas law should go back into effect while the broader case is still pending. The Biden administration has insisted that only the federal government has jurisdiction over border security.

The new law, known as SB4, makes it a state crime to cross into Texas from Mexico outside legal ports of entry. First-time offenders could be punished with up to six months in jail, while repeat violators could be sentenced to a 20-year term. Judges would have the power to order migrants to return to Mexico or face prosecution if they don’t leave willingly.

SB4 has been part of a broader push by Abbott to help secure his state’s portion of the US-Mexico border. Upon taking office in January 2021, Biden immediately halted the border security initiatives of his predecessor, Donald Trump. Since then, the US has seen a record influx of illegal migrants and suspected terrorists, as well as increases in drug trafficking.

READ MORE: 25 US Republican governors back Texas in standoff with Biden

Texas has strung barbed wire along the border and installed floating barriers in the Rio Grande River to help stem the flow of migrant traffic. Abbott has also deployed the National Guard to seize control of a state-owned park, seal off a popular crossing for illegal migrants, and prevent federal officers from removing the installed barriers.

The governor noted on Wednesday that even with SB4 temporarily paused, Texas police have been arresting illegal migrants for other crimes, such as criminal trespass. More than 41,000 such arrests have been made during the state’s $12 billion ‘Operation Lone Star’ crackdown.

If the negotiations are successful, the WikiLeaks founder could reportedly walk free having already served time in a British prison

The US Justice Department is considering whether to allow WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to plead guilty to a misdemeanor offense in order to avoid extradition to the US on espionage charges, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

The potential deal would see Assange plead guilty to mishandling classified information, with the five years he has already served in London’s Belmarsh Prison counting as his sentence, the unnamed sources told the newspaper. 

Assange’s lawyers and US officials have held preliminary talks in recent months to sketch out a possible bargain, the sources said. However, Barry Pollack, a lawyer for the jailed journalist, told the newspaper that “there are no signs” that the department is ready to accept the deal.

If a deal were reached, it would end a legal battle in play for more than a decade. After his arrest by British police in 2010 for sexual offense allegations that he denied, Assange jumped bail in 2012 and was granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He was arrested again in 2019 when Ecuador revoked his asylum, and has remained in Belmarsh ever since.

The Justice Department unsealed an indictment against Assange on the day of his arrest, charging him with 17 counts of espionage. If extradited to the US and convicted, the former WikiLeaks boss faces up to 175 years in prison.

The charges stem from his publication of classified material obtained by whistleblowers, including Pentagon documents detailing alleged US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The UK Home Office approved his transfer to American custody in 2022, but Assange – now in poor health after nearly five years of solitary confinement  – has filed repeated appeals, none of which have been successful. Last month, Britain’s High Court postponed a decision on granting Assange a final chance to appeal his extradition.

Washington’s use of the Espionage Act to prosecute Assange is controversial, as the Australian-born journalist published, but did not steal, the classified material in question. Former US President Barack Obama refused to press charges against Assange for this very reason, arguing that his activity was no different from that of any newspaper, and was therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

READ MORE: Pentagon leaker agrees to 16-year prison sentence

With an election coming up this November, US President Joe Biden is keen to avoid the “political hot potato” of an extradited journalist arriving in Washington to face criminal prosecution, the Wall Street Journal wrote. Furthermore, American “prosecutors face diminishing odds that he would serve much more time even if he were convicted stateside,” the paper noted.

The move could help unlock funds for domestic development of the fuel for next-generation nuclear reactors, the energy secretary has reportedly said

US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has called on Congress to ban uranium supplies from Russia in order to support domestic development of the fuel for next-generation nuclear reactors, according to a report by Reuters.

In December, US lawmakers tried to introduce a ban on imports of Russian uranium as part of the sanctions campaign against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict. The bill, however, stalled in the Senate.

Under a deal struck by lawmakers, passing the ban would unlock funds to expand domestic uranium enrichment and to produce a special uranium fuel called high assay low enriched uranium, or HALEU, for next-generation reactors.

“Hopefully we can get that ban in place in order to unlock” those funds, Granholm was quoted as telling a House of Representatives hearing on Wednesday. “I strongly hope and encourage that Congress does that so that we can move with alacrity,” she reportedly said.

Official statistics show the US imported $1.2 billion worth of Russian uranium last year, the most ever on record. According to RIA Novosti, the purchases doubled in December, to $193.2 million, following the attempt to ban Russian supply. The total value of uranium shipments for the year was up by 43%.

Russia has remained America’s top supplier of uranium in monetary terms and is the fourth largest in terms of volume, with Canada having the top spot, according to calculations by S&P Global.

READ MORE: US bought record amount of Russian uranium in 2023 – media

The US has its own deposits of uranium, but they are not sufficient to supply the country’s nuclear power sector. Meanwhile, Russia has the world’s largest uranium enrichment complex, accounting for almost half of global capacity. According to some estimates, it would take at least five years of heavy investment for the US to break its dependence on Russian imports of enriched uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors.