Following the talks that took place in Islamabad between Iran and the United States, several experts and commentators were quick to declare the negotiations a failure. However, such assessments are rather unfounded and overlook the complexities of multi-layered diplomatic processes. In such situations, a lack of immediate agreements doesn’t necessarily mean failure.

When negotiations fail, the parties typically resort to more aggressive rhetoric indicating their withdrawal from discussions. However, the public statements of both Iran and the US create room for further contacts, and suggest the potential for further negotiations and a willingness to institutionalize dialogue.

Pakistan’s position serves as an additional indicator in this situation; rather than distancing itself from the negotiation process, Pakistan has actively reaffirmed its intention to continue mediation efforts. Announcements regarding preparations for a second round of consultations in the near future highlight Islamabad’s desire to maintain its role as a negotiation venue and prevent the erosion of the emerging diplomatic channel.

Despite the high degree of uncertainty, the situation does not warrant excessive optimism. The conflict may escalate again, and a new cycle of confrontation may begin. At the same time, signs of limited alignment between the parties should not be ignored either. 

Indeed, both Iran and the US continue to present demands, many of which are rigid and sometimes outright unacceptable or absurd. Yet, this negotiating tactic is commonly employed as a bargaining tool, leaving open the possibility of compromise. Certain official statements indicate a readiness for targeted concessions and discussions around specific de-escalation parameters. For example, US Vice President J.D. Vance noted that Tehran may agree on some sensitive issues, while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi acknowledged the prospect of further consultations and maintaining channels of interaction.

It’s notable that even without evident military parity, the US is interested in a ceasefire. This may be due to the need to take a tactical pause to regroup resources, as well as internal political and economic constraints, including the impact of the protracted conflict on the domestic agenda. Conversely, for Tehran, a ceasefire is a means to solidify the current balance without making long-term commitments.

In this context, the negotiations in Islamabad should be viewed not as a breakthrough toward a comprehensive settlement, but rather as an effort to institutionalize a process of limited de-escalation. The primary aim is to lay the groundwork for a temporary ceasefire rather than achieve sustainable peace, which currently seems unrealistic given the deep ideological and political divides.

As noted earlier, Pakistan plays a crucial role in this process as a mediator. Islamabad is interested in preventing further escalation, since any potential expansion of the conflict would inevitably impact its strategic and economic interests. Consequently, Pakistan’s efforts are aimed at preserving the negotiation platform and ensuring a minimum level of dialogue between the parties. 

For this reason, overly definitive assessments of the outcome of the negotiations in Islamabad are inaccurate. Indeed, the parties did not reach an agreement after the first round of talks, both American and Iranian representatives acknowledge this. However, what is more important is that after 21 hours of negotiations, neither side closed the door on further contacts, and Pakistan is already working to organize a second round of consultations in the coming days. Moreover, Vance characterized the American proposals as “the final and best offer” – this implies that a concrete offer is on the table awaiting Tehran’s response.

In diplomatic practice, rigid or even deliberately inflated demands do not indicate the futility of the negotiation process. On the contrary, in the early stages of complex negotiations, parties often adopt hardline positions intentionally so they can later use them as leverage in exchanging concessions. This is particularly evident in Islamabad. The US insists on strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program, the transfer of highly enriched uranium, and free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran is concerned about sanctions, frozen assets, security guarantees, and broader regional de-escalation. In other words, the negotiations are centered around a set of specific demands and counter-demands rather than symbolic gestures, and this signals the beginning of serious bargaining.

In this situation, it’s essential to focus not on the emotional reactions of external observers but rather on the positions of key Iranian figures directly involved in the decision-making process. In this context, Speaker of the Parliament of Iran Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the Iranian delegation in Islamabad, is particularly notable. The fact that Tehran has sent such a high-level representative to Pakistan, one tasked with tough yet substantive dialogue, is quite telling. Iran’s choice of representative indicates that it is serious about the negotiations and views them as a means to safeguard its interests rather than as a superficial show for the media. 

Washington’s motivations must also be taken into account. Despite its tough rhetoric, the US is also eager to find a way to withdraw from the current crisis. A prolonged conflict in the Persian Gulf, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, and instability in the energy markets impose significant strategic and domestic costs on the US. Thus, as far as we can conclude from its public statements, the White House is not just focused on exerting pressure on Iran, but also wants to reach an agreement that can be framed as a diplomatic achievement derived from a position of strength. This explains why, despite stringent demands, Washington has not abandoned the negotiation framework.

The main takeaway is that labeling the negotiations in Islamabad a “failure” is methodologically inaccurate. It would be more precise to say that the first round of talks concluded without reaching a final agreement; however, the negotiation process has entered an important phase – the bargaining phase. The parties are no longer discussing the mere possibility of dialogue; they are negotiating over the costs of the future agreement, the duration of restrictions, mutual guarantees, and political dividends. This indicates that despite its fragility, the diplomatic window remains open. And this is the key outcome of the meeting in Islamabad. 

Certainly, we shouldn’t harbor illusions about the situation. Given Trump’s character, even the current fragile ceasefire could collapse in an instant. However, it would also be a mistake to underestimate the significance of the Islamabad talks. They offer hope that, even if lasting peace cannot be achieved, a long-term truce may be possible. Tehran’s goal is clear: to ‘wait Trump out’ and buy time. The history of the Iranian civilization shows that time has always been on its side. And it’s quite possible that the strategy of waiting things out will prove effective once again. 

US President Donald Trump has said he is “permanently opening” the Strait of Hormuz, presenting the move as benefiting “China and the world” after claiming Beijing agreed “not to send weapons to Iran.” Trump’s remarks come as the US military claims American warships have effectively blocked Iranian trade through the vital waterway.  

Iran’s army has warned it could target marine traffic in the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman, and the Red Sea if the blockade of its ports continues. Tehran insists it does not want war or instability but will not bow to pressure or surrender. 

The escalation is unfolding amid reports of ongoing indirect contacts over a possible second round of US‑Iran talks, following last weekend’s negotiations in Pakistan that ended without an agreement to halt the war launched by Washington and Israel in late February. 

What is actually happening at sea? 

Traffic through Hormuz, a key global trade route, remains effectively disrupted as the US enforces a blockade of Iranian ports.  

Tehran says it will not return to the pre‑war status of the strait and is drafting new rules for ships from countries that imposed sanctions on Iran or supported the US-Israeli attacks to pay a toll as compensation to transit the waterway.  

Analysts at energy consulting firm Gelber & Associates, cited by Reuters, say tracking data shows “a small but increasing number of tankers moving” through Hormuz, although “overall traffic remains sharply below normal levels.” 

Fars ⁠News Agency reported that two Iranian vessels transited the strait on Wednesday, including a supertanker that entered Iranian waters via the open sea with its transponder on and another ship carrying food supplies bound for Imam Khomeini port.  

How is each side portraying the situation? 

Trump has portrayed the latest moves as a success, declaring on Truth Social that the strait is “permanently opened” and that China is “very happy.” He also claimed Beijing had “agreed not to send weapons to Iran.” China has not publicly responded and has previously denied providing military support to Tehran. US officials say the measures are intended to pressure Iran while keeping international shipping routes open. 

How are markets reacting? 

Oil prices have edged higher as concerns over disruptions in Hormuz – which carries about 20% of global oil and LNG shipments – offset hopes of easing tensions.

Brent crude traded near $95 per barrel on Wednesday, with expectations for renewed talks helping cap gains below $100 even as traders remained focused on supply risks in the Middle East. Gelber & Associates said traders are no longer pricing in a full‑scale outage, but are still maintaining a “residual premium” as flows recover unevenly rather than returning to normal. 

Broader economic worries are also mounting. The International Monetary Fund has warned the conflict could weigh on global growth, while Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee told the Financial Times that higher oil prices risk pushing up US inflation expectations, describing a “double danger” from the Iran stand‑off and existing trade tensions. 

Equity markets, however, have so far taken a more upbeat view, with major Asian indices rising on hopes diplomacy will avert a prolonged disruption to Gulf energy supplies. 

What is Moscow saying? 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned against further escalation, expressing hope that the US “will be realists… and will not continue the unprovoked aggression” against Tehran, which he said risks destabilizing the wider Middle East. 

What will happen next? 

While Trump says the war could end soon, promising an “amazing two days,” diplomatic efforts appear to be gathering pace.   

Officials from Pakistan, Iran, and several Gulf states say negotiating teams from Washington and Tehran could return to Islamabad later this week. A key Pakistani mediator reportedly arrived in Tehran on Wednesday with a message from the US and is expected to discuss preparations for a second round of talks.   

The US and Iran agreed to a two‑week ceasefire last week, raising hopes for a broader settlement, but both sides have since traded accusations over “unacceptable” demands. Washington has not formally committed to extending the truce beyond its current expiry date, a senior US official told CNN.

Police in Northern Ireland have slapped fines on demonstrators who disrupted traffic to protest soaring fuel prices. Similar demonstrations began across the border in the Republic of Ireland last week.

Global fuel prices have soared since the US-Israeli war on Iran disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which around a quarter of the world's seaborne oil trade passed before the conflict.

Northern Ireland police intervened in several slow-moving vehicle demonstrations along a number of major routes on Tuesday. One of the convoys, largely made up of tractors, caused traffic jams at the Sydenham bypass near Belfast City Airport, with numerous passengers seen walking with their luggage at the side of the road.

Calls for more protests across Northern Ireland slated for April 24 are reportedly spreading on social media.

Farmers, businesses, and local people in Northern Ireland came out today and continue to protest to demand government support. They’re being crushed by crippling fuel and energy costs.

Yet you’re here pushing for another Middle Eastern war with Iran that would be enormously… https://t.co/XQPlS6VD6a pic.twitter.com/bpdJTOFMjF

— Nigel Nelson (@nnelsonni) April 14, 2026

The wave of mass protests began across the border in the Republic of Ireland last Tuesday with slow-moving convoys clogging roadways. The country has been hit particularly hard, with gasoline prices up by 15% and diesel currently costing nearly 30% more than in mid-February. Taxes account for nearly 60% of fuel costs in the EU country, and the protesters argue that the government should slash them to ease pressure on farmers, haulers, and commuters.

Speaking to RT on Wednesday, former British MP Andrew Bridgen attributed the dire plight of farmers, haulers and other businesses in Ireland to EU policies.

In keeping with the bloc’s ‘green policies’, consumers in Ireland are having to pay “50% tax, and then a 16% green levy on top,” he explained.

“It’s very difficult to see how businesses can cope with energy costs moving up at this rate,” the former lawmaker added, citing his conversations with business people in Ireland.

Contributing to the general public discontent has been Brussels’s recent decision to suspend subsidies to Irish farmers at a time when fuel and fertilizer prices have shot up.

After 16 years in power, Viktor Orban is stepping down as Hungary’s prime minister. In Europe, the fact that the veteran politician will finally be replaced by a younger, more pragmatic leader is cause for celebration. Peter Magyar, head of the Tisza party that won Sunday’s elections, is set to become Hungary’s new prime minister. His main campaign slogan focused on restoring relations with NATO and the EU.

The liberal press has already labeled Russian President Vladimir Putin the biggest loser in this situation, and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and, by extension, Kiev, as the biggest winners. But is that really true? RT explores how Hungary’s diplomatic relations with key players might change under Magyar’s leadership.

Ukraine: Less toxic, but generally similar relations 

The relationship between Orban and Zelensky (and more broadly, between Budapest and Kiev) has recently become overtly hostile. In addition to the now-familiar exchanges of insults, there have been direct threats. For instance, Zelensky warned that he might give Orban’s address to the Ukrainian military so they could speak with the Hungarian prime minister “in their own language.” Retired General Grigory Omelchenko from the Security Service of Ukraine then said, “Our organization doesn’t need Orban’s address” as the Security Service of Ukraine knows where he lives, sleeps, drinks beer, wine, smokes hookah, and with whom he meets. He added, “Orban should think about his five children and six grandchildren.”

While these dramatic outbursts demonstrate the distinct personalities of Orban and Zelensky, in reality, Orban’s Hungary was not entirely at odds with European and NATO policies regarding Ukraine. A significant portion of civilian and even military supplies – including critical resources like electricity and fuel – flowed through Hungary to Ukraine. 

Until 2024, Hungary, along with several other EU countries, received gas from Russia via the Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod pipeline. This pipeline operated for the first two years of the Ukraine conflict, but shortly after Ukraine’s invasion into Kursk Region, it was shut down. In spring 2025, Russian forces used the pipeline for military operations aimed at liberating Sudzha. Both the pipeline and the compressor station in Sudzha suffered significant damage during battles and are not expected to be operational in the near future. Currently, Russian gas is delivered to Hungary via Türkiye.

Inspired by this, Kiev attempted to cut off another crucial fuel transit route: the Druzhba pipeline, which passes through Ukrainian territory. It had operated intermittently until last August, when supplies were stopped due to Ukrainian missile strikes. Zelensky is determined to put an end to Russian oil and gas transit to Europe. Orban, however, was one of the most steadfast opponents of Zelensky’s policy – and in this, he was silently supported by several Eastern European neighbors which also benefited from cheap energy imports from Russia.

After the provocation involving the Druzhba pipeline, relations between Budapest and Kiev entered a critical phase. This past winter, Hungary threatened to cut off emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine (though it never actually did so). For its part, despite pressure from Brussels, Ukraine sabotaged any attempts to repair the oil pipeline; in retaliation, Hungary detained Ukrainian cash couriers carrying funds of unclear origin. 

Another key issue for Hungary is the rights of the ethnic Hungarians in Transcarpathia. Historically, this region was part of Austria-Hungary and became part of modern-day Ukraine almost by chance. Ukraine has consistently pursued a policy of forced Ukrainization, and while it primarily targets Russians and Russian speakers, it also affects Rusyns and Ukrainian Hungarians. Throughout Ukraine’s years of independence, the Rusyns have been denied minority status, barred from teaching in their native language, and faced obstacles in maintaining ties with neighboring Slovakia.

For Budapest, the rights of ethnic Hungarians have always been a sensitive topic, and Orban has persistently advocated for their rights.

As for Ukraine’s European aspirations, Magyar was blunt: Ukraine’s NATO membership is off the table, and Ukraine won’t be able to join the EU for at least another decade. He echoed Europe’s current position, which likely wasn’t music to Kiev’s ears.

The EU: removing a thorn from its side

Viktor Orban assumed office 16 years ago with similar promises: he vowed to build pragmatic and equal relationships with the EU and NATO based on Hungary’s national interests.

However, Orban’s assertiveness and confrontational style repeatedly led to deadlocks. Budapest’s domestic political decisions contradicted the directives of the ‘Brussels bureaucrats,’ and in response, the EU blocked funding for Hungary. Then Orban resorted to bargaining, using his veto power on any issue to trade his support for concessions from Brussels.

This dynamic was particularly evident in his dealings with Russia—not because Orban was a staunch supporter of Russia (certainly not), but because unanimous agreement is required for adopting each package of anti-Russia sanctions, and this gave him leverage to negotiate with Brussels.

After the Druzhba pipeline incident, Orban (along with the leaders of the Czech Republic and Slovakia) refused to agree to the EU’s 90 billion euro solidarity loan for Ukraine and then blocked it altogether.

It would be ironic if Hungary’s veto turned out to be nothing more than a convenient excuse for everyone in the EU to throw up their hands and say, ‘Well, you see, we’d love to help, but there’s nothing we can do.’ Now, there’s even more reason to wait with the loan: due to the war in Iran, Europe is bracing for an economic crisis, and the money is needed at home. Plus, voters might not like the idea of allocating funds to Ukraine at such a time. 

The EU will likely still find funding for Ukraine, but the loan may be smaller and come later than promised.

Meanwhile, the European Union is seizing the moment: the day after Magyar’s victory, Brussels presented a list of 27 conditions that Hungary must meet to unlock €35 billion in European subsidies. Aside from nearly resolved issues – like lifting the veto on the aforementioned €90 billion loan and the next sanctions package – Brussels is effectively demanding a review of laws from the Orban era that contradict EU policies, including asylum rules for foreigners. 

It’ll be interesting to see how the new prime minister responds. Essentially, Brussels is asking him to relinquish some of the sovereignty that Orban fought so hard to secure for Hungary, and which the majority of Hungarian citizens support. Magyar and his party represent the same conservative right-wing faction as Orban, and in the eyes of Hungarian voters, he is seen as a younger, untainted version of Orban. If he caves to Brussels, especially on sensitive migration issues, it could severely damage his standing among voters. 

The Trump administration viewed Orban’s Hungary as an exemplary nation in Europe. With the increasing popularity of right-wing parties in Europe, the US expected that with its support, they would rise to power – or, in Orban’s case, remain in power. These right-wing forces, all these local European Trumps, were supposed to weaken and eventually dismantle the power of the decaying left-liberal international coalition. That was the plan. 

But things didn’t go according to plan. Whether due to the catastrophic unpopularity of the Trump administration in Europe or the clumsy interference in the domestic politics of a party claiming to promote sovereignty, US Vice President J.D. Vance’s support for Orban seems to have backfired: it appears that this very endorsement cost Orban’s party several percentage points in the elections, resulting in an almost total defeat.

This raises questions about the Trump administration’s overall approach to the EU. European right-wing parties are likely to distance themselves from Washington now. The ‘divide and conquer’ strategy didn’t work, and no special relations were forged with Europe. In fact, in this scenario, the US emerges as the main loser.

Russia: Same old story, different angle

As for Russia, Orban’s defeat doesn’t make a huge difference. Orban was neither a client nor an agent of Moscow, despite claims to the contrary. It’s true that Orban attempted to position himself as a mediator in the Ukraine conflict, but ultimately, his mediation was unnecessary.

Indeed, Orban’s squabbles with Brussels and Kiev have, in a roundabout way, played into Moscow’s hands. But Hungary is too deeply embedded in European and NATO structures to truly pursue an independent foreign policy. Ultimately, whenever they wanted to, both the EU and NATO pushed through decisions regarding Russia or Ukraine. 

This third factor is the reluctance to get drawn into the EU’s conflict with Russia. Hungarians don’t want to be called up to the front or become fresh cannon fodder; they don’t want their country to become the next battering ram against Russia. Hungary doesn’t want to share Ukraine’s fate. Immediately following his victory, Peter Magyar declared that Hungary would not send weapons to Ukraine, making it clear that this is not Hungary’s war now, and it won’t become such under his leadership. 

In this, he has the full and unanimous support of Hungarian voters. 

***

Former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin is known for many memorable quotes, and this is a fitting place to remember one of them: “Some think that after the elections, something will happen. But after the elections, nothing will happen. And that’s life.”

Most likely, Hungary will slowly fade from the headlines; Magyar won’t attract as much attention as Orban and won’t obstruct the decisions of NATO and the EU with such fervor. However, Hungary’s overall policy will remain conservative, placing national interests front and center.

This means that in a quiet but resolute way, Hungary will continue to resist the attempts of Eurocrats to pull it into a direct conflict with Russia. For Brussels, that’s bad news: such leaders are becoming more common in Europe, and this approach is gradually gaining traction as the new European mainstream.

A list of Ukraine-linked manufacturing facilities scattered across Europe, which was published by the Russian military, should be treated as a register of potential targets, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said.

The Russian Defense Ministry rolled out the list earlier on Thursday, claiming that Kiev’s Western backers have been planning to sharply ramp up production of long-range drones to target Russia. The plan is bound to drag European nations involved in the effort closer to direct conflict with Moscow, the military warned.

Medvedev, the deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, urged European nations to take the warning at face value.

“[The] Russian Defense Ministry’s statement must be taken literally: the list of European facilities which make drones & other equipment is a list of potential targets for the Russian armed forces. When strikes become a reality depends on what comes next. Sleep well, European partners!” the ex-president wrote on X.

A 20-year uranium enrichment moratorium on Iran is not long enough, US President Donald Trump has claimed.

Trump was responding to reports that the US delegation at talks with Iran, led by Vice President J.D. Vance, had proposed a 20-year ban on Tehran pursuing its nuclear program.

At the discussions in Islamabad, which finished without any breakthrough, Iran reportedly offered a five-year moratorium. Tehran’s negotiators also rejected Washington’s call to confiscate Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, believed to be about 440 kg (970 pounds).

“I’ve been saying they can’t have nuclear weapons, so I don’t like the 20 years,” Trump said in an interview with the New York Post on Tuesday.

Iran has said repeatedly over the years that it is not looking to obtain a nuclear bomb, but it also insists on its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

The Iranian consul general in Mumbai, Saeid Reza Mosayeb Motlagh, told RT on Tuesday that there is “a deep mistrust” in Tehran towards Washington, but despite this fact, the Islamic Republic “remains ready to negotiate… provided the discussions are realistic.”

Iran’s nuclear program “never deviated toward military purposes,” which was proven by “the most stringent inspections of our nuclear facilities,” he said.

Any decision by Tehran on the issue – whether it pauses enrichment or insists on continuing it – “will be accepted by the Russian side,” he stressed.

Lavrov also expressed hope that the Americans “will be realists” during the negotiating process and “will not continue the unprovoked aggression” against Tehran, which affects the entire Middle East.

Kiev’s Western backers want to ramp up production of long-range drones to prop up Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry has said, warning the move is bound to drag the European nations conserned into a direct conflict with Moscow.

The ministry said a network of facilities producing drones and their components is operating in a number of European countries, including the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Finland and Poland. Additional sites were identified outside the continent, including in Türkiye and Israel. At least four facilities are located in Italy alone.

According to the ministry, Kiev’s Western backers are seeking to ramp up production of long-range unmanned aerial vehicles, a move Moscow described as a “deliberate step leading to a sharp escalation of the military-political situation throughout Europe.” It added that such efforts risk turning host countries into “Ukraine’s strategic rear area.”

“The implementation of terrorist attack scenarios against Russia… using supposedly ‘Ukrainian’ UAVs manufactured in Europe is leading to unpredictable consequences,” the ministry said, referring to repeated statements by Ukrainian officials about expanding long-range strikes.

Instead of strengthening the security of European states, the actions of European rulers are rapidly drawing these countries into a war with Russia.

The ministry named multiple drone manufacturing facilities located in the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Finland, and Poland.

At least four sites producing drone components were identified in Italy, with several plants involved in such activities located in Türkiye, Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Israel.  

Ukraine has been regularly launching one-way drones deep into Russian territory, targeting assorted civilian infrastructure, industrial sites, and residential buildings. The attacks have seemingly intensified in recent weeks, with Kiev sending in hundreds of fixed-wing UAVs daily. 

Russian officials have described the strikes as indiscriminate “terrorist” attacks aimed at compensating for frontline setbacks the Ukrainian military has been suffering. Moscow has retaliated with a long-range strike campaign of its own against dual-use infrastructure and military installations, maintaining it never targets purely civilian sites.

Russian wheat shipments to Sudan have more than doubled, the Russian agriculture export agency Agroexport said on Tuesday. 

Exporters delivered about 1.7 million tons since the start of the 2025/26 season, compared to 0.7 million tons over the same period a year earlier. That volume has already exceeded the roughly 1.1 million tons shipped during the entire previous season. 

The increase is attributed to the restart of several mills in Sudan, which has boosted demand for imported grain while reducing reliance on flour supplies. 

Agroexport, citing data from Sudan’s central bank, said wheat imports in 2025 were estimated at 1.7 million tons, marking an 82% increase year-on-year, while flour purchases fell from 0.7 million tons to 0.5 million.

The Russian share of grain supplies to the African market has reached a record 40%, according to remarks made at an international conference on Africa’s food sovereignty held in Ethiopia in November. 

In the first quarter of 2025, exports to Nigeria increased fivefold year-on-year, while deliveries to Morocco doubled. Shipments to Mozambique surged nearly twelvefold, with notable growth also recorded in Cameroon and Burundi, where imports rose more than twofold and nearly tenfold respectively. Russia also resumed exports to Togo for the first time since 2022. 

In 2024, Russia became the leading wheat supplier to Morocco after overtaking France, which had long dominated the market.

The American military depleted its entire stock of untested Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) early in its attack on Iran last month, a US Army official has said.

The short-to-medium ballistic missiles developed by Lockheed Martin are slated to replace the aging Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). The new weapon completed its prototype phase only last year, and ended up being fielded without a full testing cycle. Media reports indicated that the new missiles were involved in at least one mass-casualty incident during the attack on Iran, killing some 21 people at a school and sports hall in the southern Iranian city of Lamerd.

A US Army unit equipped with the new missiles fully exhausted its inventory early in the conflict, Jimmy Arter, an official at Fort Sill, said. The official made the remarks at the Fires Symposium, which is underway at the Oklahoma Fires Innovation Science and Technology Accelerator (FISTA). 

“We shot our entire inventory of PrSM right now during the start of the war, and we’ve already got more coming in,” Arter said, as quoted by Aviation Week. The attack on Iran has proven the new missile’s capabilities and no further testing of PrSM is needed, Arter claimed.

The PrSM missile was likely used in the February 28 Lamerd strike, the New York Times reported early in the hostilities, citing visual evidence examined by weapons experts. The NYT said that, since the missile was new, it was difficult to assess whether the strike was “intentional” or stemmed from a design flaw of untested munition or faulty intelligence. 

The Pentagon denied its involvement, claiming it did not attack any targets in Lamerd on that day. The US Central Command pointed the finger at Tehran, claiming the munition visible in the footage of the attack was “consistent with the dimensions and silhouette of an Iranian Hoveyzeh cruise missile.” The NYT, however, doubled down on its assessment last week, citing experts who said the munition lacked key features attributable to Hoveyzeh and looked like a PrSM.

Pope Leo has arrived in Cameroon after a stop in Algeria as part of an African tour that will also take the first US-born pontiff to Angola and Equatorial Guinea.

The 11-day trip, which the Vatican has described as an “apostolic journey,” is the Pope’s first visit to the continent since the start of his pontificate in 2025.

Earlier on Wednesday, the Unity Alliance, a coalition of separatist factions operating in Cameroon’s restive Anglophone region, announced a temporary halt in fighting ahead of the pontiff’s visit. The group said the pause is intended to allow the safe movement of civilians, pilgrims and officials during the pope’s stay.

Pope Leo is expected to hold talks with President Paul Biya, the world’s oldest leader, who has ruled the Central African nation since 1982. He will also visit an orphanage in the capital, Yaounde.

Cameroon has faced separatist violence since 2017, when conflict erupted in its English-speaking Northwest and Southwest regions, where armed groups are seeking independence from the majority French-speaking state. According to the International Crisis Group, the unrest has killed more than 6,000 people and displaced over 600,000 others.

The Holy See says the religious leader will travel to Bamenda, a key center of the separatist conflict, for a peace meeting and Mass before heading to Douala for another public Mass and meetings with students, professors and Catholic health workers.

Pope Leo later traveled to Annaba, home to the ancient city of Hippo, where St. Augustine once served as bishop. During the visit, he toured archaeological ruins, planted an olive tree, released white doves as a symbol of peace, visited a nursing home run by the Little Sisters of the Poor, met members of the Augustinian order, and celebrated Mass at the Basilica of St. Augustine.

The war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran may have paused, but it is far from over. Its consequences, however, are already being felt, not just across the Middle East, but globally.

Iran’s desperate confrontation with two nuclear powers which have a vast network of allies and client states represents a move toward the erosion of the remnants of a unipolar international system. Tehran’s resistance is accelerating the relentless, albeit gradual, shift toward multipolarity. 

It’s often said that it is easier to destroy than to build and in that sense, US President Donald Trump has played an unintended but pivotal role. By initiating military action against Iran, he has helped weaken the very system the United States spent decades constructing. The expectation in Washington was different. After perceived successes in Venezuela, and encouraged by regional partners, the White House appeared to assume Iran would collapse quickly under pressure.

The logic, crude but clear, seemed to be this: overwhelming military superiority would guarantee a swift victory. The United States had the aircraft carriers and the air bases, while Iran, by contrast, was seen as isolated and vulnerable.

Well, that assumption proved flawed.

The option of deploying ground forces was briefly considered, but quickly revealed its risks because Iran had spent decades preparing for precisely such a scenario. A land invasion would have been a drawn-out and costly confrontation, with uncertain outcomes. For Tehran, such a scenario may even have been desirable, as an opportunity to inflict long-term strategic damage on its adversaries.

The implications extend far beyond the battlefield.

This conflict is accelerating a transformation in how states behave. The old assumptions are weakening and the norms that once governed international conduct are fading. Increasingly, states act unilaterally, choosing when and where to strike, guided less by shared rules than by immediate interests.

The result is a more volatile world. Military force is no longer a last resort; it is becoming a routine instrument of policy. The notion of restraint, once underpinned by fear of escalation or reputational cost, is eroding. What replaces it is a growing sense of impunity.

Ironically, it’s the United States, long the architect of the post-Cold War order, that’s accelerating its dismantling.

The reaction was swift, as governments scrambled to assess vulnerabilities. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi convened emergency discussions on energy security while European states, already strained, were reminded of their exposure. In this sense, Iran succeeded in broadening the conflict’s impact far beyond its immediate geography.

But the longer-term consequences may be even more serious.

The world is entering a period of intensified militarization. Regions already marked by instability are becoming more dangerous and while the Middle East remains a flashpoint, it’s not alone. South Asia, too, is edging closer to renewed confrontation and even areas long considered peripheral, such as the Caribbean, are showing signs of tension.

The Afghan-Pakistani border offers a clear example. Long a zone of instability, it has seen a noticeable escalation in recent months. Clashes, cross-border strikes, and mutual accusations have become more frequent. Kabul accuses Islamabad of aggression at the same time that Pakistan points to militant groups operating from Afghan territory.

The roots of this conflict run deep. Pakistan once nurtured the Taliban as a strategic asset, but now it finds itself facing a more independent, and less controllable, force. What was once a tool has become a threat and the dynamic resembles a familiar pattern: states confronting the unintended consequences of their own policies.

These tensions are interconnected, and part of a broader pattern, as the weakening of global constraints makes escalation more likely. As states observe the outcome of the Iran conflict, they draw their own conclusions. One of the most dangerous is the belief that force can be used without catastrophic consequences.

That lesson, once internalized, will be difficult to reverse.

The blockade of Hormuz, the resilience of Iran, and the inability of the United States to impose a decisive outcome all point to a changing balance of power. Even a middle-tier state can now challenge a former hegemon and force it into a strategic stalemate, and this reality will shape calculations in capitals around the world.

The trajectory is clear. The international system is moving away from order and toward fragmentation, with multipolarity emerging as a contested, often chaotic environment. Alliances are less reliable and rules are less binding, which means the space for miscalculation is expanding.

The war against Iran may not have ended, not even in its current form; it has already altered the global landscape. It has exposed the limits of power, the fragility of existing structures, and the growing willingness of states to test those limits.

The next conflict is now not a question of if, but where, and in a world increasingly defined by uncertainty, the answer may come sooner than expected.

This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team 

Bulgarian Prime Minister Andrey Gyurov’s days are numbered, and his caretaker government is rushing to tie his country to Ukraine before a potential populist uprising. It’s about gas, influence, and keeping Sofia marching in lockstep with Brussels.

Gyurov was appointed acting prime minister in February, after Rosen Zhelyazkov resigned in November under the pressure of street protests and persistent allegations of corruption. His mandate is non-existent, and his term in office has lasted fewer than eight weeks. Nevertheless, he’s making frantic deals with Kiev before an election that he and his allies are almost certain to lose – all in an attempt to block his opponent from enacting policies that will upset Brussels.

Borissov is unlikely to upset the apple cart, but Radev is a vocal opponent of the EU’s Ukraine project, and he’s dominating in the polls. With the clock ticking, Gyurov set out for Kiev last month.

Why Gyurov tied Bulgaria to Ukraine

At a ceremony in the Ukrainian capital on March 30, Gyurov and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky signed a ten-year military cooperation agreement. Under its terms, Bulgaria will provide bilateral military aid to Ukraine for the next decade, both countries will jointly produce drones and ammunition, and their armed forces will train together. Furthermore, Sofia and Kiev will align their sanctions policies, while Bulgaria will pay towards Ukraine’s reconstruction and support its bid for NATO and EU membership.

Securing this agreement before the election was crucial for Gyurov. Radev opposes both the deal and Ukraine’s accession to NATO, while even the GERB party under Borissov withdrew its support for the pact in 2024 – with Borissov stating that his party would wait for a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev before signing anything.

Gyurov faced fierce criticism at home for signing such a consequential document without winning an election first: Radev was among the most scathing critics, calling the caretaker prime minister “practically illegitimate.”

Speaking to Politico this week, Gyurov insisted that Bulgaria “cannot wait for the ‘right moment’ when it comes to security.” Bulgaria has been run by multiple caretaker governments since 2021, none of which went through with the deal. In reality, Gyurov seized the “right moment” to ram the agreement through before it could be delayed by Borissov or outright blocked by Radev. 

Of the two candidates, Radev is the more pressing threat to Ukraine and its backers in Sofia and Brussels. Wile Borissov sought to delay the security agreement, GERB still supports military aid to Kiev. Radev, as president, vetoed an agreement to provide Ukraine with armored vehicles in 2022, blamed Ukraine for starting the conflict with Russia, and told Zelensky to his face in 2023 that there was “no military solution” to the conflict, and that “more and more weapons will not solve it.”

Campaigning against the well-documented corruption of Borissov and his circle, Radev’s coalition is leading GERB in the polls by nine points. Gyurov has leaned on Ukraine to close that gap.

Leveraging Ukraine

Gyurov and acting Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nadezhda Neynski toured Ukraine at the beginning of the month, with Neynski agreeing to an “active exchange of experience and good practices” with Ukraine’s cybersecurity agency, the State Special Communications Service. Neynski also met with anti-Kremlin activist Peter Pomerantsev to discuss “initiatives to counter propaganda and hybrid threats.”

The same week, Neynski set up a temporary unit within the Foreign Ministry to “counter disinformation and combat hybrid threats,” which will be “advised” by former Bellingcat investigator Christo Grozev. Wanted in Russia over his role in encouraging Russian fighter pilots to defect to Ukraine and accused of working with Britain’s MI6 spy agency, Grozev will “assist the organization with specific information exposing malicious influences,” which will then be dealt with “through mechanisms developed by the European Commission.”

What’s the bigger picture here?

Some more clues as to why Gyurov would expend so much political capital on Ukraine and against Radev can be found where politics and energy intersect.

A section of the agreement signed by Gyurov and Zelensky last month states that Bulgaria and Ukraine will “continue to work actively to ensure alternative gas supplies to Ukraine. They recognize that the Vertical Corridor is a strategic route for the transport of additional natural gas from alternative sources to the region, including liquefied natural gas through existing and future liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.”

Currently under construction, the Vertical Gas Corridor will transport an estimated 10 billion cubic meters of American LNG per year from terminals in Greece to Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, and Ukraine. The US and EU have backed the project, with Brussels pumping more than €240 million into a Greece-Bulgaria section of the line in 2019, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio calling Gyurov last week to thank the caretaker prime minister for “supporting the Vertical Gas Corridor, which presents opportunities for US LNG exports.”

Russian gas still flows through Bulgaria to Hungary, Serbia, and North Macedonia from the TurkStream and Trans-Balkan pipelines. Sofia plans to stop this transit by 2028, in line with EU policy. Once Russian gas is no longer flowing, the Bulgarian section of the Trans-Balkan pipeline will be switched to reverse flow and integrated into the Vertical Gas Corridor network.

Radev supported the Vertical Gas Corridor project as president, but with the interests of the US, EU, and Ukraine on the line, Gyurov likely isn’t leaving anything to chance. After all, Radev backed the corridor as an alternative to – not a replacement for – Russian gas imports. Bulgaria, he has argued, should not be “bound by ideology” when it comes to choosing energy partners. Additionally, despite Bulgaria planning to halt Russian gas transit through its territory by 2028, Russian energy giant Gazprom has already paid for transit rights until 2039. Radev’s opponents likely fear that he will honor this contract, especially after he vetoed a law in November that would have allowed the government to seize a refinery operated by Russia’s Lukoil.

The bottom line

The Vertical Gas Corridor is just one factor in an election that Washington, Brussels, and Kiev view as critically important. The possibility that Radev could obstruct military aid to Ukraine has already forced Gyurov to visit Kiev to sign a decade-long security pact, while the prospect of recently-defeated Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban being replaced by another obstructionist in Sofia has prompted the EU to throttle political speech ahead of the election.

”These people cannot even imagine to what extent they are discrediting Bulgaria in the EU with their behavior,” he told podcaster Martin Karbovski last week.

Germany’s handling of anti-Israel protests was “disproportionate,” and the government’s use of hate-speech laws to counter the demonstrations unfairly restricted freedom of expression, a report by the EU’s human rights commissioner has found.

Compiled by the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, Michael O’Flaherty, and published on Wednesday, the report called on the German government to “ensure that the fight against all forms of hatred fully respects the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression for all members of society.”

The report accuses German authorities of misusing claims of anti-Semitism to ban pro-Palestinian slogans and Palestinian flags from some rallies, and to outright ban others. Police have used excessive force against anti-Israel protesters, the report stated, while “freedom of expression has been restricted disproportionately, regarding debates on Palestinian rights or legitimate criticism of the Israeli government.”

Since 2017, the German government has endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. This controversial definition lists “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” as examples of anti-Semitic speech.

Despite accusing Germany of failing to protect the speech and assembly rights of anti-Israel protesters, and failing to protect Jews from anti-Semitism, the EU has never criticized Germany for restricting the speech rights of nationalist political figures. Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the BfV, has labeled the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as a “confirmed right-wing extremist” organization; an AfD politician has been convicted for sharing the government’s own migrant crime statistics; and members of Germany’s ruling center-right and opposition center-left parties have called for a ban on the organization.

Furthermore, the EU has also played a leading role in silencing pro-Palestinian voices. Among them is journalist Huseyin Dogru, a German of Turkish descent who was sanctioned by the European Council last year. The council argued that Dogru’s reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict had sown “ethnic, political and religious discord” in Germany and therefore supported “destabilizing activities by Russia.” German authorities agreed, stripping Dogru and his wife of healthcare coverage and freezing their bank accounts.

Ukrainian conscription officers have been caught on video attacking a 16-year-old boy in Odessa, local media have reported. The incident marks one of the latest episodes in Kiev’s increasingly desperate and violent mobilization drive amid mounting losses in the conflict with Russia.

Footage captured by an alleyway security camera shows several men in camouflage, apparently Territorial Recruitment Center (TCC) officers, jump out of an unmarked van and start running after the teenager. They then beat the boy in a crowd and, according to the victim’s brother, used pepper spray and kicked him in the back. 

Neighbors noticed the incident, contacted the boy’s family, and intervened, causing the conscription officers to flee in their minibus. The boy’s face was reportedly covered in blood and he had bruises all over his body when medics arrived.

According to the teenager’s relatives, the police were also called. However, when they arrived, they reportedly found no evidence of a crime and left without taking action. The boy’s family now intends to seek punishment for the TCC officers.

The incident follows a string of violent conscription episodes throughout Ukraine that have become known as ‘busification’ – the forcible stuffing of men into minibuses. In Odessa last month, a local resident fought off four TCC officers using a heavy metal chain, smashing their vehicle’s windows. In Kharkov, armed conscription officers reportedly shot and killed a man during an attempted forced mobilization in March.

Moscow has accused Kiev of fighting “to the last Ukrainian” to serve Western interests. Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov estimated that Ukraine had lost nearly 500,000 servicemen in 2025 alone, depriving Kiev of the ability to replenish its ranks even through compulsory mobilization.

The US is trying to shift the burden of “containing Russia” onto European NATO members, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Speaking during a visit to China on Wednesday, Lavrov blamed the EU and UK for “torpedoing” US-Russian talks aimed at normalizing diplomatic ties and criticized large-scale European rearmament programs.

“European elites see militarization as a guarantee of their survival. And Americans encourage this European militarization as it shifts responsibility for security of the Old World,” he said.

Washington is content for European states to bankroll Kiev against Moscow and even create a new military bloc involving Ukraine, as this places “the main responsibility [on them] for containing Russia,” Lavrov said.

According to the diplomat, the broader Western agenda is to “preserve and renew their hegemony” and put in place new tools to make sure they “live at the expense of others” – as slavery and colonialism did in the past. But as their relative power declines, internal frictions in the West intensify, he said.

“Europe says it is getting off the needle of Russian oil and gas. And it risks getting impaled by an aspen stake, which [the US] is actively sharpening for the Europeans,” he said.

The top Russian diplomat stated that officials in Brussels, Paris, Berlin, and London are making efforts to prolong the Ukraine conflict and keep the US involved in it. They have largely nullified the outcome of US-Russian negotiations in Alaska last year, even as President Donald Trump has moved away from his predecessor’s policy of open-ended support for Kiev, Lavrov said.

Moscow has no illusions about the fact that the US pursues dominance over global energy markets, including through recent military operations against Venezuela and Iran and the continuation of sanctions on Russia, the minister concluded.

Somali government forces, backed by regional troops, have killed 27 fighters of Al-Qaeda-linked militant group Al-Shabaab in a large-scale offensive in the semi-autonomous state of Jubaland, the East African nation’s authorities have confirmed.

The operation targeted areas under Jilib, Hagar, and Afmadow, with ground forces advancing on militant positions while airstrikes by “international partners” were carried out in parallel, Somalia’s Defense Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

Among those killed were “key members of the terrorist group,” the ministry said, adding that troops had also “seized weapons and military equipment, including BKM machine guns, RPGs, and AK-47 rifles, as well as landmines that the terrorists had intended to use against civilians.”

Last month, Mogadishu said the National Intelligence and Security Agency had carried out a raid in the Hantiwadaag area of Awdheegle district in the Lower Shabelle region, killing a senior leader of the Islamist militant group. Officials said the man, who was known by several aliases, including Kamaludin Yunis Mohamed, had been a “key” planner behind a series of deadly attacks, including the six-hour siege on Godka Jilacow prison near the presidential palace in Mogadishu in October 4, 2025.

In a statement on Wednesday, AFRICOM said it carried out an airstrike targeting Al-Shabaab on April 13 near Mido, about 90 km northwest of Kismayo.

”AFRICOM, alongside the Federal Government of Somalia and Somali Armed Forces, continues to take action to degrade al-Shabaab’s ability to threaten US forces and our citizens abroad,” it added.

US President Donald Trump has said he is “permanently opening” the Strait of Hormuz, claiming he is making the move for China “and the world.” Trump also said Beijing has agreed “not to send weapons to Iran.”

Trump initially announced the blockade of the vital waterway on Sunday after Pakistani-mediated talks failed to produce a peace deal with Iran. On Tuesday, US Central Command reported that American warships had effectively blocked all Iranian trade through the strait. 

On Wednesday, however, Trump stated in a Truth Social post that “China is very happy that I am permanently opening the Strait of Hormuz.” He added that “I am doing it for them, also – and the World.”

Trump went on to state that Beijing has “agreed not to send weapons to Iran,” and that Chinese President Xi Jinping “will give me a big, fat, hug when I get there in a few weeks.”

“China is very happy that I am permanently opening the Strait of Hormuz. I am doing it for them, also - And the World. This situation will never happen again. They have agreed not to send weapons to Iran…” - President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/g2LbmMJS5a

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 15, 2026

Trump is scheduled to pay a state visit to China on May 14, while Xi is expected to visit Washington for a reciprocal visit at a later date.

Beijing had also accused Washington on Tuesday of “dangerous and irresponsible” behavior over its blockade of Iranian vessels.

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to “enemy ships” in response to the US-Israeli bombing campaign launched on February 28. Tehran has since demanded recognition of its “sovereignty” over the waterway and the right to impose tolls.

A gunman has opened fire at a secondary school in the city of Kahramanmaras in south-eastern Türkiye, a local governor has said. It is the second such incident in the country in as many days. An attack on an educational institution in Siverek on Tuesday left 17 wounded.

The second school shooting, which took place in the Onikisubat District of Kahramanmaras, resulted in four people being killed and 20 others being wounded, Governor Mukerrem Unluer said on Wednesday.

The fatalities include a teacher and three students, the governor said. At least four of those injured have been hospitalized in serious condition, he added.

Unluer said that the attacker was an eighth-grade student from the same school. He could have obtained the firearms from his father, who is a former police officer, he said.

The chairman of the provincial branch of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), Unal Ates, told Cumhuriyet newspaper that, according to his data, the attacker had mental issues and was known at the school as “a problematic child.”

Ates also claimed that the number of fatalities was higher than the official figures and that at least 35 people were wounded in the incident.

Videos from the scene captured students fleeing the school en mass during the attack, with some jumping out of second floor windows.

Kahramanmaraş Ayser Çalık Ortaokulu’nda yaşanan silahlı saldırıda öğrenciler okul camlarından atlayarak hayatta kalmaya çalıştılar.#kahramanmaraş pic.twitter.com/5SLTcwKQig

— Sol Yumruk (@Sol_Yumrukk) April 15, 2026

Footage also showed at least one dead body being placed in an ambulance.

Kahramanmaraş'ta okulda silah sesleri: Yaralılar var!

Kahramanmaraş Valisi Mükerrem Ünlüer: "Şu an bir saldırı var. Bir okulumuzda üzücü bir olay yaşandı. Yaralılarımızın olduğu bilgisi bize ulaştı. Konuyu derinlemesine araştırıyoruz"https://t.co/PbCqHL1ARC pic.twitter.com/03V82Q8HQk

— BirGün Gazetesi (@BirGun_Gazetesi) April 15, 2026

Russia can plug any oil supply gap triggered by the Middle East conflict and help China and other countries withstand US “aggressive adventures,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, signaling Moscow is ready to offset shortages if Iranian exports are squeezed. 

US President Donald Trump announced the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for roughly 20% of global oil, on Sunday after Pakistani-mediated talks failed to produce a peace deal with Iran. Trump had previously failed to rally European NATO members to help secure Hormuz, which Iran closed to “enemy ships” in response to the US-Israeli bombing campaign launched on February 28. 

Iran has since demanded recognition of its “sovereignty” over the waterway and the right to impose tolls.

He said the US and Israel targeted Iran in part over “oil markets,” adding Washington is now trying to shape them while backing Israel.

“Russia and China, thank God, have all the necessary capabilities – already in use, in reserve and planned – to avoid dependence on such aggressive adventures that undermine the global economy and energy markets,” he said.

Lavrov’s remarks came after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned on Tuesday that China is “not going to be able to get their oil… not Iranian oil,” as Washington moves to choke off Tehran’s crude flows through a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. He described China as an “unreliable global partner” for stockpiling oil and limiting exports during the conflict.

The move comes as US forces ramp up enforcement in the Strait of Hormuz, deploying more than 10,000 troops and around a dozen naval vessels to halt Iran-linked shipments after talks collapsed.

The US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire last week, raising hopes for an end to the conflict, which has disrupted global trade and driven up energy prices, but both sides have since traded accusations over unacceptable terms.

Slovenia’s newly elected parliament speaker has announced plans to hold a referendum on withdrawing the country from NATO, as the US‑led military bloc reels from its worst internal crisis in decades with Washington threatening to pull out from the organization entirely.

The leader of the Truth Party, Zoran Stevanovic, was elected as the head of the lower house last week. Speaking to public broadcaster RTVSLO, he stated that a vote on leaving the bloc was a campaign promise he intends to keep.

“We promised the people a referendum on the issue of leaving NATO, and we will hold this referendum,” Stevanovic said.

The speaker also signaled a possible visit to Moscow “in the near future,” stating he would like to “build bridges and cooperate well with all countries, regardless of the wall that has been built between the West and the East.”

The push for a NATO exit vote comes as the 32‑member bloc has started to crack over US President Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw support after European members refused to join the US‑Israeli war on Iran. 

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at European partners, calling them “cowards” and the bloc a “paper tiger,” stating that US membership in NATO is “beyond reconsideration.” His continued threats to annex Greenland from fellow member state Denmark have further escalated tensions within the bloc.

Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has stressed that Trump’s threats to withdraw from the bloc need to be taken seriously, adding that it is “not the law of nature that we have NATO forever” or that it will “survive the next ten years.”

In Moscow, Russian Security Council Deputy Chair Dmitry Medvedev has warned that the EU itself quickly morphed into a “full‑fledged military component,” it would be “in some ways worse than NATO,” arguing that Brussels has been inflating Russophobic hysteria to justify a large-scale military buildup in preparation for a possible war with Moscow.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also speculated that US threats to withdraw from NATO could be intended to shift the primary responsibility for “containing Russia” to Europe in order to free up Washington’s own hands in the “Chinese direction.”

Moscow has repeatedly denied any intention to attack NATO or EU countries, arguing that such claims are being used to justify massive investments in arms amid faltering economic growth.

The first nuclear fuel shipment for Egypt’s El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant, built by Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, is expected to arrive in 2027, CEO Aleksey Likhachev said on Tuesday. 

Speaking to journalists in Cairo, Likhachev indicated that preparations are underway to convert the plant’s first unit into an operational nuclear facility as early as next year, paving the way for testing, commissioning, and ultimately electricity generation for Egyptian consumers by 2028.

“Our task is to turn the first unit [of the El Dabaa NPP] into a nuclear energy facility starting next year,” Likhachev said.

According to the Rosatom CEO, the construction is in “a very uplifting stage.”

Likhachev also noted that discussions were held with Egypt’s minister of electricity and renewable energy, Mahmoud Esmat, focusing on the current progress and future roadmap of the project. 

El Dabaa, Egypt’s first nuclear power plant, is being built on the Mediterranean coast in Matrouh Governorate. The project includes four VVER-1200 Generation III+ reactor units, each with a capacity of 1.2 GW.  It was launched in 2017 and is being financed jointly by Moscow and Cairo, while Rosatom will supply nuclear fuel to the facility throughout its life cycle and assist the Egyptian side in training personnel and operating the plant.

The total cost of the nuclear power plant is estimated at around $28.75 billion. Russia is financing approximately 85% of the cost with a 22-year loan to Egypt with an interest rate of 3%. 

In November, Russian President Vladimir Putin called El Dabaa a “flagship project in the field of the peaceful atom” and praised Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for his “personal initiative and support.” 

There is no quick fix to the crisis surrounding Iran, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. The US must recognize its underlying causes, including Israel’s goal of destroying the country, he added.

Speaking to reporters during a visit to China on Wednesday, Lavrov described the situation as “a crisis knot that will be extremely difficult to untangle.” He explained that “some parties are trying to cut it now – I don’t believe that would produce a [favorable] result.”

According to Lavrov, the current crisis stems directly from the US-Israeli attack on Iran in late February. The resulting disruption to global markets and the Iranian damage to Arab states hosting US military facilities were foreseeable consequences, he stressed.

“Israel appears totally convinced that Iran must be destroyed. I cannot understand how such a belief is possible,” Lavrov said, adding that remarks by US President Donald Trump about wiping out Iran’s civilization had sparked strong international backlash.

US and Israel hurting the Middle East

Commenting on recent US-Iran peace talks in Pakistan, Lavrov expressed hope that Washington would be “realistic, take the region’s interests into account and suspend its unprovoked aggression.”

He expressed solidarity with Gulf nations damaged in the conflict, but stressed that “those who started the war also have intentions not to allow normalization between the Arabs and Iran.”

Lavrov pointed to China’s quiet role in facilitating the 2023 agreement between Saudi Arabia and Tehran, which restored diplomatic ties after seven years and led to the reopening of embassies between the regional rivals.

Iran’s nuclear rights must be respected

Lavrov dismissed claims by the US and Israel that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, citing reports from international inspectors that found no evidence of such activities.

Concerns over Iran’s nuclear program were addressed under the 2019 multilateral agreement known as the JCPOA, Lavrov said, adding that “the United States destroying this initiative as Israel always wanted is a sad fact of modern history.”

He also criticized the European Union for acceding to Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement and playing “the most malicious role” in pushing snapback UN sanctions targeting Iran.

Russia, he said, remains ready to assist in finding a solution, provided that Iran’s right to develop a peaceful nuclear program is upheld.

The US and Israel could be exploiting talks with Iran to prepare for a ground attack on the country, the Russian Security Council has said.

The first round of negotiations between Washington and Tehran, which took place in Islamabad, Pakistan at the weekend, did not result in a breakthrough. Iranian officials blamed the failure of the talks on “unrealistic demands” by the Americans, but expressed readiness to continue looking for a diplomatic solution to the conflict. US President Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday that the next round of discussions could take place at the same venue “over the next two days.” 

In a statement on Tuesday, the office of the Russian Security Council warned that “the US and Israel may use peace talks to prepare for a ground operation against Iran.”

This assessment is based on the fact that “the Pentagon continues to build up the US grouping in the region” even as negotiations are underway, the key body, headed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, said.

“If the negotiations fail to achieve the intended goals, the hostilities may resume with greater intensity after two weeks,” the statement said.

Trump earlier signaled he has no intention of prolonging the two-week ceasefire with Tehran, which is set to expire on April 22. The conflict “could end either way, but I think a deal is preferable because then they [Iran] can rebuild,” he told ABC News.

Tehran has said it is seeking a permanent end to the conflict rather than an extension of the truce, with a final agreement that would include guarantees against further attacks, sanctions relief, and ability to continue enriching uranium for peaceful purposes.

According to the Russian Security Council’s assessment, Iran “still possesses a significant stockpile of weapons,” with which it could resist further aggressive moves by Washington and West Jerusalem.

The country’s civilian and military leadership remains stable, with the Iranian society unifying around the government in Tehran since the US-Israeli attack a month-and-a-half ago, it added.

India’s crude oil imports from Russia surged in March, data from a European think tank showed.

New Delhi’s crude oil purchases from Moscow more than tripled in March to $5.8 billion from $1.54 billion in February, the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) said on Tuesday.

The surge came as shipment volumes doubled and a spike in oil prices pushed up India’s import bill.

“India was the second-highest buyer of Russian fossil fuels in March 2026, importing a total of $6.38 billion of Russian hydrocarbons. Crude oil products constituted 91% of India’s purchases, totaling $5.83 billion,” the CREA report said.

India also imported coal worth $371 million and oil products amounting to $196 million in March, according to the report.

The European think tank’s report said India’s total crude imports recorded an overall 4% reduction in March, though Russian imports surged.

The CREA said the spike followed the US granting a one-month sanctions waiver on Russian oil. The waiver covered cargoes already at sea and shipments on previously sanctioned vessels. The US said the move was to ease oil prices that surged after the Middle East conflict erupted.

New Delhi emerged as a key market for Russian oil after the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. It bought almost 2 million barrels a day in 2024 and nearly $44 billion of crude from Moscow last year.

The conflict between the US and Iran is close to being settled, President Donald Trump has claimed, adding that the second round of peace talks between the two sides could take place in the next few days.

The US president gave interviews to several outlets on Tuesday, where he detailed Washington’s stance on the negotiations with Tehran.

Washington’s delegation, led by Vice President J.D. Vance, met with Iranian diplomats in Islamabad, Pakistan over the weekend. The discussions, however, did not result in any breakthroughs.

The US reacted by announcing a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz for Iran-linked vessels. Tehran said the negotiations had failed because of Washington’s “unrealistic demands.”

The conflict, which started with a US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28, is “very close to being over,” Trump told FOX Business anchor Maria Bartiromo.

However, he again threatened Tehran with a resumption of US strikes, saying that “if I pulled up stakes right now, it would take them 20 years to rebuild that country. And we’re not finished.”

In a phone call with the New York Post, Trump suggested that another round of talks with Tehran “could be happening over the next two days.”

The venue will likely again be Islamabad, he said. Pakistani Field Marshal General Asim Munir, who helped set up the initial negotiations, “is fantastic, and therefore it’s more likely that we go back there. Why should we go to some country that has nothing to do with it?” the president noted.

In a separate interview with ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl, Trump stressed that he has no intention of extending the two-week ceasefire with Iran, which is set to expire on April 22.

The conflict “could end either way, but I think a deal is preferable because then they [Tehran] can rebuild,” he said.

Iranian consul general in Mumbai Saeid Reza Mosayeb Motlagh told RT on Tuesday that there is “a deep mistrust” in Tehran towards Washington, but, despite this fact, the Islamic Republic “remains ready to negotiate… provided the discussions are realistic.”

During his press conference in the Chinese capital on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed that both Moscow and Beijing support the continuation of diplomatic contacts between the US and Iran.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has appointed veteran politician Roelf Meyer as the country’s next ambassador to the US, more than a year after Washington expelled former envoy Ebrahim Rasool.

Ramaphosa’s spokesman, Vincent Magwenya, confirmed the appointment to Reuters on Tuesday. Meyer, 78, is best known as the National Party’s chief negotiator in the talks that helped end South Africa’s apartheid system in 1994.

Meyer, who is Afrikaner, entered parliament in 1979 during the apartheid era and later held senior cabinet posts under the white minority government. He served in the administrations of Pieter Botha and Frederik de Klerk, including as defense minister and later as minister of constitutional affairs, before emerging as one of the central figures in the transition to majority rule.

South Africa’s presidency has described Meyer as a key figure in the creation of the country’s constitutional democracy and “a true citizen committed to a non-racial South Africa.”

The diplomatic rift came amid a broader deterioration in relations between Pretoria and Washington. Trump has frozen financial aid and imposed a 30% tariff on South African imports amid a dispute over Pretoria’s foreign policy and domestic laws, including its land expropriation legislation, which he says discriminates against white South Africans.

South Africa has also faced US pressure to withdraw its case against Israel at the International Court of Justice over the war in Gaza. Pretoria has rejected the demands.

Last month, Bozell was summoned by Pretoria over “undiplomatic remarks,” following his criticism of a South African court ruling that found the anti-apartheid chant ‘Kill the Boer’ was not hate speech.

Saudi Arabia has pledged $3 billion in financial aid to Pakistan, the South Asian country’s finance minister has said.

Pakistani Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb announced on Tuesday that Saudi Arabia has committed $3 billion in additional deposits, with disbursement expected in the coming week. He is currently in Washington attending the World Bank–IMF Spring Meetings 2026.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif will head to Saudi Arabia on Wednesday for an official visit.

Riyadh’s assistance comes as Islamabad prepares to repay $3.5 billion to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) this month.

Saudi Arabia Announces USD 3 Billion Additional Support, Extends USD 5 Billion Deposit: Finance Minister

Federal Minister for Finance and Revenue, Senator Muhammad Aurangzeb, has informed that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has committed USD 3 billion in additional deposits, with… pic.twitter.com/E8dXPg6g9Y

— Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan (@Financegovpk) April 15, 2026

Earlier this month, Dawn newspaper reported that Abu Dhabi was seeking the immediate repayment of the loan that was provided to Islamabad as part of the external financing support extended by the UAE in 2019.

That aid was extended through the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development to help Islamabad tide over a balance of payments crisis.

The report said the UAE debt was rolled over multiple times, but the most recent extensions had shorter durations, indicating the Emirates’ unease over the arrangement.

In 2024, Pakistan faced a debt crisis in the aftermath of the Covid lockdown, supply disruptions induced by the Ukraine conflict, and extensive floods that battered a third of the country. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) had stepped in to provide a 3-year, $7 billion package.

Under its agreement with the IMF, Pakistan is required to secure around $12.5 billion in rollovers from China, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to meet external financing needs and maintain its currency reserve levels.

The Dawn report indicated that the UAE will be replaced by Qatar.

Pakistan’s ties with the UAE have been strained over the last year. While Islamabad has signed a mutual defense pact with Riyadh, Abu Dhabi has been moving to build a closer security partnership with New Delhi.

The UAE, which has remained a vital source of foreign remittances for Islamabad, also imposed visa restrictions affecting Pakistani nationals earlier this year.

India has proposed a major expansion of seats in the Lok Sabha, its lower house of parliament, with a draft bill being shared with lawmakers to amend the constitution.

If the bill is passed, the new Lok Sabha will comprise 850 members, up from 543 now, an increase of 57%. The strength of the house is capped at 550, and an amendment is needed to raise it.

Indian law mandates an adjustment in the allocation of seats, based on the population of its states, after every census is completed.

The current Lok Sabha is based on the 1971 census. India then passed an amendment by which constituency boundaries were frozen until the first census after 2026.

The world’s most populous country’s massive census exercise, which began on April 1, is expected to conclude in 2027.

The government hopes to remove the 2026 clause and enact a delimitation, or the process of fixing the boundaries of electoral constituencies, based on the 2011 census.

“The country’s demographic profile has since undergone substantial changes,” an official statement on the proposed law’s objectives to revisit the freezing of seats said. Another aim of the proposed amendment is to ensure 33% of seats for women.

New Delhi says the latest census and delimitation exercise will “take considerable time and thus, delay the effective and dedicated participation of women in our democratic polity.”

The move has been criticized by opposition parties, which argue that the exercise should be based on the updated 2021 census exercise, which was not published due to the Covid lockdown.

India’s constitution does not specify a fixed schedule for conducting the census.

India’s southern states have expressed concern that a slower population growth rate in the region would offer an undue advantage to the north by adding more seats to populous states.

The chief minister of the southern state of Tamil Nadu, M.K. Stalin, has warned of a massive protest if the delimitation proposal affects southern states.

American warships have effectively blocked Iranian trade through the Strait of Hormuz, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) has said.

“A blockade of Iranian ports has been fully implemented as US forces maintain maritime superiority in the Middle East,” CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper said in a statement on Tuesday evening.

“In less than 36 hours since the blockade was implemented, US forces have completely halted economic trade going into and out of Iran by sea,” Cooper added.

The WSJ also reported that the US has intercepted eight tankers since the start of the blockade on Monday morning.

US President Donald Trump announced the blockade of the vital waterway on Sunday after Pakistani-mediated talks failed to produce a peace deal with Iran. Trump had previously failed to rally European NATO members to help secure Hormuz, which Iran had closed to “enemy ships” in response to the US-Israeli bombing campaign launched on February 28. Iran has since demanded recognition of its “sovereignty” over the waterway and the right to impose tolls.

On April 8, the US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, raising cautious optimism for an end to the conflict, which has disrupted global trade and driven up energy prices. However, both sides have since accused each other of putting forward unacceptable terms.

Direct US-mediated Israeli-Lebanese talks are unlikely to bring peace unless Washington pressures Israel to end its airstrikes and ground offensive, Naim Joseph Salem, a professor of international affairs and diplomacy at the Lebanese Army Military Academy, has told RT.

Israel and Lebanon held rare negotiations in Washington on Tuesday, which the armed group Hezbollah boycotted as “futile.”

While both sides described the talks as “constructive,” Salem argued that the format would likely lead to drawn-out negotiations “with no end in sight and no conclusive outcome,” as the US has no intention of pressuring Israel to end its military operation in Lebanon.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) renewed airstrikes on Beirut and other cities in early March after Hezbollah began firing rockets and mortars at Israel in support of Iran. More than 1.2 million people have been displaced, as Israel issued sweeping evacuation orders in southern Lebanon in an effort to expand its “security zone.”

“The Israeli policy is to destroy the whole of southern Lebanon in order to force the population of these cities and towns, about 450,000 people, to leave and become refugees,” Salem said, adding that several towns have been “leveled” by Israeli forces.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has announced the suspension of a defense agreement with Israel amid tensions over the war in the Middle East.

Italy, whose right-wing government had been seen as one of Israel’s closest allies in the EU, has become increasingly critical of the ongoing military campaign in Lebanon, where 2,124 people have been killed in Israeli airstrikes since early March.

Speaking on Tuesday in Verona, Meloni said her government had decided to “suspend the automatic renewal” of the agreement “in light of the current situation.”

“When there are things we don’t agree with, we act accordingly,” Meloni said, according to Reuters.

The agreement, ratified in 2005 and previously renewed every five years, includes cooperation in the defense industry and procurement policy, military equipment imports and exports, technical data exchanges, and personnel training.

On Monday, Tajani condemned the “unacceptable attacks by Israel against the civilian population” in Lebanon, to which the Israeli Foreign Ministry responded by summoning the Italian envoy.

Several European countries have formally recognized Palestinian statehood and imposed full or partial embargoes on weapons sales to Israel since 2023. Last year, Spain canceled a number of contracts with Israeli arms manufacturers reportedly totaling $1.18 billion. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez described the Israeli campaign in Gaza as genocide, a claim Israel denied.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued that his country is “defending Europe” by waging wars against Iran, Hamas, and the Lebanon-based pro-Palestinian armed group Hezbollah. In a speech on Tuesday, Netanyahu accused European countries of “deep moral weakness” for not supporting Israel.

A far-right politician displayed an Israeli flag bearing a swastika instead of the Star of David on the floor of the Polish parliament on Tuesday, sparking outrage at home and abroad.

Konrad Berkowicz, a member of the Confederation bloc, said he was protesting against Israel’s reported use of white phosphorus munitions in Gaza and Lebanon.

“Israel is the new Third Reich, and its flag should look exactly like Germany’s flag from 1933 to 1945,” the MP wrote on X after the incident. He has previously labeled Israel a “terrorist state” over its wars in the Middle East.

According to TVP, Speaker Wlodzimierz Czarzasty said he would seek to fine Berkowicz for breaking parliamentary rules and notify legal authorities about suspected crimes, including publicly insulting the flag of a foreign state and promoting Nazism.

Izrael to nowa Trzecia Rzesza i jego flaga powinna wyglądać dokładnie tak. 👇🏻 pic.twitter.com/U39xIYrp08

— Konrad Berkowicz (@KonradBerkowicz) April 14, 2026

The Polish Foreign Ministry condemned Berkowicz, saying that criticizing Israel “does not justify such a gesture, which is deeply offensive not only to Jews and Israelis but also to all those for whom the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes constitute an important element of memory and identity.”

There has been an upswing in antisemitic incidents in Europe and elsewhere since 2023, when Israel launched a military operation in Gaza in response to an attack by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

In a speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused European states of “deep moral weakness” for not backing the US and Israel in the war with Iran.

Israel’s war in Lebanon has entered a stage in which claims of supposedly precise strikes on military infrastructure can no longer be taken seriously.

The scale of the operations, the depth of the advance in the south, the destruction of bridges and residential neighborhoods, the massive strikes on Beirut, and the steady expansion of the so-called buffer zone all show that this is not merely a tactical effort to contain Hezbollah. It is an attempt to reshape the military and political reality of southern Lebanon for years to come. Israel describes this as the creation of a security belt up to the Litani River. In the language of the region, however, it reads differently. It is a course toward long term control of territory, the depopulation of the border strip, and the creation of facts on the ground that will be extremely difficult to reverse.

Formally, the new phase of the war began on March 2, when Hezbollah opened fire on Israel following American and Israeli strikes on Iran and the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel responded with a broad air campaign against Lebanon and then expanded its ground operations in the south. At that point, the government of Nawaf Salam tried to distance itself from Hezbollah’s decision and took the unprecedented step of banning the movement’s military activity outside state institutions, demanding that its weapons be handed over to the state. This was an important sign of a shifting balance within Lebanon itself. Hezbollah can no longer act as though its armed autonomy is automatically accepted by the entire state. However, the move also revealed the other side of the crisis. Beirut is exerting political pressure on Hezbollah, but it has neither the resources nor the internal consensus to disarm it quickly without risking a deeper internal fracture.

A land grab by any other name

From a military point of view, Israel rapidly moved far beyond the boundaries of retaliatory strikes. By late March, Defense Minister Israel Katz had openly declared the intention to hold southern Lebanon up to the Litani as a security zone, nearly a tenth of Lebanese territory. This was followed by strikes on bridges, the destruction of homes in border villages, and evacuation orders for residents south of the river. Soon afterward, Israel was already constructing new fortifications and destroying increasingly empty villages, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was openly speaking of expanding the security strip. The Israeli military machine was no longer concealing the long-term nature of the operation. This was no raid. It was a project of territorial transformation under the military pretext of combating Hezbollah.

This is where the central political question emerges. For the Israeli right, southern Lebanon is increasingly becoming an ideologically charged space. The bluntest statement came from Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who said in late March that Israel’s new border should run along the Litani – the clearest call yet by a senior Israeli official for the seizure of Lebanese territory. True, at the current moment there is no officially approved government program for the construction of Jewish settlements in southern Lebanon in a formal cabinet document. Yet when a senior minister speaks of changing the border, while the army simultaneously burns out the border zone, destroys homes, and prepares for prolonged control of the territory, the analytical conclusion is already clear. This is occupation, from which the idea of future settlement expansion follows almost naturally. For the far right in Israel, that appears to be a desired outcome. The stated pretext is the struggle against Hezbollah. The real content is the consolidation of a new coercive order on the ground.

This is precisely why fears inside Lebanon are so acute. For Lebanese society, talk of a buffer zone is an echo of the long history of invasions and occupation in the south, which lasted until the year 2000. When Israel destroys bridges across the Litani and drives the population from their homes, it is in effect creating the conditions for a new prolonged presence. Even if Israeli rhetoric presents this merely as a security zone, the result for residents looks very much like a classical model of military control. That is why French President Emmanuel Macron has stressed the need to preserve Lebanon’s territorial integrity, while the United Nations has described such rhetoric as deeply alarming.

The bloodiest moment in this campaign came with the strikes of April 8. On that day, Israel carried out the heaviest air assault on Lebanon since the start of the March war. Israeli forces said they had struck more than one hundred Hezbollah targets in Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and the south of the country, with a large share of the blows falling on densely populated areas. According to the Lebanese Civil Defense, 254 people were killed and more than 1,100 were wounded. Lebanon’s Health Ministry gave a lower, though still horrific, figure at the time and stressed that the count was not yet complete. Reports described scenes in which people were carrying the wounded away on motorcycles because ambulances were overwhelmed after central Beirut was hit without prior warning. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called it a massacre that undermined any chance of a sustainable ceasefire.

The war did not stop there. On April 10, Israel struck Nabatieh, hitting a government building and killing 13 members of Lebanon’s state security services. This was an especially telling episode. Once not only Hezbollah strongholds but also state institutions and Lebanese security structures come under attack, the line between a war against an armed movement and a war against the Lebanese state itself begins to dissolve. At that point, Lebanese authorities were estimating that at least 1,953 people had been killed since March 2. Another 6,303 had been wounded. More than one million people had been displaced from their homes. Israeli evacuation orders covered roughly 15 percent of Lebanese territory.

Israel continues to justify these actions as necessary to push Hezbollah away from its border, deprive it of the capacity to fire on northern Israel, and create a depth barrier. Military officials and experts alike are speaking about Israel’s new ‘forever war’ doctrine – in which conflict is a semi-permanent condition and buffer zones are created not only in Lebanon but also in Gaza and Syria. This is a crucial – a strategy no longer built around the idea of definitively destroying Israel’s adversaries, but around their permanent weakening, displacement, and containment through the holding of territory.

Why Netanyahu is averse to peace

That is why, for Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition, the war has become not only an instrument of foreign policy but also a condition of domestic political survival. Netanyahu wants to avoid snap elections, which he would likely lose, and the war helps shift public attention away from failures and internal crises toward the language of national mobilization. Polling does not show any major political boost for him, yet the war still gave him something a ceasefire would not. It allowed him to preserve a security-centered agenda, delay opposition pressure, and postpone the moment of direct political reckoning. If the shooting stops, the uncomfortable questions will remain: Why was such vast destruction deemed necessary? Why were the stated goals not achieved? And what is to be done about the political erosion of Netanyahu himself?

Hezbollah under mounting pressure

At the same time, Hezbollah is in a difficult position of its own. On the one hand, it retains the capacity to strike back. Since early March, the group had launched hundreds of rockets and drones at Israel. In early April, a missile triggered air raid sirens in areas including Tel Aviv, while Hezbollah claimed strikes on Israeli military infrastructure in Haifa. After Israel’s massive assault on April 8, Hezbollah resumed rocket fire, saying it was responding to a violation of the ceasefire. At least four Israeli soldiers were killed in fighting in southern Lebanon by late March. This means that the Israeli offensive is meeting real resistance. There are confirmed losses among Israeli servicemen. As for losses in equipment, reports of damaged or destroyed Israeli armor and infrastructure often come from Hezbollah or other parties to the conflict and are not always independently verified in full detail. Still, the broader picture is clear. Even with Israel’s overwhelming superiority in the air and in firepower, this war is not a bloodless march. Hezbollah remains capable of inflicting damage and of preventing the south from being fully and safely absorbed by Israel.

On the other hand, pressure on Hezbollah today comes not only from Israel but also from within Lebanon. The government has banned its military activity. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun expressed his readiness for direct talks with Israel even at the start of the war, and by early April it had become known that a meeting between the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors was being prepared in Washington under American mediation.

Lebanon’s formal position is that a ceasefire must come first, with broader talks to follow. Yet the very fact that Beirut is entering such a framework reflects an unprecedented level of domestic rejection of Hezbollah’s armed autonomy and a profound exhaustion with war. At the same time, Hezbollah opposes direct negotiations with Israel and prefers a format in which the Lebanese question is treated within the broader framework of American-Iranian dialogue.

Lebanese officials close to Hezbollah appear to support the Pakistani track of US-Iran negotiations, considering it more appropriate than a separate Washington process. This is what makes Hezbollah’s current predicament so serious. It has to resist the Israeli offensive, withstand pressure from the Lebanese state, and prevent its future from being decided without it at external talks.

At this point, the Lebanese front connects directly with the Iranian one. In its negotiations with the US, Iran has insisted that any ceasefire must extend to Lebanon, not only to the direct US-Iran theater of war. The Iranian Foreign Ministry has stated that it is in contact with Lebanon to secure compliance with ceasefire commitments on all fronts. One of Iran’s central demands at the Islamabad talks was a ceasefire in Lebanon, alongside sanctions relief and the question of compensation for the strikes. In other words, Tehran does not view the Lebanese front as peripheral. For Iran, it is part of a single regional bargain involving both allied states and affiliated movements. In the Iranian view, the situation cannot truly be stabilized while Israel remains free to continue its war against Hezbollah and then apply the same model of pressure against other forces aligned with Tehran.

That is why Israel’s position that the ceasefire with Iran does not apply to Lebanon appears not as a technical reservation but as an attempt to preserve an exemption from any broader regional de-escalation. Netanyahu explicitly stated that Lebanon was not covered by the ceasefire with Iran, and on that same day Israel launched the most devastating strikes on Beirut of the entire March war. In effect, Israel is trying to secure the right to participate in negotiations over a new regional architecture while continuing at the same time to reshape neighboring spaces by force. This formula is convenient for Netanyahu’s government, but it almost guarantees a prolonged conflict. For Lebanon, it means negotiations under bombardment. For Hezbollah, it means the threat of gradual expulsion from the south. For Iran, it means that its allies are being methodically weakened at the very moment when it is expected to sit down at the negotiating table.

Against this background, it is especially important not to oversimplify. Yes, Hezbollah is weaker than it was in previous years. Reuters, citing sources familiar with the movement, reported that at least 400 of its fighters had been killed since the war began. Yes, its disarmament is now being discussed inside Lebanon as an element of state policy. Yes, the US is pressuring both Beirut and Israel to create a negotiating framework. But none of this means that Hezbollah has been broken or that the Israeli army has already achieved its goals. On the contrary, the very need to build a buffer zone, raze villages, and destroy bridges shows that Israel cannot obtain lasting security through an ordinary military raid. It wants to alter the geography of resistance itself. Projects of that kind almost always mean a long war, new waves of refugees, further radicalization, and an extremely high price for civilians.

The balance at the current moment looks like this. Israel is waging against Lebanon not simply a campaign of retaliation for Hezbollah fire, but an offensive that bears the clear features of a project for long-term control over southern Lebanon. Israeli right-wing politicians are speaking ever more openly about the territory up to the Litani as a desirable new frontier. For part of that camp, the idea of occupying the south and eventually extending Jewish settlement there no longer looks like a fringe fantasy but like a direction of travel that the war is making more tangible. Hezbollah is indeed under severe strain, because it is being squeezed by the Israeli army, the Lebanese state, and the logic of international negotiations all at once. Yet it continues to strike back and inflict losses on Israel, which means that a quick and clean victory for the IDF still does not appear to be within reach.

Iran, for its part, is trying to make an end to Israeli aggression against Lebanon and against other states and movements allied with Tehran part of the broader framework of its negotiations with Washington. And for Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition, war remains politically necessary, because without it the question of the price of their rule, the failures of their strategy, and their accountability to the electorate would return with full force. That is the most dangerous aspect of the current crisis. The war has long ceased to be only an instrument of security. For a significant part of Israel’s ruling establishment, it has also become a way of prolonging its own political time.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has raised its growth outlook for Russia, citing higher commodity prices, while warning that the Middle East war is weighing on the global economy. 

In its latest World Economic Outlook released on Tuesday, the IMF said Russia’s GDP is now expected to expand by 1.1% in 2026, marking an upward revision of 0.3 percentage points compared to its January estimate. The adjustment was driven by “higher commodity prices,” the report said, adding “the momentum” is expected to continue into 2027. Inflation is projected at 5.6% this year, down from 8.7% in 2025, and easing further to 4.3% in 2027.  

Russia’s Economic Development Ministry has offered a more optimistic outlook, estimating GDP growth at 1.3% in 2026 and 2.8% in 2027. 

The revised IMF forecast comes as global energy markets have come under renewed pressure due to the US-Israeli war on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory strikes across the region. The conflict has effectively choked flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a key route accounting for a significant part of global oil and gas supply. 

The now paused war in the Middle East is testing the resilience of the global economy. Growth is projected at 3.1% in 2026 & 3.2% in 2027, down from 3.4% in 2025. Without the war, global growth would have been revised upward. Read more: https://t.co/5xMUE4scWO pic.twitter.com/4t2XXinozk

— IMF (@IMFNews) April 14, 2026

The IMF warned that disruptions to oil supply and the damage to critical energy infrastructure raise the prospect of a “major energy crisis” if hostilities persist. Countries heavily dependent on energy imports are particularly “exposed,” it said. 

The fund has also cut its outlook for the euro area, saying the slowdown reflects the “negative impact of the Middle East conflict.” This adds to the “lingering effects” of higher energy prices since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, “dragging on manufacturing,” alongside pressure from the euro’s appreciation, the report said. 

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva warned last week that the conflict in the Middle East has delivered a major global energy supply “shock,” saying that world oil output has already fallen by 13%, with ripple effects across energy, commodities, and fertilizers.

BRICS member Indonesia has agreed to purchase crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from Russia, citing energy security concerns amid growing global supply disruptions, the Energy Ministry in Jakarta has said.

Indonesia’s crude purchases from Russia have historically been limited and irregular, with Jakarta sourcing roughly a quarter of its oil from the Middle East via the Strait of Hormuz, presently under US blockade.

Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed his Indonesian counterpart Prabowo Subianto for extended talks in the Kremlin on Monday and a meeting was held the next day between their respective energy ministers, Sergey Tsivilev and Bahlil Lahadalia.

Indonesia is also seeking to expand cooperation with Russia on long-term oil and LPG supplies, nuclear energy, and the minerals sector, the ministry said.

Russian crude could be shipped from Pacific ports in the country’s Far East, with tankers transiting the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca – routes already used to supply China and other Asian buyers. Russia redirected a significant share of its energy exports to Asia following sweeping EU and US sanctions that curtailed its access to Western markets.

Berlin and Kiev will coordinate efforts to return military-age Ukrainian men residing in Germany to their home country, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has announced following a meeting with Vladimir Zelensky.

As Ukrainian forces suffer mounting losses in the conflict with Russia and the pool of willing recruits continues to shrink, draft enforcement squads have increasingly turned to violent methods to fill the ranks in recent months. Men are being snatched off the streets, from workplaces and residential areas, as evidenced by hundreds of videos circulating online.

The heavy-handed tactics employed by Ukrainian press gangs have led to a rise in violent confrontations with unwilling recruits, their families, and passersby, with multiple recruits and draft enforcement officers being injured or even killed.

Speaking at a joint press conference with Zelensky in Berlin on Tuesday, Merz reiterated the German government’s “support for Ukraine’s efforts to reduce the number of Ukrainian men of military age leaving [their home] country.” According to the German chancellor, “this is essential to ensuring Ukraine’s defense capabilities, social cohesion, and reconstruction.”

Zelensky concurred that the issue “must be addressed,” adding that “of course, our armed forces would want these people to return to Ukraine.”

In January, Merz similarly called on Ukraine to create conditions that would encourage its young men to remain in the country rather than flee to Western Europe.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Germany became the top destination for Ukrainian migrants in the EU, taking in more than a million people, according to the Federal Statistical Office.

Some Ukrainian officials have acknowledged escalating public discontent with the forced mobilization campaign.

According to Vadim Ivchenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament’s national security committee, only around 8-10% of new personnel entering the armed forces are willing recruits.

Moscow has repeatedly accused Kiev’s Western backers of waging a proxy war against Russia “to the last Ukrainian.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in China on Tuesday for a two-day official visit, where he held extended talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi.

The foreign ministers were to focus on a “number of high-priority and regional issues,” including the situation in the Middle East and the Ukraine crisis, according to Moscow. The discussions will also focus on joint work within the UN, BRICS, the SCO, the G20, APEC, and “other multilateral mechanisms and forums.” 

West seeking to ‘contain’ Beijing and Moscow  

The very foundation of the international relations system has been “severely tested” lately, the Russian and Chinese top diplomats said ahead of the closed-door part of their meeting. Recent events in “Latin America, Venezuela, and what’s happening now in the Middle East” are a testament to the current challenges, which largely stem from the actions of the West, Lavrov stated.

The eastern part of the Eurasian continent is facing similar “dangerous games” around Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the Korean Peninsula, the top Russian diplomat suggested. Foreign hostile actors are trying to create “small-geometry, block-like structures in order to contain both the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation,” he stressed. 

Russia and China on the Middle East crisis

Beijing, a top importer of oil from the region, has slammed the US blockade on the shipping exiting the Strait of Hormuz as a “dangerous and irresponsible act” that risks undermining the “already fragile ceasefire situation” in the region.  

Lavrov’s trip also coincides with the visit of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, hosted by President Xi Jinping in Beijing. The Spanish prime minister is one of the few, if not the only Western leader to firmly oppose US-Israeli aggression against Iran.

Xi noted that “despite the changing and turbulent international landscape, China-Spain relations have developed steadily, forging a relationship with strategic resolve,” praising both China and Spain as “countries that value principle and justice,” the Foreign Ministry in Beijing said in a statement.  

Planning a Putin-Xi summit 

The top Russian and Chinese diplomats also signed off on a contacts roadmap between their respective ministries for 2026, perceived as a preparatory step for the potential visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin, expected to take place later this year.  

The Russian foreign minister appeared to hint at the upcoming presidential visit during his opening remarks at the meeting with Wang. 

“I have no doubt that this year we will have further opportunities to communicate and thereby prepare additional solutions for future contacts between our leaders. These contacts are already planned. We will discuss them in detail today,” Lavrov said.

US President Donald Trump is once again at odds with the Vatican, this time hurling personal attacks and wild insults at Pope Leo XIV.

Conflicts between the White House and the Vatican, however, are nothing new. From John Paul II’s open defiance of George W. Bush over the Iraq war to heated exchanges between Pope Francis and Trump over migration, pontiffs have rarely shied away from public clashes with the man in the Oval Office.

With over 60 million adherents in the United States alone, the Roman Catholic Church represents America’s largest single religious denomination, accounting for roughly 20% of the adult population. Pope Leo XIV, the first pontiff to have been born in the US, is viewed favorably by 84% of the nation’s Catholics.

Here’s a look at the most prominent spats over the past decades.

Trump vs Leo XIV: ‘WEAK on crime’ and an AI ‘Jesus’

2026: Pope Leo XIV publicly criticized the US‑Israeli war on Iran, calling Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization “truly unacceptable” and stating that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.”

“I don’t think he’s doing a very good job,” Trump told reporters, adding that he does not “want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States.”

The feud further escalated when Trump posted an AI‑generated image of himself as a Jesus‑like figure, robed in white, healing a sick man while surrounded by fighter jets and US flags. The post provoked accusations of blasphemy, with even some conservative allies condemning it. Former Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene called it “an Antichrist spirit.” 

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, usually a close Trump ally, issued a rare rebuke, calling Trump’s attack on Pope Leo “unacceptable.” The US Conference of Catholic Bishops also said it was “disheartened” by the president’s “disparaging words about the Holy Father.”

The scandal has also seen critics bring up the fact that Trump did not place his hand on the Bible while taking the oath of office for his second term. The tradition has long been followed by US leaders, including Trump during his first inauguration in 2017.

Trump vs Francis: Walls and migration

2016: Before Leo, Trump also had a public feud with Pope Francis, the soccer-loving Argentinian known for washing the feet of others. During the US presidential campaign, Francis commented on Trump’s pledge to build a wall on the US‑Mexico border by stating that “a person who thinks only about building walls … and not building bridges, is not Christian.”

Trump shot back that it was “disgraceful” for a religious leader to question a person’s faith. The clash continued into Trump’s first presidency, with Francis criticizing the administration’s mass deportation plans.

Obama vs Francis: Contraception and US spying

2009: Barack Obama, a Protestant, had a thorny relationship with the Vatican from the start, particularly over abortion and religious freedom. The Holy See reportedly rejected his choices for ambassador, whom it deemed “insufficiently pro‑life.” 

The 2011 termination of a multi-million-dollar contract with US bishops over contraception referrals further soured ties.

In 2012, the US State Department placed the Vatican on its money‑laundering watchlist for the first time, classifying the Holy See as a “jurisdiction of concern.” Many Catholics saw it as an attack on the Church.

In 2013, a major scandal also erupted when reports emerged that the National Security Agency (NSA) had monitored phone calls made by cardinals and bishops that elected Pope Francis, an Argentinian, leading to allegations that Washington was spying on the Holy See.

Bush vs. John Paul II: Iraq war and God’s will

2003: One of the most serious holy censures involved US President George W. Bush, a Methodist, and the Polish Pope John Paul II, who openly opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The pontiff described the war as “a defeat for humanity” and expressed deep regret that he was unable to stop it. 

In 2003, the Pope sent Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to the White House with a letter urging the president not to invade. According to a source, Bush put the letter aside without opening it and told the cardinal he was “convinced it was God’s will” to go to war. 

When Bush visited the Vatican in 2004, John Paul II used the occasion to reiterate his opposition to the war, prompting the then so-called ‘leader of the free world’ to leave the meeting without the usual photo op of a gift exchange.

Clinton vs John Paul II: Abortion and contraception

1990’s: The administration of then-US President Bill Clinton, a Southern Baptist, repeatedly clashed with John Paul II over abortion and contraception.

At a 1993 meeting in Denver, Colorado, the Pope publicly rebuked Clinton for his support of abortion rights. The debate reached a peak at the 1994 UN population conference in Cairo, where the Vatican lobbied against language that could be interpreted as endorsing abortion.

The Pope’s 1999 visit to St. Louis, where he was welcomed by Bill and Hillary Clinton, was also overshadowed by his eloquent defense of the unborn and his repeated calls for a “culture of life.”

A Republican member of US House of Representatives has called for rapists to be hanged, but insisted he wasn’t talking about fellow Congressmen who resigned over allegations of sexual misconduct.

Democrat Eric Swalwell and Republican Tony Gonzalez announced on Monday they will step down from Congress following reported accusations by former staffers.

“Rapists should be hung, period. No questions,” Andy Ogles told influencer Benny Johnson when asked about the allegations against Swalwell, insisting, however, that he wasn’t talking about the California Democrat.

“I don’t want the Secret Service to come, I’m not talking about Eric Swalwell, I’m not threatening a member of Congress,” he added.

Last week, media reports detailed accusations of sexual assault by a former aide against Swalwell and cited three women who accused the lawmaker of separate instances of sexual misconduct. Swalwell, first elected to Congress in 2013, denied the allegations, claiming they were part of an effort to derail his campaign.

“They are absolutely false. They did not happen,” Swalwell said in a video on X on Friday, posting later that he was “deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past.”

Amid the fallout, former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said on Monday she believed misconduct in Congress was more widespread than publicly known.

“It’s a lot more prevalent. I think there’s more members of Congress that are guilty of things similar to Congressman Swalwell and Congressman Gonzales, and we just haven’t seen them, basically, get caught,” Greene, who left Congress in January, told CNN.

Greene also suggested the resignations may have followed private discussions between House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat, describing it as a possible “one-for-one” arrangement.

The “global majority” must resist US and EU attempts to use observers to interfere in elections around the world, Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has urged.

Lavrov made the statement in a video address to the participants of the International Research and Practice Conference on Ensuring the Observation and Expert Assessment of Electoral Processes, which took place in Moscow on Tuesday.

The event, organized by the Center for International Interaction and Cooperation, brought together some 150 public figures, MPs, academics and experts from 60 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America to address Western electoral influence.  It was held with the support of the Presidential Grants Foundation and Russia’s cultural exchange agency, Rossotrudnichestvo.

Lavrov said that the West is meddling in the internal affairs of other nations not only through staging so-called ‘Color Revolutions’ or using force directly, but also through what he described as “electoral neocolonialism.”

“Russia cannot and will not support the continuation of such practices… Together with like-minded partners, we advocate for criteria that would allow for an unbiased assessment of electoral processes in the countries of the Global South and East,” the foreign minister said.

The conference in the Russian capital has launched the process of creating the first global independent international non-governmental association in the field of electoral and political monitoring, the organizers of the event said.

The new body aims to organize monitoring missions to objectively assess the openness and legitimacy of voting in various countries, while promoting non-interference approach in the electoral processes, they added.

Israel is using the rare prosecution of a single settler over the 2025 killing of Palestinian activist Awdah Hathaleen as propaganda to project itself as the Middle East’s only democracy, Oscar-winning filmmaker Basel Adra has told RT’s correspondent Charlotte Dubinsky.

Hathaleen, who was killed in his village last July, contributed to Adra’s film No Other Land, which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature last year. The incident, captured on video, drew international attention. The suspect, Israeli settler Yinon Levi, was initially detained and then released before being charged in February with reckless homicide. Critics say the delayed prosecution highlights a broader lack of accountability in cases when Israelis are accused of killing Palestinians.

Here’s Charlotte Dubinsky’s report:

The captain of one of the civilian vessels stranded in the Persian Gulf has told RT in an exclusive interview that his crew has been languishing in uncertainty for over a month as the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed to navigation.

Around 25% of the world’s seaborne oil trade passed through the strategically important waterway before the start of the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran in late February, according to the International Energy Agency.

Over the weekend, US President Donald Trump announced that the US Navy would “begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz” following the failed talks with Iranian representatives in Islamabad. The US Department of War later clarified that the measure would apply to all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports, starting from April 13.

The captain, who declined to disclose his ship’s name and exact location due to security concerns, described to RT how his crew has been suffering from anxiety for weeks, “thinking about their family.”

All this time the crew has been awaiting notification from the company that operates the vessel as to “when to move out from here, where to move out,” he explained.

“The uncertainty is really killing all of us,” the captain said, adding that the crew is feeling “helpless.”

Kapoor told RT that the situation is further compounded by the fact that “two different entities [Iran and the US] are blocking” the strait, and “keep changing the statements” as to the extent of the blockade.

“Please listen to our voice - we are just seafarers, we are not soldiers… we keep the world moving,” Kapoor added in an emotional entreaty to all parties to the conflict.

“We pray that… good sense will prevail,” the captain concluded.

The US has tightened its grip on energy exports from the Persian Gulf with a new naval blockade on Iranian supplies, risking fresh shocks to already fragile global markets.

The move appears intended to increase pressure on Tehran following unsuccessful efforts to secure a diplomatic off-ramp after the US-Israeli bombing campaign stalled. However, it has left American allies uncertain and drawn a pointed response from China, which has issued veiled warnings regarding US naval activity.

Why is the US blocking shipping from the Middle East?

US Central Command announced a blockade targeting vessels traveling to and from Iranian ports in both the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, effective Monday. The restrictions, it said, “will be enforced impartially against vessels of all nations,” though further operational details remain unclear.

President Donald Trump described the measure as an effort to stop “any and all ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz” — the vital corridor linking the two bodies of water and a cornerstone of global energy trade.

Iran had retaliated to the US-Israeli strikes in late February by effectively restricting transit through the strait, blocking shipments tied to what it considers “unfriendly” nations, imposing tolls on vessels from “neutral” countries, and allowing free passage for “friendly” ones.

While US officials accused Tehran of violating freedom of navigation, Trump suggested Washington could impose its own tolling system. Earlier in the conflict, US sanctions on Iranian oil had been relaxed to cushion global markets. The new blockade reverses that approach, reinforcing economic warfare on Iran while further undercutting supply for import-dependent economies.

What does Iran seek by blocking the Strait of Hormuz?

Tehran’s broader war strategy combines resilience under bombing with escalating economic costs for the US and its allies. In addition to restricting maritime traffic, Iranian forces have targeted American military bases in Arab states and key energy infrastructure, including refineries, gas liquification facilities, and a Saudi pipeline enabling crude exports to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

You know what!!
Iran will block the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.💥😂 pic.twitter.com/G0CYVBfFvX

— Iran Consulate - Hyderabad (@IraninHyderabad) April 13, 2026

Iran’s payment system is designed to weaken US financial leverage, demanding settlement in yuan or cryptocurrencies. Iran, Russia, and other sanctioned states have been building infrastructure to circumvent Western-controlled financial channels for many years. Tehran views continued control of Hormuz as a way to compensate for damages inflicted on Iran.

As US Vice President J.D. Vance put it: “What we have given here is a ceasefire. We stopped bombing the country. What we expect the Iranians to give up is a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.”

What was the immediate effect on oil trade?

Brent crude rose above $100 per barrel following Trump’s initial announcement of the blockade before dipping back under the psychologically important threshold.

Shipping companies and energy traders are now “scrambling to understand the fine print” of the US measures, according to Bloomberg, with many reportedly pausing operations until enforcement mechanisms become clearer.

Waiting for the EU and China to get in on the blockade action pic.twitter.com/OLaXVJL5Kc

— Marc Owen Jones (@marcowenjones) April 12, 2026

However several tankers previously linked to Iranian oil transport – including at least one owned by a Chinese firm – have continued transiting the Strait of Hormuz, potentially setting up an early test of US resolve as soon as Tuesday. However , no vessels with active transponders have reportedly exited the Gulf of Oman since the blockade took effect.

What was China’s reaction?

Trump has argued that as a major oil exporter the US stands to benefit from additional sales and is not as interested in an open Strait of Hormuz as China. Beijing has blasted the US blockade, signaling its intent to maintain energy cooperation with Iran.

"A ship tracking firm reports 121 empty oil tankers are making their way to the United States... President Trump has urged countries squeezed by Iran's disruption of the Strait of Hormuz to turn to American energy supplies instead." pic.twitter.com/1UBqybljJx

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 13, 2026

”Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz,” Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun said on Monday. “We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others not to meddle in our affairs. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and it is open for us.”

Last week, Russia used a military escort to protect its oil exports passing through the English Channel, in what some British media called a humiliation for London. China likewise has the capability to escort tankers if necessary.

“Unless the US wants to start a war with China – when it cannot even handle a war with Iran – that’s a choice for them to make,” popular political commentator Carl Zha told RT. “I don’t think even the Donald Trump administration would be that foolish.”

What are US allies saying?

The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has expressed confusion over the blockade, saying: “It’s not entirely clear what is the action by the US.” She added that Brussels seeks a return to pre-conflict conditions without restrictions imposed by either side.

Israel, meanwhile, has endorsed the US move. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Washington and West Jerusalem remain “in constant coordination,” dismissing speculation of any rift with the US.

What is Russia saying?

The Kremlin has declined to offer detailed commentary, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov citing a lack of clarity about how the blockade will be implemented. Moscow assumes that the impact on global markets will be negative.

Previously criticizing the Trump administration’s foreign policy, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the Americans “want to take control of all the routes” for global energy trade.

Beijing reportedly worked behind closed doors to push the US and Iran towards the ceasefire. However, Russian analysts question whether the blockade would affect the Chinese approach to the crisis.

Is this just Trump being Trump?

Trump is widely criticized for injecting further instability into international relations through his confrontational approach, particularly toward Iran. His record includes the 2020 killing of General Qasem Soleimani and support for Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure last year.

At the same time, US heavily-armed support for global freedom of navigation has long been viewed as self-serving, not unlike the British Empire’s in the 19th century. London crushed Imperial China by force to secure the Chinese market for opium trade that Beijing sought to prohibit.

Trump’s naval blockades of Venezuela, Cuba, and now Iran are just expanding long-standing policies aimed at denying trading opportunities to nations America seeks to suppress.

There is rarely a day when US President Donald Trump does not command attention on social media, with posts ranging from attacks on public figures to sweeping claims about his own achievements. The same tone has carried into his handling of the war on Iran, where he has repeatedly insisted that US actions have weakened Tehran and decisively shifted the conflict in Washington’s favor.

Those assertions have come under closer scrutiny after Trump announced a US naval blockade of Iranian ports following the collapse of talks on Sunday, warning that any vessel attempting to challenge it would be destroyed.

Yet the reality on the ground appears far less clear: Iran has threatened retaliation, the practicality of enforcing such a blockade remains uncertain, and key allies have shown limited willingness to take part. The contrast underscores a widening gap between Trump’s narrative of progress and a conflict that continues to escalate without a clear resolution.

Watch a report by RT correspondent Marina Kosareva below:

Last week Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most highly decorated war hero, was arrested by federal police and charged with having committed war crimes in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.

Roberts-Smith has been charged with being complicit in the murder of five unarmed Afghan civilians – allegedly killing two himself and ordering soldiers under his command to kill the other three (a practice apparently known in the military as “blooding the rookie”).

The charges have been brought under the war crimes provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, and if found guilty, Roberts-Smith could be sentenced to life imprisonment for each charge.

This is the latest installment in the almost decade-long Roberts-Smith saga, that has forever tarnished the reputation of the Australian military.

Roberts-Smith, the privileged son of a Western Australian judge, had a distinguished military career. He served with Australian forces in Iraq and East Timor before undertaking multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan where his undisputed bravery under fire won him the Victoria Cross, Australia’s highest military award for valor.

The young 6-foot-7 Adonis-like war hero, with an attractive wife and two children, became a celebrity overnight and a poster boy for the Australian armed forces – something that the military top brass no doubt now ruefully regret.

After leaving the army in 2013, he became the manager of a television station for right-wing West Australian billionaire and media mogul Kerry Stokes – who was addicted to collecting military memorabilia and was a board member of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.  The War Memorial, unsurprisingly, created a lavish display celebrating Roberts-Smith’s heroic exploits in Afghanistan.

Roberts-Smith’s spectacular fall from grace commenced in 2018, when Nine Network media published a series of articles alleging that Australian soldiers, including Roberts-Smith, had committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

Had it not been for these articles the war crimes allegedly committed by Australian military forces in Afghanistan would never have been disclosed to the public – although they were widely known within military circles, especially by soldiers who had disapproved of these atrocities.

The articles sued on accused Roberts-Smith of having murdered unarmed Afghan civilians – allegations that he denied. The media defendants raised a plea of truth and led evidence from Afghan witnesses and Australian soldiers who had witnessed the relevant events to support the truth defense.

The trial, interrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic concluded in 2023, with the trial judge finding – on the civil ‘balance of probabilities’ onus of proof – that the key allegations made against Roberts-Smith were true. He found that Roberts-Smith had been complicit in the murder of unarmed Afghan civilians.

A subsequent appeal by the war hero failed, as did an application for leave to the High Court.

Kerry Stokes picked up the tab for Roberts-Smith’s and the Nine Network’s legal costs, which amounted to some $40 million – but the war hero’s reputation was destroyed, and with it that of the Australian military. The Australian War Memorial was compelled to append an explanatory note to its prominent Roberts-Smith display.

The trial judge disbelieved Roberts-Smith’s testimony, and the evidence led at trial disclosed that, as well as having killed unarmed civilians, he was also an adulterer and had bullied and threatened his fellow soldiers.

Stokes accepted Roberts-Smith’s resignation, but continued to publicly defend him – as did right-wing Western Australian billionaire, mining magnate and close friend of Donald Trump, Gina Rinehart.

Not since Oscar Wilde’s ill-fated litigation in the 1890s had a libel action ended so disastrously for a plaintiff – and, just like the unfortunate Wilde, Roberts-Smith now finds himself having to defend criminal charges based squarely upon the evidence revealed in the defamation case that he himself had so unwisely initiated. Hubris begat Nemesis – for both Wilde and Roberts-Smith.

It is by no means certain that Roberts-Smith will be found guilty of the criminal charges brought against him this week. The evidence led at his defamation trial is inadmissible, and his guilt or innocence will be decided on the basis of the more onerous ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ criminal onus of proof.

The events in question took place almost twenty years ago in far away Afghanistan, and there is little or no forensic evidence as to what occurred. Not all of the witnesses who testified against Roberts-Smith in his defamation action will be available for his criminal trial, and those soldiers who were complicit in what occurred will be reluctant to testify in criminal proceedings.

Whatever the outcome, it is already apparent that Roberts-Smith’s criminal trial will be a divisive ‘culture wars’ spectacle on a grand scale – as indeed was his defamation case.

Politicians from both ends of the political spectrum have already taken up entrenched public positions in respect of Roberts-Smith and his forthcoming trial.

Greens Senator David Shoebridge welcomed Roberts-Smith being charged saying that “being a decorated soldier was not meant to be legal protection from complicity in war crimes.”

Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and newly appointed mainstream conservative Liberal leader Angus Taylor declined to comment – perhaps because anything they said would have sat oddly with their continuing support for the Benjamin Netanyahu regime’s war in Gaza and Donald Trump’s war in Iran.

Right-wing political figures, however, have predictably condemned the laying of charges and been effusive in their support for Roberts-Smith.

Former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard – who sent Australian troops to Afghanistan at the behest of George W. Bush – said that the war hero’s arrest “will tug at the heart strings of millions of Australians” and described Roberts-Smith as “the modern personification of the great Anzac tradition.” This will surprise most Australians, who were not aware until now that the Anzacs were in the habit of regularly shooting unarmed civilians at Anzac Cove.

Another former Liberal prime minister, Tony Abbott, opined that “it is wrong to judge the actions of men in mortal combat by the standards of ordinary civilian life” – a comment that ignores the fact that Roberts-Smith’s actions were found by the defamation trial judge to have breached the moral and legal rules of military engagement and amounted to war crimes.

Abbott has also urged the Albanese government to immediately send troops to Iran to support Donald Trump’s mission to “destroy the Iranian war machine” because, in his view, that is what the Australian military exists for.

Abbott’s irrational right-wing views (he was memorably deposed as prime minister after 18 months by the moderate wing of his own party) explain why the mainstream conservative Liberal party – still much influenced by Abbott – is no longer a viable political force in Australia.

It was Pauline Hanson, however, the leader of the populist right-wing One Nation party – funded and backed by Gina Rinehart – who was the most strident defender of Roberts-Smith.

Basking in the glow of her party’s recent dramatic surge in popularity – One Nation is now attracting 30% of voters and has displaced the mainstream conservative Liberal/National party coalition as the most popular opposition party to Labor – Hanson described Roberts-Smith’s arrest as “an absolute set up” and declared her unwavering support for him.

Roberts-Smith’s arrest has made it perfectly clear that right-wing politicians and their financial backers in Australia are so deranged that they continue to  support failed Trumpian policies – for which Roberts-Smith has become a potent symbol – that even Trump himself is backing away from as a result of adverse public opinion in America, including elements of his own previously rusted-on MAGA base.

In any event, the fact that Roberts-Smith has been charged with five counts of war crimes comes as no surprise – the charges were virtually inevitable given the damaging findings made against him in his defamation action and his celebrity status as a war hero and right-wing culture warrior. Thus it is no surprise that his case has already become an emotionally charged and politically divisive culture-war free-for-all.

All ‘culture wars’ debates mask underlying issues of importance that they obfuscate and leave utterly unresolved – and the Roberts-Smith saga is no exception.

Roberts-Smith’s personal guilt or innocence in respect of the charges laid against him this week will be determined at his criminal trial. But his conduct in Afghanistan is symptomatic of wider issues that the Australian military and right-wing politicians remain unwilling to face – namely how many war crimes Australian troops committed in Afghanistan and whether these war crimes were condoned, either implicitly or explicitly, by the upper echelon military officers who were ultimately responsible for conducting military operations in Afghanistan.

Since the Nine Network published its articles about the conduct of Australian troops in Afghanistan in 2018, various inquiries have focused exclusively on the actions of ground troops actually engaged in combat, and the conduct of the Australian military commanders has been pointedly excluded from scrutiny.

It is all very well to lay charges against patrol commanders like Roberts-Smith and punish them if they are found guilty – but this should not obscure the need for a comprehensive examination of Australia’s ill-advised military engagement in Afghanistan that scrutinizes the conduct of upper echelon commanders who were ultimately responsible for overseeing that engagement.

Rather than engage in an examination of that kind, however, Australian politicians, of whatever stripe, will no doubt be content to wage ongoing, bitter, and pointless culture wars over Roberts-Smith’s fate, whatever that may ultimately be.

To war-mongering reactionary right wing politicians and their financial backers Roberts-Smith remains a war hero. To the Greens and the radical left he is a murderer of innocent civilians. To the Albanese Labor government and the now politically irrelevant Liberal party he is something of a temporary embarrassment, but nevertheless a useful figure.

Indeed, in contemporary Australia, what better subject for a culture war could there be? If Ben Roberts-Smith did not exist, Australian politicians – from both ends of the political spectrum – would probably have had to invent him.

South Africa’s government has accused Elon Musk of spreading lies and disinformation and showing no respect for the country’s laws after the tech billionaire renewed claims that white farmers were being persecuted there.

Musk, who was born in Pretoria, retweeted a video on Monday showing a long line of crosses at what was purported to be a burial site, with a caption claiming “each cross represents a white farmer who was murdered in South Africa.”

In response, Vincent Magwenya, spokesperson for South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, told the SpaceX and Tesla owner to “move on,” as the relationship he is “forcefully seeking” will not happen due to his disregard for the country’s “transformation laws.”

Musk’s criticism of South Africa has also centered around Pretoria’s Black Economic Empowerment laws, which he claims are discriminatory and have prevented his company, Starlink, from operating in the country.

“South Africa won’t allow Starlink to be licensed, even though I was BORN THERE, simply because I am not Black!” he wrote earlier on Sunday.

Magwenya responded to that comment saying “there are currently 193 member states in the United Nations. Surely, there's good money to be made out of 192 markets. It's okay to move on!”

There are currently 193 member states in the United Nations. Surely, there's good money to be made out of 192 markets. It's okay to move on! https://t.co/eLSl0Bp52c

— Vincent Magwenya 🇿🇦 (@SpokespersonRSA) April 12, 2026

The dispute over the land reform policy and a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice over its military’s conduct in Gaza have strained relations between Pretoria and Washington, with Trump freezing US assistance to South Africa.

Pretoria denies these allegations, calling them misinformation, and has defended its land reform as part of broader efforts to address apartheid-era disparities in land ownership.

Flooding in Angola has shut down the Lobito Railway Corridor, a route for mineral exports from central Africa to global markets, Reuters reported on Sunday, citing operator Lobito Atlantic Railway (LAR).

The Lobito Corridor is a strategic rail network linking Angola’s Atlantic port of Lobito with mineral-rich regions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia. The corridor has been partly operational since 2022, with existing rail infrastructure in Angola already in use, while additional cross-border links are still under development. It is designed to provide an export route for copper and cobalt used in global industries.

Heavy rains submerged bridges over the Halo River between the Cubal and Caimbambo stations, as well as a bridge over the Cavaco River near Benguela, the company said.

“As a result, rail traffic on the affected sections is suspended indefinitely,” LAR said, as quoted by Reuters. No timeline for repairs has yet been announced.

Flooding has also caused a humanitarian crisis. At least 39 people have died in Luanda and Benguela provinces, and more than 51,000 people have been affected, according to emergency services cited by BBC. 

A road bridge pillar collapse on the Halo River has also disrupted transport between Benguela and Huambo.

Angolan President Joao Lourenco is expected to travel to Benguela province to assess the situation on the ground following the recent flooding, according to a statement from the presidency. 

Rainfall that began in late 2025 has resulted in widespread flooding across parts of southern Africa, overwhelming drainage systems and causing rivers and dams to surge beyond capacity. In South Africa, prolonged downpours have inundated Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces, killing at least 30 people. 

Wage hike protests by factory workers in a town bordering New Delhi turned violent on Monday, forcing police to use force to disperse the angry mob.

The demonstrations in Noida in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh are against rising living costs amid the US-Israeli war with Iran. Workers are also demanding a wage hike following the implementation of a 35% raise for workers in a neighboring state, reports said.

Noida is a large township housing ⁠thousands of industrial units.

Sporadic protests began after news of the recent decision by the government of neighboring Haryana state to increase wages, Moneycontrol reported.

The trigger for the outbreak of violence was a rumor that a similar demand by workers in Nodia for a wage hike had been rejected by the authorities, the report said.

An angry mob then torched vehicles and pelted stones in many areas of the city, forcing the police to use force to disperse them.

Television footage showed protesters marching and chanting slogans as anti-riot personnel watched.

Reports said over 150 vehicles were damaged and more than 50 set ablaze as officers were pelted with stones. At least 30 people were reportedly injured.

Local police said more than 300 people have been arrested, adding that many were not industrial workers. Around 50 social media accounts are being investigated for spreading misinformation.

Losses to industrial units have been pegged at $321 million. Some reports also cited political interference as a probable reason behind the protests, but also noted that economic grievances and wage disparities could have triggered discontent. 

Assembly elections are slated to be held in Uttar Pradesh early next year. The state government has increased minimum wages by up to $32 after a meeting with workers’ representatives.

Separate protests by domestic household workers were also reported in Noida on Tuesday.

The US‑Israeli war on Iran and the recently announced ceasefire have exposed a fundamental clash of political interests between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to former acting Israeli President Avraham Burg.

In an exclusive interview with Afshin Rattansi’s show ‘Going Underground’ on RT, Burg explained that Trump had an interest in ending the conflict before it had an impact on the midterm elections in the US. “It should have been a very short exercise,” Burg said. 

Netanyahu, on the other hand, “has to extend it as long as possible because he wants to go into elections in a state of war” according to Burg, who noted that “Israelis, when there is a state of war, usually rally around the flag of the government.” The next legislative election in Israel is set for late October.

Burg also dismissed the idea that the war was an existential necessity for Israel. “Iran was not an existential threat to Israel. It was a real problem that could have been dealt with by diplomacy, by agreements, by different equilibrium and balances.” He also rejected speculation that Netanyahu would use nuclear weapons to stay in power, calling it unthinkable.

On the ceasefire, Burg described Trump’s unilateral move as a “divorce” from Israel, concluding that the only clear winner from the conflict was Iran, which “got hit very strong but survived, and therefore it won.”

Check out the full episode of Going Underground, which airs exclusively on RT.

The US has achieved its objectives in Iran, Vice President J.D. Vance has claimed, adding Washington could begin winding down its military operation against the Islamic Republic.

In a Fox News interview on Monday, after US negotiators left talks in Pakistan without securing an agreement to end the conflict, Vance said Washington had made “a lot of progress” in the negotiations, adding that “the ball is in Iran’s court” on whether to move forward.

“I do think that we’re in a place where we’ve accomplished our objectives. We can start to wind this thing down. I’d much rather wind this thing down with a big successful negotiation,” he said.

According to Vance the talks at the weekend in Islamabad “did make some progress,” particularly on US demands for the removal of nuclear material from Iran and measures to prevent future uranium enrichment. “They moved in our direction,” he claimed.

“Whether we have further conversations, whether we ultimately get to a deal, I really think the ball is in the Iranian court,” Vance said.

He added that if US “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear program are met, “then this can be a very, very good deal for both countries.”

The comments came hours after the US began blocking ships at Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz, a move President Donald Trump said was meant to force Tehran back to talks and reopen the vital oil artery, the disruption of which has sent energy prices skyrocketing.

“When they need it, they should accept both the conditions and the prerequisites. If they don’t, we’ll do our work and go our own way. Nothing will change,” he insisted.

Tehran remains deeply skeptical of Washington’s intentions, even after ceasefire-related preconditions were discussed, Azizi said. “We simply do not trust them,” he added, questioning whether a country that “elevates arrogance and colonialism to a guiding principle” can be relied on to honor its commitments.

The time has come for the EU to remove individual member states’ veto power on the bloc’s foreign policy decisions, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has insisted.

Von der Leyen issued the call less than 24 hours after her long-time opponent, former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, lost power in a general election to the pro-EU Tisza party led by Peter Magyar.

Orban, who is a staunch critic of Brussels, used the unanimity requirement to stall numerous EU policies during his time in office. In recent months, Budapest has been vetoing the bloc’s €90 billion ($105 billion) emergency loan for Ukraine, citing Kiev’s reluctance to resume supply of Russian oil to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline.

Von der Leyen insisted on Monday that “moving to qualified majority voting in foreign policy is an important way to avoid systemic blockages, as we have seen in the past.”

The European Commission head has long been trying to force through a series of fundamental changes to EU rules in order to create a two-tier bloc, into which Ukraine could be integrated despite not meeting the usual requirement for member states.

Von der Leyen welcomed Magyar’s victory, saying that Brussels will engage with his government “from day one.”

“There is much work to be done as Hungary returns to the European path,” she cautioned.

According to Von der Leyen, the mindset of the commission regarding Magyar is “let’s double down on him. If they deliver, we deliver.”

Brussels is currently withholding €35 billion in EU funds for Hungary over disagreement with Orban on Ukraine, migration, LGBTQ rights, and other issues.

EU diplomats told the Financial Times that the bloc expects Magyar to unblock the €90 billion loan to Kiev and reverse some of his predecessor’s key policies in order to mend ties between Budapest and Brussels.

The Tisza party leader said on Monday he is not intending to veto funds for Kiev, but added that Budapest will not participate in the EU loan due to financial difficulties.

Magyar also criticized the idea of accelerated Ukrainian accession to the EU, while insisting on continuing energy cooperation with Russia. Hungary “will procure crude oil and gas in the cheapest and safest way possible,” he explained.

Islamist fighters have attacked a Nigerian Army base near the border with Chad, leaving seven troops dead, including a commanding officer, Reuters has reported, citing military sources.

The raid on Sunday targeted the 242 Battalion facility in Monguno, Borno State, where at least 12 militants were reportedly killed in the ensuing clash. The attackers, who arrived on motorbikes, were said to belong to Boko Haram and its breakaway faction, Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).

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

According to Reuters, citing anonymous military sources, the base commander, who was close to retirement, was among those killed on Sunday. Six soldiers reportedly died when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device as they attempted to reinforce the position during the assault.

Earlier, a string of suspected suicide bombings rocked Maiduguri, the capital of Borno State, killing at least 23 people and injuring 108 others. Police said the blasts hit a market, the gate of the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital, and the city’s post office area in March.

India is looking for a tanker to load a cooking gas consignment from Russia amid the supply disruptions caused by the Middle East crisis, Reuters has reported.

State-backed Hindustan Petroleum Corp (HPCL) has issued a rare tender seeking a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) tanker, the news agency reported on Monday.

The vessel is needed to immediately load propane and butane from Ust-Luga port in Russia, according to the report.

The HPCL tender seen by Reuters said the vessel is to be loaded with 12,000 metric tons of butane and 8,000 tons of propane, to be unloaded on India’s west coast. It must not be under sanctions and must have ⁠no links ‌to Iran, according to the document.

New Delhi’s move comes amid a severe shortage of cooking gas supplies due to the disruption caused by the US-Israeli war with Iran.

Indian refiners are looking for any sources of LPG, used as cooking gas, including from Russia. The South Asian nation is facing its worst supply disruption in decades.

Officials have ⁠said LPG purchases are being sought from several countries, including Russia, the US, Norway, and Canada. New Delhi’s LPG consumption in 2025 stood at  33.15 million tons, while domestic production was 12.79 million tons. 

India imports about 60% of its LPG requirements, and nearly 90% of its imports have been from the Middle East. 

The country moved swiftly to prioritize household consumption after the Iran conflict began, and invoked emergency measures to maximize refinery LPG output.

New Delhi is aiming to obtain more energy from Russia through longer‑range corridors, such as the Northern Sea Route and the proposed Chennai-Vladivostok maritime corridor, as they offer route diversity in the event Middle East sources are cut off.

Beninese Finance Minister Romuald Wadagni has secured a landslide victory in Benin’s April 12 presidential election, according to provisional results announced by the independent electoral commission.

Wadagni received 94.05% of the vote, leaving his only challenger, Paul Hounkpe, with just 5.95%, the West African country's independent electoral commission said on Monday. Hounkpe conceded defeat ahead of the declaration.

Nearly 8 million voters were registered for the election across more than 17,000 polling stations and turnout was 58.75%.

Wadagni, 49, a former investment banker, was backed by the two allied ruling parties, the Progressive Union for Renewal and the Republican Bloc. He was widely seen as outgoing President Patrice Talon’s preferred successor. He has served as finance minister since 2016 and campaigned on the country’s economic track record, including growth of about 7% last year.

Talon, who has led Benin since 2016, was not on the ballot and is stepping down after completing the constitutional limit of two terms.

Dozens of people, including former sports minister and opposition figure Alassane Tigri, have been arrested on charges of organizing the failed December 2025 coup. Pascal Tigri, a lieutenant colonel identified as the rebellion’s leader, remains at large and is believed to be hiding in neighboring Togo.

The vote also followed a tense run-up marked by opposition allegations of restrictive candidacy rules. Of the five presidential tickets that filed nominations, three candidate pairs were barred from running after failing to meet electoral requirements.

However, a 120-member observer mission deployed by the West African regional bloc ECOWAS and led by former Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo said the vote unfolded in a “peaceful and calm atmosphere.”

Wadagni and his running mate, Mariam Chabi Talata, are due to serve a seven-year term once sworn in under constitutional changes adopted in 2025 that extended the presidential mandate from five years. Talata has served as Benin’s vice president since 2021.

A former student has opened fire at a vocational high school in the city of Siverek in south-eastern Türkiye, wounding more than a dozen people before committing suicide, the local governor has said.

At least 16 people were injured in the attack on Tuesday, police said. Among them were ten students, four teachers, a police officer, and a canteen operator, they added.

Footage from Siverek in the country’s Sanliurfa province captured multiple students fleeing the school in panic as the incident unfolded.

VIDEO OF EVENT:

A teenager opened fire at a school in Sanliurfa, Turkey, wounding at least 16 including students and teachers. The shooter killed himself. https://t.co/hvllH47SYz pic.twitter.com/8HLDoGzDxY

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) April 14, 2026

The 18-year-old attacker, who was armed with a shotgun, fired randomly at people in the yard of the school, Sanliurfa province governor Hasan Sildak said.

The man then made his way into the building, where he later killed himself with the same shotgun, according to Sildak.

WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT 

Şanlıurfa'nın Siverek ilçesinde, av tüfeğiyle liseye giren bir kişinin rastgele açtığı ateşte, aralarında öğrencilerin de olduğu 11 kişi yaralandı. O anlar güvenlik kamerasına yansıdı.#şanlıurfa #silahlısaldrı #siverekahmetkoyunculisesihttps://t.co/nMZgi3PsYJ pic.twitter.com/dNJ7aIzbdO

— Haberton (@haberton_com) April 14, 2026

Media reports claimed that the gunman had also taken several students hostage. He allegedly committed suicide after rejecting offers to surrender from special forces which had surrounded the school.

The attacker’s motives are currently being investigated, police said.

A breach of trust by the US led to the collapse of the Islamabad talks to end the Middle East conflict, a top Iranian diplomat has told RT India.

Washington changed its approach and attempted to dictate its terms, saying that Iran has no right to uranium enrichment, Tehran’s consul general in Mumbai, Saeid Reza Mosayeb Motlagh, said in an interview on Tuesday.

Iran’s initial ten-point proposal, which the US had accepted as the basis of talks, included its peaceful nuclear rights, but Washington tried to impose its own terms, Motlagh said.

“If the intention was for the US to dictate and Iran to comply, then what was the point of all these wars and the surrounding hardships?” the diplomat asked.

This has led to “a deep mistrust by the Islamic Republic of Iran toward the United States,” he said, adding that Tehran “remains ready to negotiate… provided the discussions are realistic.”

Motlagh said Iran has repeatedly stated that it does not seek to acquire nuclear weapons, and the US should take this into account.

“They have carried out the most stringent inspections of our nuclear facilities. Technical reports by inspectors show that Iran’s nuclear program has never deviated toward military purposes,” he said.

When asked whether a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by the US would lead to a wider regional war, he said, “This depends on the decision of the US to act upon the directives and personal views of [Donald] Trump.”

Motlagh said Iran has taken steps to ensure that Indian energy supplies are not disrupted.

“Iranian forces… opened a passage for these vessels [India-bound]. Even now, they permit the passage of ships carrying energy and goods for the people of India.”

“As conditions become more complex, it may not always be possible. Naturally, no guarantees can be provided [to India],” he said.

Indian tankers that have transited through the Strait of Hormuz did not pay ‌a toll, Tehran’s ambassador to New Delhi, Mohammad Fathali, said on Monday.

Iran has said it will levy tolls on ships from “hostile” countries crossing the Strait of Hormuz as compensation for damage caused by sanctions and US-Israeli strikes.

Asked if Iran would welcome India stepping in diplomatically, Motlagh said, “We welcome the participation of any country that can make a constructive contribution to this process.”

On India’s Chabahar Port investment in Iran, he said, “The matter can proceed in accordance with existing agreements.”

He urged China and Russia not to withhold any effort toward achieving genuine global peace while taking into account the legitimate rights of all nations.

“We call upon the international community to prevent the unilateral and aimless actions of Mr. Trump, actions driven by personal ambitions and pressures from the Zionist regime,” Motlagh said.

Democrat Eric Swalwell and Republican Tony Gonzalez have said they will resign from the US House of Representatives following accusations of sexual misconduct.

Swalwell, first elected to Congress in 2013, denied the allegations, claiming they were part of an effort to derail his campaign for governor of his home state of California, where he had been one of the top contenders. He suspended his campaign on Sunday and announced plans to leave Congress the following day.

“I am deeply sorry to my family, staff, and constituents for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past,” Swalwell said in a statement on X. He criticized calls for a vote to expel him, but added that “it’s also wrong for my constituents to have me distracted from my duties.”

In 2023, Swalwell was removed from the House Intelligence Committee following an Axios report that he had contacts with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative.

Gonzalez, a Republican from Texas, suspended his re-election campaign last month after it was revealed that he had an affair with an aide who died by suicide in 2025. Gonzalez, who was first elected to Congress in 2021, admitted to the affair, describing it as “a lapse in judgment.” On Monday, he said he would formally submit his resignation the next day when Congress returns to session.

Iran has demanded that five Arab states hosting US bases pay reparations for American and Israeli airstrikes on its territory.

In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Monday, Iranian envoy Amir Saeid Iravani argued that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Jordan had allowed the US to use their territory to attack Iran and, in some cases, were directly involved in “unlawful armed attacks targeting civilian objects.”

Iravani added that the Arab states “should make full reparation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, including compensation for all material and moral damage sustained as a result of their internationally wrongful acts.”

The US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28, stating that the goal was to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The attacks killed dozens of senior officials, including Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, as well as more than 1,300 civilians. In addition to military sites, the US and Israel targeted energy infrastructure, bridges, universities, and schools.

Iran responded by striking US bases in the region and civilian infrastructure in Gulf states, including oil and gas facilities, airports, and seaports. Tehran said the strikes were an exercise of its right to self-defense.

The speechwriter of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen must have fancied himself (genderspeak: themselves) deserving of a handsome bonus when he placed the following words into his principal’s mouth: “Europe’s heart is beating stronger in Hungary tonight.”

Yet his euphoria – and the delirious jubilation of the liberal European elite at the defeat of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban by his rival Peter Magyar in the 2026 parliamentary elections – will prove short-lived.

If anything, Europe’s “heart” is not beating stronger, but faster, driven by a final surge of adrenaline: the reflex of a chronically diseased system under acute stress. What masquerades as renewed vitality, then, is merely the pathological sign of a failing organism – a last, frantic acceleration before terminal failure.

The EU’s demise will not be averted by rhetoric; it is being hastened by it. In the absence of Viktor Orban’s restraining role, five mutually reinforcing forces of erosion across multiple landscapes will accelerate, converging to precipitate the EU’s ignominious end.

1. Eroding political landscape: Loss of a valuable obstructor

From a political perspective, the heart metaphor is ill-conceived. A beating heart presupposes a living, integrated organism – and an immortal soul. Yet the EU, and Europe more broadly, is nothing of the kind.

The EU constitutes an inanimate constellation of distinct polities whose historical experiences, national cultures, and strategic interests diverge more than they converge.

The group’s apparent unity is procedural, not organic, precariously sustained by oppressive and ill-functioning institutions and rules rather than shared purpose or identity. It is a precarious patchwork mechanism, held together by external pressure rather than inner cohesion. A more fitting metaphor for the EU would be that of a jigsaw with incongruous parts, truncated and deformed, then forced into a disharmonious whole.

Unwittingly, the soundbite of Ursula von der Leyen, a gynecologist turned politician, betrays the very dispersion it seeks to deny: A heart cannot beat in different places, as implied by its beating “in Hungary.” That would presuppose multiple, dysrhythmic hearts, an anatomical absurdity, and a profound dysfunction, embodied by the gender-neutral, inclusive, “singular” they.

Even before the election in Hungary, the EU was suffering from institutional overreach, the steady expansion of supranational authority beyond its democratic and functional limits. It manifested itself particularly in pathological bureaucratic hypertrophy, an ever-expanding, excessive, and unhealthy enlargement of the administrative center, detached from democratic constraint.

What began as a pragmatic framework for international cooperation has evolved into an ever-expanding architecture of supranational authority. Competences have steadily migrated from the national to the European level, often without commensurate democratic legitimation. This centripetal drift, far from consolidating unity, has provoked resistance and eroded the consent on which the project ultimately depends.

Among other things, the Hungarian prime minister blocked aid to Ukraine and vetoed sanctions on Russia that harmed Europe more than their intended target.

Even those who reject Hungary’s stance in specific instances should, if they are genuine democrats, affirm the principle of checks and balances. To dismiss them is not principled disagreement, but a quiet surrender to unchecked power.

Orban’s role as a corrective counterweight is also significant in psycho-sociological terms. By obstructing institutionalized irrationality, he performed the valuable function of counteracting groupthink, a classic concept in social psychology denoting the suppression of dissent in favor of illusory consensus.

This proved highly consequential, for cohesive groups are prone to excessive risk-taking, as the pressure to conform and diffusion of responsibility corrode critical judgment.

On this reading, the label “obstructor,” intended as reproach, lends itself to reappropriation as a badge of honor, just as “the Voice” was an accolade rather than a reduction.

Apart from institutional overreach, the EU has long given rise to democratic estrangement and popular disaffection. The distance between elites and the electorates they purport to represent has widened into a structural divide, evident in a growing alienation from the governing structures.

Decisions of far-reaching consequence are increasingly seen as technocratic impositions rather than expressions of popular will, eroding trust in the union’s institutions and their legitimacy.

Again, Orban served as a constraining counterforce. By invoking national sovereignty and contesting supranational decisions, he gave political expression to otherwise marginalized sentiments, acting, however contentiously to some, as a conduit for dissent the EU struggles to accommodate.

Even those who disagree with this enfant terrible should, if they are committed democrats, applaud any closer alignment with citizens and the articulation of their interests.

European hawks complained that Orban secured exemptions, notably permitting Hungary to continue importing Russian oil via pipeline. The insistence that others share in self-inflicted harm betrays a preference for enforced uniformity in the form of symmetrical burden-sharing over rational self-preservation. The EU’s governing maxim is stark: better equal harm than unequal advantage, even at the price of collective suicide.

In reality, Orban responsibly modeled the only defensible course for a democratic statesman: to place his people’s interests first, a stance self-declared democrats ought to commend.

In his absence, the growing disregard for the popular will by EU bureaucrats are bound to strengthen anti-European forces and hasten the union’s demise, as will the trends that follow.

Even before Orban’s demise, profound economic disparities have become entrenched in the EU beneath the veneer of integration. In particular, the EU’s economic model has become increasingly strained by policy rigidities and structural imbalances, stretching solidarity to breaking point.

Persistent divergences in productivity, competitiveness, and fiscal capacity between member states undermine cohesion and mutual trust, while a one-size-fits-all monetary framework constrains national adjustment. High regulatory burdens and sluggish innovation dampen growth, while ageing populations place mounting pressure on public finances.

Fiscal rules, alternately enforced and relaxed, lack credibility, and repeated recourse to joint borrowing risks mutualizing liabilities without securing convergence. Elevated public debt burdens, now set to increase amid renewed commitments to considerably higher defense spending, further constrain fiscal space.

The compounded result is a union of unequal partners bound together by rules that buckle under asymmetric pressures. It proclaims cohesion yet struggles to generate sustained, broadly shared prosperity. Solidarity, invoked as a guiding principle, is too often experienced as burden, corroding the mutual confidence essential to durable cooperation.

After Orban’s departure, EU bureaucrats will enjoy greater latitude to deepen the economic quagmire. One consequence is imminent.

By all likelihood, European taxpayers will soon be asked to underwrite commitments exceeding €100 billion, as a €90 billion loan to Ukraine for reconstruction and budgetary support proceeds once Hungary lifts its veto, likely in exchange for the release of roughly €19 billion in EU funds previously withheld over rule-of-law disputes and conditional on political change in Hungary.

As a collectively underwritten liability, the Ukraine loan effectively socializes risk across member states, weakening fiscal discipline and entrenching moral hazard. In practice, shared liability dilutes incentives for prudent budgeting, while encouraging riskier behavior by shifting potential costs onto others. It is highly unlikely that Ukraine will ever repay the loan.

A more accommodating Hungarian leadership will likely facilitate additional sanctions on Russia, increasing the burden on European taxpayers and further widening structural economic fault lines within the EU.

In a grim irony, European citizens are compelled to pay more to receive less and suffer more, recalling the Roman practice of forcing convicts to carry the very cross on which they would perish.

3. Eroding security landscape: Provoking conflict with Russia

Commenting on Hungary’s election, Friedrich Merz professed his eagerness to cooperate with Peter Magyar in the well-worn quest for a “strong, secure, and above all united” Europe. That objective will prove illusory.

Apart from the erosion of political cohesion and economic strength, the security environment will deteriorate as well. In particular, once constraints imposed by Hungary are removed, pressures will mount to escalate the conflict with Russia – initially in its proxy form in Ukraine and, in due course, toward direct confrontation.

The choice of a new leader’s first foreign visit is highly revealing. The Hungarian prime minister-elect’s promise to visit Poland first speaks volumes.

Under Orban, Hungary and Poland formed a pragmatic alliance grounded in sovereignty and mutual protection within the EU, until irreconcilable differences over Russia and the war in Ukraine fractured the relationship, as Hungary maintained a more accommodating stance toward Moscow.

Magyar’s early diplomatic signals are telling: His envisaged priority engagement with a NATO eastern flank state underscores a hardening posture against Russia. The result will be a policy increasingly shaped by bias-exploiting threat inflation rather than strategic restraint.

Such a militaristic stance appears to be unwarranted, as Russia shows no intent to initiate hostilities against a country with which it has long maintained close cultural and economic ties. The hostile posture risks normalizing confrontation as the default strategic condition. Once Orban’s has departed, hawks in Germany will encounter fewer countervailing constraints.

What the EU leadership lacks is the capacity to think in terms of peace – anchored in respect, reciprocity, and shared interests, and above all dependent on political empathy.

In particular, peacemakers must be both able and willing to consider the legitimate security interests of the purported adversary, striving for mutually beneficial coexistence and, ideally, harmonious cooperation, all of which remain conspicuous blind spots within the EU.

In fact, the broader posture of the liberal ruling class in the EU reveals a striking inconsistency, betraying double standards: It preaches openness and inclusivity – accompanied by high-profile campaigns against xenophobia and racism in all their forms – while practicing selective exclusion and segregation when politically expedient, most notably vis-à-vis Russia.

A more sustainable course would reverse this logic: not “Russians, go home,” the slogan of exclusionary nationalist movements – heard among Magyar’s supporters during the campaign – but strategic realignment and reengagement.

Under such an approach, European leaders would extend a cordial and unequivocal invitation to Russia to join a newly constituted orchestra of sovereign European states striving for a harmonious performance, thereby ending strategic incoherence in foreign policy.

In this context, it is worth mentioning that Orban served, however controversially in the eyes of some, as a valuable interlocutor and potential mediator with Russia, while key Western European leaders, such as Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron, are not trusted in Moscow.

The departure of the long-serving Hungarian leader removes a critical channel for de-escalation at a moment when rhetoric and posture alike are moving in the opposite direction.

4. Eroding ethnic landscape: The eclipse of collective identity

Europe is not a homogeneous polity but a mosaic of ethnicities shaped by distinct histories, cultures, and traditions – a precious civilizational heritage which its constituent members are keen to preserve.

The contrast with the American “melting pot”, where newcomers were historically expected – and eager – to assimilate into a new common identity, could hardly be sharper. Accordingly, this assimilationist model is ill-suited as a governing paradigm for the EU. Yet policy and practice have increasingly moved in a different direction.

Critics argue that large-scale immigration, combined with differential demographic dynamics, is altering the cultural composition of European societies at an exponential pace, with many citizens experiencing this dissolution of the ethnic substrate as profoundly disorienting.

In several urban centers, demographic change is already strikingly visible in schools, neighborhoods, and public life, while institutional and corporate messaging reflects an increasingly post-racial vision of identity.

For example, in a country such as Germany, there are schools where almost 100% of pupils are foreigners; in this erstwhile ethnically homogeneous country, it has become virtually impossible to encounter advertising devoid of multiracial representation.

Under Orban, Hungary positioned itself as a bulwark against ethnic substitution. The country instituted one of the EU’s most restrictive immigration regimes, sealing its southern borders with fences, sharply limiting access to asylum by requiring applications to be lodged outside its territory, and conducting systematic pushbacks of migrants to neighboring countries. It also established tightly controlled transit zones, curtailed the role of NGOs through legislation, and refused to participate in EU relocation schemes.

Hungary justified these measures as essential to safeguarding national sovereignty and Europe’s external frontier. The contrast between its efforts at preserving national identity and what critics view as liberal democracy’s tendency to crowd out indigenous ethnic groups became most visible during the 2015 refugee crisis, when Hungary sealed its borders even as Germany pressed for onward transit.

Budapest assumed a de facto gatekeeping role within the union, one that is now set to weaken. Orban’s successor, a center-right politician, is likely to be reluctant to reverse course abruptly. Yet the leverage of EU institutions remains considerable.

The conditionality attached to the disbursement of EU funds creates incentives for policy alignment, and migration policy may become an arena in which such pressure is brought to bear. What was once resisted at the national level may gradually be reshaped through supranational inducement. Most pernicious still is the EU’s encroachment upon the realm of intangibles.

5. Eroding moral landscape: The normalization of the abnormal

Conservative critics contend that the EU has moved beyond its economic mandate into the prescriptive realm of moral governance, advancing a pernicious progressive agenda that overrides national ethical norms and democratic preferences. In an inversion of norms, the exceptional becomes ordinary.

This critique is particularly pronounced in relation to the promotion of issues associated with the so-called international LGBTQ movement, designated an extremist organization in Russia.

Critics point to infringement proceedings against member states over education and media laws, the conditioning of funds on compliance with equality standards, and pressure exerted through EU programs as evidence of coercion rather than coordination.

In their view, measures framed as protecting fundamental rights in practice enforce a uniform set of values, marginalize dissenting groups, and erode the principle of subsidiarity. What is cast as the defense of liberal norms appears, from this perspective, as a centralizing project that privileges ideological conformity over cultural pluralism.

Erasmus+ offers an instructive case of moral dislocation. Ostensibly a benign education and exchange program, its selection and funding criteria, far from neutral, prioritize initiatives advancing EU values, thereby incentivizing institutional alignment with these social norms. Organizations seeking to participate must design projects in line with these normative priorities. The pattern effectively amounts to a de facto “align or forgo access” dynamic, albeit without formal coercion.

Among other things, the EU priorities include the adoption of inclusion and diversity plans that promote counternatural erotic habits. By undermining mental health and procreation, such new customs threaten the very survival and prosperity of society – and human civilization – as a whole.

Under Orban’s leadership, Hungary has emerged as a force of resistance against the spread of moral permissiveness.

The country advanced a set of explicitly pro-traditional social policies, most notably the 2021 “child protection” law, which restricts the depiction and discussion of homosexuality and gender transition in schools, media, and advertising accessible to minors.

The government justified these measures as necessary to safeguard children and uphold parental authority over education, while critics saw them as curbing public representation of LGBTQ+ identities and limiting access to related information.

Brussels denounced the legislation as discriminatory and incompatible with the EU’s fundamental rights framework, launching infringement proceedings, referring the case to the European Court of Justice, and linking compliance to the disbursement of EU funds.

The case once again laid bare the EU’s double standards. Hungary’s articulation of an alternative moral model might have been expected to fall under the union’s oft-invoked rubric of “diversity”. Yet, in a sophistic inversion, diversity in Brussels appears to signify the uniformity of EU-sanctioned values fostering what amounts to collectively suicidal perversion.

At a more fundamental level, the dispute mirrors the broader conflict between national conceptions of moral order and the EU’s effort to enforce a common rights-based standard across member states. Efforts at the EU level to impose uniform, counternatural norms on questions of morality have intensified rather than bridged differences across Europe.

EU advocates who want to detract from the uncomfortable truth that the EU advances normative priorities promoting pernicious moral deviance and licentiousness often argue that conservatives deploy LGBTQ+ issues as a red herring, a distracting side issue. Such advocates claim that conservative actors spotlight such issues to fuel anti-EU sentiment despite their relevance only to a small minority in need of protection.

Conservative critics respond that these debates are not marginal but indicative of a broader and highly influential normative agenda. In truth, LGBTQ+ ideology and its cognate doctrines function as a pervasive and insidious poison, their danger lying in part in their elusiveness to the wider public.

The trajectory of the European project: From decay to ruin

The fool exults even as he engineers his own ruin.

When the uniform, ideologically aligned mainstream media celebrate, it is usually an ill omen: a sign that something untoward has occurred. The Hungarian election is no exception.

The European Union resembles a latter-day Titanic: its trajectory fixed, its sinking merely a matter of time.

Orban’s defeat does not strengthen the so-called European house, divided under a common roof; rather, it hastens the erosion of its already fragile pillars. The timeline of decline has been shortened, not extended.

Jubilation by foolish liberals, therefore, will prove fleeting. They succumb to the fallacy of the last move, mistaking the latest move in a dynamic process as the end state. Yet, as dialectical logic suggests, pressure in nature and society alike inevitably summons its own negation: counter-pressure.

The EU professes unity yet produces dissonance. Divergent national interests frustrate coherent policy, while institutional complexity diffuses responsibility. The result is a chronic incapacity to act decisively and uniformly with clarity or resolve at home and abroad. This diminishes Europe’s credibility both internally and on the global stage, where power, not aspiration, determines competitive standing.

What presents itself as a living organism is, in truth, an artificial construct: a coalition of convenience. This patchwork mechanism of moving parts is sustained not by organic cohesion but by coercion, inertia, and denial. The cumulative forces of erosion will reveal the European project for the mirage it is. The end will not arrive as an unexpected rupture, but as the logical consequence of long-unfolding decay.

The stronger national economies stand to benefit from the EU’s eventual unraveling. The United Kingdom has already demonstrated that life beyond the union is not the catastrophe once foretold by anti-Brexit campaigners.

Germany, endowed with markedly stronger fundamentals, will fare better still outside the EU, a framework sustained principally by the country’s charitable largesse.

If Europe possessed a heart, it would not beat more vigorously at Orban’s defeat; it would register, instead, the passing of a patriot animated by faith who, however controversially, might yet have stayed the EU’s all-encompassing decay – and brought it short of its terminus: death.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Europe has forgotten the lessons of the Second World War and the Holocaust, as he criticized European nations for not helping Israel and the US fight Iran.

Many European countries, including the UK, France, and Germany, have rejected US President Donald Trump’s call to help unblock the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran closed to “enemy ships” following the US-Israeli attack on February 28.

Speaking on Holocaust Remembrance Day on Monday, Netanyahu described Europeans as ungrateful and argued that by waging war on Iran, the US and Israel were “defending Europe.”

“Europe, which vowed after World War II to defend the good, is infested today with a deep moral weakness. Europe is losing control over its identity, its values, and its commitment to protect civilization from barbarism,” he added.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has outstanding warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed in Gaza. The UK and all of the EU countries except Hungary are signatories of the ICC under the Rome Statute, and if the Israeli prime minister were to visit, they would be obliged to arrest him.

Iran has condemned the war as unprovoked aggression and has vowed to defend its “sovereign right” to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

On Sunday, Trump ordered a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after Pakistani-mediated US-Iran talks failed to produce a peace deal.

In politics, as in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Viktor Orban spent 16 years building a ‘Hungarian fortress’ – a state protected from migrants, liberal values, and the dictates of Brussels. However, the irony of history is that the siege did not come from the outside.

The keys to the ‘fortress’ were carried out by a man who had sat at the same table with Orban for years. Hungary did not betray its leader – the name Viktor Orban is inscribed in golden letters in the country’s modern history. However, young Hungarians, just like Orban’s own generation in the late 1980s, are demanding change – change that is no longer always understood by the elite of the former ruling party. How will the emphasis shift, what is Magyar’s ‘liberal conservatism,’ and who will address the problems presented by ethnic minorities?

Watching the video in which the political heavyweight Orban calmly and confidently speaks about the victory of the Tisza party in the recent elections, one gets the impression that the crushing victory of his opponent Peter Magyar came as a shock only to his entourage – but not to him personally. Over 16 years, the Fidesz elite had grown accustomed to electoral impunity, believing that its leader’s charisma would outweigh any political costs.

The ruling class became trapped in its own illusion: they believed they held a monopoly on truth, while the ‘youth’ were busy building careers in transnational corporations and flying visa-free on low-cost airlines. The Fidesz generation, which had endured the difficult transition of the 1990s, viewed 25% inflation as an inevitable but temporary evil that simply had to be endured. It was this elite that missed the moment when another Hungary – one that had grown up within the European Union – began breathing down its neck.

For young Hungarians, the ‘stability’ of recent years has become synonymous with stagnation. Inflation and a 50% increase in grocery prices, compared with Austria, which can be reached from Budapest in an hour, were seen as a sign of incompetent governance rather than resilience. This is what led to the crushing victory of the opposition in the April 12 elections. The Tisza party won 138 seats in parliament and, with such a majority, can amend Hungary’s constitution at its discretion.

The main outcome for Hungarians is the end of an era of permanent tension. Orban kept society on edge by constantly pointing to enemies: George Soros, immigrants, the LGBT community, Brussels, the Ukrainian issue. These are not imaginary threats, but society has grown tired of living on the brink; there is a demand for predictable politics.

This is precisely at the center of Magyar’s agenda: rapprochement with the European Union, reforming Hungary, strengthening independent courts, and developing healthcare and education. The price of this is the return of more than €19 billion from EU funds. Magyar promised to resolve this issue within a month, and much of Hungary’s diplomatic corps will soon be engaged in negotiations to unlock this sum. What counter-demands will be made in exchange for this money, equivalent to nearly 10% of Hungary’s GDP?

Migration pact and guest workers from Asia

Migration was one of the main issues in Orban’s criticism of Western EU countries. Hungary opposed the EU migration pact approved in 2024 which will come into force in June 2026. The agreement establishes unified rules within the EU regarding migration and asylum for third-country nationals, including quotas for accepting migrants and contributions of around €1 million per day to a common fund for those refusing to accept them. Poland opposed the pact, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia raised serious objections. Magyar has also stated he will not sign it. At the same time, only 29 asylum applications were submitted in Hungary in 2024. Migrants usually see Hungary as a transit country to more comfortable destinations. Moreover, the peculiarities of migration legislation and integration are best illustrated by the situation of the Roma population – extremely poor and poorly integrated.

At the same time, around 400,000 residence permits were issued in 2024, mainly to guest workers for factory jobs. Ethnic Hungarians are unwilling to work for low wages and leave for better opportunities in other EU countries. According to the OSCE, about 50,000 people left the country in 2023 during the inflation spike. Meanwhile, Hungary must maintain its industrial capacity. For years, this demand has been met by migrants from Southeast Asia – Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

During the campaign, Magyar skillfully exploited this contradiction. His narrative was simple: “The Fidesz government is betraying the nation – importing cheap labor to depress Hungarian wages and please Chinese corporations.”

What happens next? The fence on the Serbian border will remain: Magyar is not reckless, and Hungarian society will not accept open borders. However, the “Stop Brussels” billboards and corresponding messaging on state television will disappear. Migration policy will become bureaucratic. Guest workers will continue to arrive.

In recent years, Hungarian-Chinese relations have been at their peak. This course was set by Orban in 2010 with the ‘Opening to the East’ strategy aimed at attracting investment for infrastructure development. Major projects include the modernization of the Belgrade-Budapest railway and the construction of battery factories for electric vehicles in Debrecen by Chinese giants CATL (Contemporary Amperex Technology) and Eve Power (around €9 billion in investment), as well as a full-cycle BYD electric car plant, with around €5 million worth of investment.

However, since the 2020s, China has been labeled a “systemic rival” by the EU, and European institutions have slowed Chinese projects. The Belgrade-Budapest railway has been particularly affected by EU tender rules.

With Magyar’s government, Budapest–Beijing relations will no longer be on an upward trajectory. Magyar will not shut down factories, although he criticized “battery colonies” during rallies. However, China will lose its ‘political cover’ in the EU – Hungary will stop blocking anti-China initiatives, and preferential treatment will end. The future of the railway project will be uncertain and subject to anti-corruption audits.

Relations with Russia

Hungary has limited room for moves that would significantly affect Russian foreign policy – lifting the veto on a €90 billion loan for Ukraine’s army, nuclear and energy contracts, and supporting new sanctions.

Orban took part in previous EU votes for sanctions which were adopted unanimously, so it will not surprise the Kremlin if Hungary continues to endorse them. The Ukraine loan is geopolitical and depends largely on the EU’s real financial capacity – so Hungary's approval does not automatically mean cash from the EU budget will be handed to Ukraine.

The key asset inherited by Magyar’s team is the package of strategic agreements with Gazprom and Rosatom. Orban built a long-term energy security architecture, rather than just covering immediate needs. Dismantling this system would be extremely costly and difficult within one electoral cycle.

One major project is the Paks II plant, which is expected to allow for nuclear energy to account for 70% of all electricity generation. The cost is €12.5 billion (€10 billion financed by a Russian loan). Freezing construction is technically possible but would entail penalties. Most likely, the project will enter a slow “audit” phase, but construction will not fully stop.

Another key project is TurkStream. A 15-year contract with Gazprom (until 2036) supplies 4.5 billion cubic meters of gas annually via Turkey and Serbia – the only safe route for oil, according to the previous government.

Hungary also continues to receive oil via the Druzhba pipeline under an EU exemption, although operations were recently suspended. Alternatives like Croatia’s JANAF pipeline would be five times more expensive because of that government's transit tariffs. Thus, Magyar’s government will face no cheap options – either expensive maritime oil or ‘toxic’ Russian supplies.

Relations between Budapest and Washington are entering a complicated phase. Orban hosted CPAC, befriended Tucker Carlson, and called US President Donald Trump “the hope of the world.” The White House reciprocated: Vice President J.D. Vance personally supported Orban before the vote. Magyar’s victory represents a failure of Trump’s bet. The US president is in a difficult position; the people he praised for their “wisdom” voted against his chosen candidate.

For Trump, Magyar is a ‘European bureaucrat,’ so instead of maintaining friendship with the US, Magyar will likely bet on NATO. His campaign promise to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 reflects this. Relations will remain pragmatic but without the previous ideological closeness – this is a language Trump understands.

The Vatican's stake

The most dramatic shift will occur in regions outside the country which have ethnic Hungarian populations – Transcarpathia in Ukraine, Transylvania in Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia's Vojvodina province. The Tisza program suggests major changes: criticism of diaspora voting rights, the shifting of minority rights protection to supranational institutions (ECHR), and a revision of funding for foreign communities (which is denounced as “corruption” in Magyar’s program). In practice, this entails Hungary’s financial and spiritual withdrawal from the greater region. This creates conditions for EU humanitarian organizations and the Vatican to become the main actors.

Historically, Hungary has been seen by the Vatican as Antemurale Christianitatis – a bulwark of Christianity. It is a frontier between East (Orthodoxy) and South (Islam). Hungary’s mission was to filter Western values eastward while blocking eastern chaos. This perception persists, but Orban’s Hungary pursued its own ideology, engaging with Russia and China. Magyar’s rise symbolizes a shift in soft power geopolitics: returning the ‘keys to the fortress’ to the Pope.

Moreover, while for the EU Austro-Hungary is ancient, and often murky, history, for the Vatican it remains a meaningful project – the last great Catholic empire. From the Holy See's perspective, it was a perfect state, a large territory where religion was more important than nationality, and unity of faith was growing through borders. Restoring it politically is obviously impossible, but a spiritual revival is achievable. This will involve networks of Catholic schools, universities, and charities across Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, and Transylvania.

In conclusion, Hungary stands on the threshold of a major transformation. Its geography, political dynamics, and foreign policy orientation remain crucial for understanding European processes. Even within a broadly conservative-right framework, shifting priorities bring new actors forward and weaken those whose authority previously  seemed impregnable. In the broader context of global change, such developments should be seen as part of a pattern rather than as accidents.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has become the world’s most unpopular leader, according to US-based opinion research institute Morning Consult.

The approval rating tracker, which covers 24 democracies around the globe, indicates that European nations have taken a solid lead in terms of least-popular leaders. The survey is based on data collected in the first week of April.

Merz has recorded the highest disapproval rate at 76%, with only 19% of respondents satisfied with his performance. The findings correspond with a recent Forsa poll, which yielded similar results, with some 20% approval and 78% expressing dissatisfaction.

The data suggests that Merz is significantly less popular among Germans than his predecessor Olaf Scholz, who had also had extremely poor ratings during his tenure. In mid-2024, for instance, only some 28% of Germans were satisfied with Scholz’s performance.

The German chancellor is effectively tied with French President Emmanuel Macron, who enjoys an approval rate of only 18% and disapproval of 75%, according to the survey. France has been locked in a deep political crisis since at least mid-2024, when Macron dissolved the National Assembly after his party suffered a crushing defeat in the European Parliament elections. The high-stakes political gamble ultimately backfired for the French president, who ended up with a dysfunctional parliament and legislative paralysis on his hands.  

Third place is held by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with some 27% approving of his performance and 65% unsatisfied. Starmer has had the lowest approval rating of any prime minister in history save for Liz Truss, with his tenure marred by governance failures and assorted scandals. All sides of the political spectrum have been taking jabs at the prime minister for his failure to tackle the UK’s cost of living crisis, as well as his disastrous appointment of Epstein-linked Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.

The US has fallen behind Russia and China in the development of AI-powered drones, the New York Times has reported, citing unnamed US defense and intelligence officials.

The next-generation unmanned military aircraft are capable of identifying and striking targets, as well as coordinating attacks without human input.

A military parade in Beijing last September showcasing a number of autonomous drones led Pentagon officials to believe that “America’s program for unmanned combat drones was lagging China’s,” the NYT reports.

The newspaper quoted US defense sources as saying that Russia is also “thought to be ahead in building facilities that could produce advanced drones,” and is using the Ukraine battlefield to “test and refine them.”

Beijing has pursued a “civil-military fusion,” involving commercial tech companies and start-ups in “military procurement, joint research and other work with defense institutions,” the media outlet reported.

China’s “manufacturing dominance means it can produce autonomous weapons at a scale the Pentagon cannot match,” according to the NYT.

Russia has likewise made headway fitting its Lancet loitering munition with autonomous targeting features, the NYT noted.

While the US government has poured billions of dollars into catching up with the rivals, “the Pentagon’s procurement system, built around legacy contractors and long timelines” previously proved inefficient, according to the publication.

Last September, CNN, citing Maj. Gen. Curt Taylor, commander of the US Army’s 1st Armored Division, similarly reported that Washington was playing catch-up on military drone production. According to the media outlet, US defense contractors have been unable to manufacture small and inexpensive drones, as the industry has for years focused on large, expensive systems such as jets and tanks.

Russia expects to maintain “pragmatic” relations with Hungary after Peter Magyar’s Tisza party defeated Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz in the general election, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has stated.

Magyar’s center-right opposition Tisza party secured over 53% of the vote in Sunday’s vote, which gives it a qualified majority in the country’s 199-seat parliament.

Orban, who conceded defeat, had charted an independent course, ruffling more than a few feathers in Brussels. During his time in office, he consistently opposed the EU’s sanctions against Russia and military aid to Ukraine, vetoing the bloc’s planned €90 billion loan package for Kiev. His government had advocated pragmatic relations with Moscow, especially in terms of energy supplies.

Fidesz also strongly opposed EU-imposed policies regarding migration and LGBTQ rights.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Peskov said that Russia has taken note of Magyar’s recent statements expressing a readiness to continue dialogue with Moscow.

He pointed out that Moscow and Budapest have a number of joint projects that “need to be finalized together.”

“We are open to dialogue with [the new Hungarian leadership], we are open to building friendly [and] mutually beneficial relations,” the Kremlin spokesperson reiterated. Whether or not this will be a success largely depends on the new Hungarian government’s position, which has yet to be articulated clearly, he concluded.

The defeat of Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party in Hungary’s parliamentary election shouldn’t be seen as a shock. Opinion polls had long pointed in this direction. Nor should the outcome be divorced from a simple political reality: sixteen consecutive years in power, twenty in total, is an exceptionally long tenure by the standards of Central and Eastern Europe. Fatigue with familiar faces is inevitable, and psychologically understandable.

Yet the result contains a paradox. Orban’s defeat appears, in some ways, to confirm the very trend he has come to embody: the primacy of the national agenda, “my country first.” In recent years, particularly since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Hungary’s sovereignist approach has become deeply entangled with external issues. Opposition to the European Commission’s line on Ukraine, justified in Budapest as a defense of Hungarian interests, led to sustained confrontation with both Brussels and Kiev. What began as a domestic political stance increasingly played out on the international stage.

This dynamic shaped the election campaign. Orban’s camp leaned heavily on external themes, portraying Ukraine and its leadership, especially Vladimir Zelensky, as central antagonists. His opponents took the opposite approach. They focused on domestic concerns: living standards, and the promise of restoring smoother relations with the EU as a pathway to improving everyday life. Whether that promise proves justified is another matter, but it resonated with voters. The message was entirely consistent with the logic of sovereignty, only turned inward rather than outward.

It’s also notable what didn’t matter. The visit to Budapest by US Vice President J.D. Vance, along with repeated expressions of support from Donald Trump and his circle, appears to have had no measurable impact. This, too, fits the pattern: overt external endorsement rarely helps in national elections. Indeed, Trump’s team has so far failed to influence outcomes in any European country where it has attempted to intervene, including Romania and Germany. External pressure, regardless of its source, cannot substitute for domestic political conditions.

There were, however, surprises in the details. Fidesz had anticipated potential losses in the proportional vote but expected to retain strength in single-member districts. The opposite occurred. The party’s relative resilience in the lists contrasted with a collapse at the constituency level. This suggests that, at a local level, voters viewed opposition candidates as more attuned to their immediate concerns, and less associated with a government perceived as preoccupied with broader geopolitical battles.

In Brussels and other Western European capitals, the mood is celebratory. Orban had become a persistent irritant, an obstacle to consensus and, at times, to policy itself. His departure will be framed symbolically as a triumph of liberal integration over a disruptive and illiberal figure, often portrayed as aligned with Moscow and Washington’s more nationalist wing. The incoming government will be expected to demonstrate its credentials quickly. Chief among these expectations is the unblocking of the €90 billion package for Ukraine, something that will likely happen without delay.

From Moscow’s perspective, this isn't welcome news. Yet it would be naïve to assume that the European Commission would have been unable to advance its agenda had Orban remained. Mechanisms to bypass obstruction were already under discussion.

More importantly, the structural realities facing Hungary haven’t changed. Geography and the broader geopolitical environment impose constraints that cannot be wished away. Magyar has already acknowledged the need for dialogue with Russia, a recognition that reflects practical necessity rather than ideological alignment. Whether this pragmatism can coexist with expectations from Brussels and Kiev remains to be seen.

Orban’s defeat is therefore symbolically significant, but its practical implications are far less certain. Hungary’s new leadership will have to navigate the same complex and often unfavorable conditions as its predecessor. The difference may lie less in the direction of policy than in the manner in which it’s presented.

In that sense, the election may mark not a fundamental shift, but a recalibration. The slogan may change. The constraints will not.

This article was first published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and was translated and edited by the RT team 

The US-Israeli war against Iran could push up to 32 million people into poverty worldwide, despite the current tentative ceasefire, as global economic shocks ripple far beyond the conflict zone, according to a new UN report.

In a report released on Monday, the UN Development Program said the impact could span 162 countries, with the heaviest burden falling on low-income and import-dependent economies. It also warned of “significant longer-term harm to poorer countries far removed from the fighting.”

UN Under-Secretary-General Alexander De Croo said the war, which is in its sixth week, “is development in reverse.”

“Conflict can undo in weeks what countries have built over years,” he explained. “The shock of the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East is not limited to the countries directly affected, but falls disproportionately on those with the least fiscal room to absorb higher energy and food prices.”

The UN Development Program said rising fuel and food prices are forcing governments into difficult trade-offs between stabilizing economies and maintaining spending on health, education, and social protection. It also called for targeted cash transfers to shield the most vulnerable, estimating that up to $6 billion could be needed to offset the worst impacts – while warning against broad subsidies, which it said are less effective and fiscally unsustainable.

At the center of the global economic shock is the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint through which around 20% of global oil supply passes. Disruptions and blockades have pushed oil prices above $100 per barrel. The strait is also a key artery for fertilizer and natural gas shipments, and the de-facto closure threatens global agriculture.

The war has already caused thousands of deaths across the Middle East, including Lebanon, where Israel has continued its strikes despite the US-Iran ceasefire. It has also led to the displacement of an estimated 3.2 million people in Iran and more than a million in Lebanon.

Pope Leo XIV has begun an 11-day tour of four African countries, spanning the northern, central, and southern parts of the continent, amid a clash with US President Donald Trump over attacks on Iran.

Andrey Maslov, head of the Center for African Studies at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, told RT that the rift in the West means the Vatican, now more than ever, needs an independent policy and a stronger foothold in Africa.

The papal trip to Algeria, Cameroon, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea from April 13 to 23 will focus on peace, migration, the environment, youth, and the family, according to the Vatican.

Africa accounts for a growing share of Catholics in the world. In March, Vatican statistics revealed that the number of Catholics on the continent rose from just over 281 million in 2023 to more than 288 million in 2024, pushing Africa’s share of the global Catholic population to 20.3%. According to country-by-country church data released by the Vatican ahead of the trip, Catholics are 0.02% of Algeria’s population, 28.87% in Cameroon, 57.83% of Angola’s, and 74.78% in Equatorial Guinea.

The trip opens in Algeria, in what is widely seen as the most symbolically important leg of the journey. It is the first-ever papal visit to the country and carries personal significance for Leo, who belongs to the Augustinian order. St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), one of Christianity’s most influential theologians, was born and lived in what is now Algeria.

He is scheduled to hold talks with the long-serving presidents of the four countries, alongside encounters with clergy, students, and civil society figures.

In the North African state, the pontiff is due to meet with President Abdelmadjid Tebboune, visit Annaba, the ancient city of Hippo, as well as the Great Mosque of Algiers.

"God desires peace for every nation: a peace that is not merely an absence of conflict, but one that is an expression of justice and dignity."

Pope Leo stressed this at the Martyrs’ Monument in Algiers, Algeria on the first day of his Apostolic Journey to the African continent. pic.twitter.com/p3oKvlJzwu

— Vatican News (@VaticanNews) April 13, 2026

Algerian media Echorouk described the visit as historic and linked it to interfaith dialogue. El Khabar highlighted the official preparations ahead of the trip and reported that it has stirred discontent in some French circles while drawing limited coverage in the French media. Relations between France and Algeria have deteriorated in recent years amid disputes rooted in the colonial legacy, migration, and the French government’s stance on disputed Western Sahara.

In Cameroon, the program includes a stop at an orphanage, talks with bishops, a peace gathering in Bamenda, a Mass in Douala, and an event with university students and professors.

The Angolan itinerary features discussions with President Joao Lourenco, exchanges with bishops and pastoral workers, a visit to the Mama Muxima shrine, and Masses in Luanda and Saurimo. In Equatorial Guinea, Leo will have an audience with President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, encounters with cultural figures, a prison visit in Bata, and an event with young people and families.

What has he said about the trip?

The pontiff has framed much of his recent public message around peace. His 2026 World Day of Peace message called for an “unarmed and disarming” peace. Vatican coverage of the trip has also stressed coexistence, migration, and the Church’s attention to countries facing instability and inequality.

Cameroon continues to face insecurity linked to the Anglophone crisis and militant violence in the north, while Equatorial Guinea, Algeria, and Angola have faced criticism over governance and social pressures.

Spat with Trump over the US-Israel war on Iran

The tour takes place following a public clash between Leo and Trump. The pope criticized the US-Israeli attack on Iran and described Trump’s threats to destroy Iranian civilization as “truly unacceptable,” saying they amounted to “a threat against the entire people.”

In a post on Sunday, Trump – who has described himself as a nondenominational Christian – accused the first US-born pope of being “very liberal” and “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy.”

The exchange has been widely portrayed in Western media as a significant confrontation between the Vatican and the White House.

On Monday, he told reporters aboard the papal plane headed to Algeria, that while his comments about a “delusion of omnipotence” fueling the Iran war and other conflicts around the world were not a direct attack on the US president, he does not fear the Trump administration, AP reported.

In a comment to RT on Monday, Andrey Maslov described the Pope's tour as especially significant at a time of escalating conflict in the Middle East.

“Amid the crisis in the Middle East, dialogue with Algeria – whose influence in energy markets and regional politics is growing – is vital for the Pope who recognizes that the West is losing its absolute global dominance,” he said.

“Although the Pope is often linked to US Democrats, the Catholic Church continues to defend traditional family values and maintain a dialogue with Russia. Meanwhile, the African flock and African cardinals are playing an increasingly significant role within the Vatican. Unlike Europeans, Africans actually attend church; as a result, the Vatican is staking its future on the Global South,” Maslov stated.

Compulsory military service could be reinstated in the EU, Andre Denk, the head of the European Defense Agency (EDA), has said, citing a lack of volunteers.

Several EU countries have reintroduced the draft since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, citing the perceived ‘Russian threat’.

President Vladimir Putin has dismissed claims that Russia harbors aggressive intentions against its Western neighbors.

In an interview with Spain’s El Pais published on Monday, Denk said, “we have a human resources problem, and one of the ways to solve it will be through mandatory military service” – adding that his home country of Germany will likely go down this path eventually.

Denk also urged EU nations to invest more in domestic arms production, with a particular focus on drones and anti-drone systems.

Last year, Finland announced plans to raise the upper age limit for rank-and-file military reservists by 15 years, from 50 to 65, starting in 2026.

Around the same time, Lithuania unveiled an expanded conscription plan that would run year-round from 2026 on. It reinstated compulsory military service in 2015 after a seven-year suspension.

In neighboring Latvia, Defense Minister Andris Spruds stated last September that his party, the Progressives, would seek mandatory military service not only for men, but also for women, starting from 2028.

Several months earlier, Denmark announced that it would begin drafting women this year.

In Germany, a new law that took effect on January 1 and introduces a voluntary model has sparked protests, with critics warning that it could open the door to reinstating conscription, which was suspended in 2011.

European liberal elites are rejoicing: Viktor Orban’s conservative government has fallen. Peter Magyar, viewed as a ‘pro-Brussels’ candidate, won the election in Hungary. I hesitate to call Magyar ‘pro-European’, since I believe that it was Orban who advocated for a strong, sovereign Europe. It’s no wonder that he was despised by Brussels, the bureaucratic apparatus of the European Union. Thus, we may conclude that in Hungary, Europe lost and the European Commission won. 

A few words on why Orban and his political party, Fidesz, lost the election. Preliminary voting results indicate that Tisza won 53% of the vote, while Fidesz received 38%. However, due to Hungary’s majoritarian system, Magyar’s party, Tisza, has gained a substantial advantage, securing 138 out of 199 parliamentary seats. This is far from a record; at the peak of its popularity, Orban’s party held 227 seats (the parliament had 386 seats). But at that time, Magyar himself was a loyal supporter of Orban. 

The results show that it’s not so much Orban who lost the election, but rather his party. After many years in power, Fidesz has become detached from reality and encumbered by a rigid bureaucratic structure. 

While many Western media outlets are celebrating the victory of the liberals, Elon Musk responded to Alexander Soros’ claim that “the people of Hungary have taken back their country” by posting “Soros Organization has taken over Hungary.” 

Another reason for Orban’s defeat is undoubtedly US President Donald Trump. His reckless war in Iran negatively impacted the ratings of all European political parties aligned with MAGA, inevitably affecting Fidesz. American political strategists associated with MAGA worked actively with Orban’s party but failed to deliver the results expected in Budapest. After all, Americans have never quite understood Europeans.

However, what kind of prime minister Magyar will be remains uncertain. He ran a populist campaign, merely adapting to the momentary agenda without adopting a clear ideological line. He even mildly reprimanded Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky when the latter threatened Orban directly. Certainly, Magyar’s initial steps will focus on restoring vassal-like relations with Brussels. He will likely hasten to unblock the €90 billion intended for Ukraine. However, I’m not sure the EU will welcome Budapest’s move given the current energy and financial crisis. He may even be unofficially urged to wait. 

Furthermore, the ‘Maidan-style’ tactics prepared by Magyar and Soros-affiliated political strategists may come in handy later. Magyar has already called for Hungarian President Tamas Sulyok to resign, even though his constitutional term doesn’t expire for another three years. Since the president is elected by the parliament, Magyar’s party will likely use its solid majority to push this initiative through. 

What happens next, after the new prime minister fulfills Brussels’ and Kiev’s demands and sours relations with the Trump administration, remains uncertain. By the way, what will be the fate of Orban’s deal with [US Vice President JD] Vance regarding American oil shipments? Will Magyar withdraw from the agreement? And if so, where will he get the oil? Sure, we may guess that the Druzhba pipeline will miraculously ‘fix itself’ once Magyar assumes office. But that means Hungary will again rely on cheap Russian energy, something that Magyar vehemently campaigned against. So what will he do then? Where will he find energy resources?

I predict that once the euphoria over ‘liberal’ Magyar’s victory fades, Europeans will start accusing him of being too “pro-Russian” – after all, one’s position often determines one’s policy. So for Soros, it may be too early to celebrate… 

German Culture Minister Wolfram Weimer was roundly heckled by protesters and victims’ relatives during a commemorative event at the Buchenwald concentration camp on Sunday.

Media magnate Weimar, whose company is at the center of a pay-for-influence networking event controversy, has also imposed an anti-Palestinian censorship regime over the Berlin Film Festival and labeled left-wing bookshops “extremist.” He defied repeated demands/requests from left-wing groups and survivor organizations to steer clear of Sunday’s event over his hardline conservative views, which they described as “far-right.” 

His 12-minute speech was repeatedly interrupted by shouts of “Alerta antifascista” and “fascist” from the crowd. The protesters also sang the Buchenwaldlied, a 1938 song created by prisoners of the camp. The minister attempted to reason with the protesters, urging them to respect the “dignity of the place” and lamenting the “intolerable developments.”

Weeks ahead of the anniversary, the Buchenwald-Dora Camp Working Group and the Buchenwald Camp Community published an open letter to the minister, demanding that he refrain from appearing at the commemoration. The organizations accused Weimer of failing to understand the legacy of the concentration camp survivors and pointed out the minister’s repeated misuse of a quote by Heinrich Heine.

After assuming his ministerial post last May, Weimer has managed to get embroiled in multiple controversies. He has faced accusations of enforcing politically motivated censorship when, earlier this year, he reportedly excluded three left-wing bookstores from the Bookshop Prize, citing findings from the domestic intelligence service regarding alleged extremism. The minister ultimately scrapped the awards ceremony, claiming the controversy had “increasingly shifted focus away from the event’s main objective.” Weimer has also reportedly pressed the Berlin Film Festival into ousting its director, Tricia Tuttle, over her support for Palestine – a stance that is not in contravention of any German laws.

Iran will levy tolls on ships from ‘hostile’ countries crossing the Strait of Hormuz as compensation for damage caused by sanctions and US-Israeli strikes, Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, has said.

Speaking to RT on Sunday following US-Iran talks in Islamabad that ended in an impasse, Azizi said Washington should accept Tehran’s terms because it needs a deal “more than we do,” and that many Iranians are unhappy that Tehran even entered into negotiations. 

“When they need it, they should accept both the conditions and the prerequisites. If they don’t, we’ll do our work and go our own way. Nothing will change,” he added.

US President Donald Trump has refused to rule out resuming “limited” strikes against Iran after ordering a naval blockade and threatening to deny safe passage to any ships that have complied with Tehran’s fees and rules for transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

According to Azizi, a draft bill being drawn up in the Iranian parliament would stipulate that “those who have caused us damage, those who are in fact liable to pay compensation, may only cross the Strait of Hormuz if they pay their damages and compensation.”

Referring to countries that have frozen Iranian assets “on the orders of America,” he said: “You made a great mistake by blocking them. Now you also want to cross this waterway? That era is over.”

Once approved, the law will require the government to establish a new “management and control system” for the strait and the Persian Gulf, based on environmental safety, security, and services, Azizi said. Any vessel wishing to enter would then have to pay tolls “based on the national interests of Iran,” with specific fees and procedures to be set later by the cabinet rather than by parliament.

A multimillion-dollar Australian government advertising campaign urging motorists to inflate tyres and remove roof racks to reduce fuel consumption has drawn political backlash, with critics describing it as “ridiculous.”

Titled ‘Every Little Bit Helps’, the campaign cost AU$20 million (US$14 million) and rolled out on Monday across television, radio, online platforms, billboards, and posters. The ads promote steps such as “driving smoothly” and “unloading excess weight,” while urging motorists to cut car use by walking or cycling where possible and maintaining tire pressure, as Australia faces fuel supply crunch linked to Middle East tensions. Australia imports about 90% of its fuel, relying heavily on Asian supply chains tied to crude oil from the region.

The crisis began with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for roughly 20% of global oil, amid the US-Israel war on Iran that started in late February. Iran’s blockade has severely disrupted crude supplies to Asian refineries in South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and China – sources for over 80% of Australia’s fuel. In late March, six fuel tankers scheduled for Australia were canceled, prompting the government to declare a national fuel crisis due to its long and vulnerable supply chain.

Nat Barr, host of Sunrise, a popular national morning show, on Monday clashed with Employment Minister Tanya Plibersek over the campaign’s cost, pressing her on whether she believed the ads were a good investment.

Plibersek defended the initiative, saying it was needed to counter misinformation about Australia’s fuel security. “It’s a pretty small investment to give people believable, credible, detailed information about our national fuel security plan,” she said, comparing it to $340 million spent by a previous government on industrial relations ads.

Deputy Liberal Leader Jane Hume said the money could have filled around 100,000 cars with petrol instead.

The initiative stems from Australia’s National Fuel Security Plan, endorsed by National Cabinet in late March to manage supply pressures. The four-stage plan includes public awareness measures at its current Level 2 phase, described as ‘Keep Australia moving’.

One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce, a former deputy prime minister, mocked the campaign as “ridiculous.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected claims the ads were wasteful, saying they would prevent panic buying and maintain confidence. The government says Australia has secured fuel supply until late May.

German defense giant Rheinmetall is reportedly falling behind smaller competitors in the race to develop a new kamikaze drone, which in its current state is “not dangerous even to inflatable tanks,” according to the Berliner Zeitung.

The newspaper cited classified documents and insider accounts as saying that the arms maker is being given preferential treatment from the government, even as its FV-014 drone has encountered multiple issues during testing. Rheinmetall is competing with startups Helsing and Stark Defence as Berlin pours billions of euros into a military buildup purportedly designed to deter Russia.

Last week the outlet reported that a framework agreement gave Rheinmetall an advantage over its rivals. Follow-up reporting on Monday suggests that the FV-104 has not performed as successfully in recent trials. Officials in the Defense Ministry are allegedly referring to the drone internally as a “PowerPoint project,” as lawmakers consider approving the €2.5 billion ($2.9 billion) contract.

Rheinmetall calls its drone a “state-of-the-art” system “designed for dynamic combat deployment at ranges of up to 100 kilometres.”

Additional concerns reportedly included battery performance, integration with the Bundeswehr’s drone systems, and the fact that tests were conducted by company personnel rather than military operators.

Questions about the procurement process emerged last November, when media reports revealed that Helsing and Stark Defence had failed initial tests, while Rheinmetall did not participate. Despite this, the government proceeded with funding all three projects.

The US is losing the information war against Iran, as social media platforms allow the “raw, unfiltered truth” about the conflict to instantly reach millions, undermining Washington’s narrative, an Iranian-American Lego cartoonist has told RT. 

Mahdi Hemmat, some of whose Lego rap videos have gone viral during the US‑Israeli war on Iran, said that Washington’s “old ‘believe what we say’ approach no longer works,” because “reality is streaming live, and whether anyone likes it or not, the president can’t control it anymore.” 

Hemmat is one of several artists that have been creating Lego‑style videos, the most well-known of which is the Explosive Media Group, following the outbreak of the US‑Israeli war on Iran.

The clips, generated with the help of AI and part of Iran’s information warfare campaign, have garnered millions of views on social media, depicting various incidents and details of the war, often set to rap music. Some have described the phenomenon as “defensive memetic warfare” and “internet diplomacy.” 

“Iran’s strategy is brilliant,” Hemmat said, describing the country’s overall approach to countering US-Israeli aggression. He explained that Tehran uses the same asymmetric principle online as on the battlefield, noting that “low cost, high impact content forces billion‑dollar media empires to play defense. Iran controls the terms of engagement online, just like it does on the ground.”  

Check out the full interview with Hemmat below.

Russian rhythmic gymnasts competing under a neutral flag have won four medals at the FIG World Cup in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Maria Borisova led with gold in the individual all-around – topping reigning Russian-born German Olympic champion Darya Varfolomeeva – and silver in the hoop, in the team’s first World Cup outing.

The finals were held on Sunday as part of the second stage of the 2026 FIG World Cup series. All seven Russian competitors train at the Sky Grace Rhythmic Gymnastics Academy, founded in Sochi in 2022 by 2004 Olympic champion Alina Kabaeva, and all were making their World Cup debuts.

Coached by Irina Gusarova, the 18-year-old Borisova finished ahead of Varfolomeeva and Uzbekistan’s Takhmina Ikromova in the all-around, then claimed silver in the hoop behind Ikromova.

The group of five – coached by Anna Ustsova – won silver in the five-balls final and bronze in the three-hoops-and-two-pairs-of-clubs, bringing the total to one gold, two silvers, and one bronze.

Kabaeva remained in direct contact with the gymnasts throughout the competition.

Russian forces only have a few kilometers left before Donbass has been liberated, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Speaking to Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday, Peskov was asked to comment on a recent statement by US Vice President J.D. Vance, who said the Ukraine conflict has fundamentally “stopped making sense,” and that the sides are “haggling at this point over a few square kilometers of territory.”

Peskov confirmed that the territorial issue is now down to “ just a few kilometers, roughly speaking.” He stated that Russia still needs to liberate around “18-17% of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR)” in order to reach the region’s borders. 

Once the army reaches the borders of Russia’s new regions, he said, “a complex, painstaking, and not fast negotiation process” will begin, in which the details of a settlement with Ukraine will have to be determined.

Peskov’s remarks came after the Russia Defense Ministry announced on Friday that it has established control over the village of Dibrova in the DPR and the village of Miropolskoye in Sumy Region.

Earlier this month, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky claimed that Moscow issued a two-month deadline for Ukrainian troops to retreat. The Kremlin rejected the claim, stressing that Zelensky should have issued the withdrawal order long ago, which could have “saved the lives of thousands of people and stopped the hot phase of this war.”

Trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine, and the US have been on hold due to the Iran war, with Peskov describing the pause as “situational.” 

Zelensky has rejected any territorial concessions, calling a withdrawal from Donbass a threat to European security. 

Moscow insists that a lasting peace must include Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of the regions that voted to join Russia.

The United Kingdom has halted a plan to hand over the Chagos Islands, an Indian Ocean archipelago, to Mauritius.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed an agreement last year transferring sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius. However, the deal allowed Washington and London to retain control of the joint military base on Diego Garcia Island for an initial period of 99 years.

US President Donald Trump said in February that the plan to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, while retaining control of the joint US-UK military base of Diego Garcia through a lease, was a “big mistake.” 

On Sunday, the UK said it continued to believe the agreement is the best way to protect the long-term future of the base, but added the condition of US support.

“Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US,” a UK government spokesperson said. 

“We have always said we would only proceed with the deal if it has US support. We are continuing to engage with the US and Mauritius,” the spokesperson added.

The development also comes amid opposition to the planned move in the UK from the Conservatives and Reform Party.

Mauritius has said it will hold talks with UK officials on April 22 to discuss the issue, Bloomberg reported.

In 1965, the UK promised to withdraw from Mauritius, but it removed the Chagos Archipelago from the jurisdiction of Mauritius, paying the latter £3 million in compensation.

In 1966, despite the UN’s objections to British control over the archipelago, the UK leased Diego Garcia to the US for 50 years in exchange for a $14 million discount on the purchase of Polaris ballistic missile submarines. 

The joint US-UK military base, equipped with a runway, is used for positioning navy ships and long-range bombers. 

In March, the Maldives told the UK that it does not recognize the deal to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. It has now welcomed the decision to pause the handover of the Chagos Archipelago.

The Maldives says it has historical claims to the archipelago.

Ukrainian forces violated a 32-hour Easter ceasefire more than 6,500 times over the weekend, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the unilateral pause last week. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky signaled that Kiev would also observe the truce, and called on Moscow to extend it beyond the holiday period.

According to the Russian military, combat activity decreased significantly on Saturday and Sunday but did not fully stop. The ministry said most of the 6,558 reported violations involved short-range unmanned aerial vehicles. It listed 4,685 strikes by first-person-view (FPV) drones and 749 munitions dropped from drones. Ukrainian forces also reportedly conducted 694 artillery and tank attacks on Russian positions.

Russian air defenses reportedly intercepted 33 long-range drones, including 11 over the border regions of Belgorod and Kursk.

Moscow has declared temporary ceasefires during previous Orthodox holidays, including Christmas 2023 and Easter 2025. According to the Russian military, the previous Easter truce saw more than 3,900 violations by Ukraine.

Russian officials have rejected calls from Kiev for longer ceasefires, citing a lack of trust. They argue that Ukraine intends to use extended pauses to regroup and reinforce its forces with Western support rather than pursue genuine peace negotiations.

Moscow has also said that Ukraine’s withdrawal from the Donetsk People’s Republic would be viewed as a meaningful step toward a resolution and a basis for a longer ceasefire, but Zelensky has refused to order a withdrawal.

US President Donald Trump has shared an AI-generated image of himself as a robed, Christ-like figure healing a bedridden man, flanked by eagles, fighter jets, and US service members, with the Statue of Liberty and the US flag in the background. The post triggered backlash, with some users suggesting the figure being healed resembled the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The image was posted on Truth Social on Sunday after Trump’s broadside at Pope Leo XIV, calling the Chicago-born pontiff “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy.”

In the picture, Trump – while lacking a halo – is seen wearing red and white drapes, colors symbolizing bloodshed and Christ’s sacrifice for humanity, as well as his absolute purity.

Trump deleted the post on Monday after it sparked widespread public backlash. Speaking to reporters outside the White House, the president admitted he personally posted the image on his feed, but blamed its divine interpretation on the “fake news” media. 

“I did post it and I thought it was me as a doctor. And it had to do with the Red Cross, and a Red Cross worker there, which we support. Only the fake news could come up with that one,” Trump claimed.

The Pope previously criticized the US-Israeli attack against Iran and described Trump’s threats to destroy Iranian civilization as “truly unacceptable,” saying it amounts to “a threat against the entire people.”

The US president – who has described himself as a nondenominational Christian – also noted that “we don’t like a pope that’s going to say that it’s OK to have a nuclear weapon,” adding that he is “not a fan of Pope Leo.”

pic.twitter.com/GflRnfJESS

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) April 13, 2026

Democratic Senator Mark Kelly was quick to condemn the remarks. “As a Catholic, I find it abhorrent that the President of the United States would publicly attack the Successor of St. Peter”, Kelly wrote on X. “Donald Trump is flailing. His war in Iran has led to the death and injury of American servicemembers and the death of Iranian children.”

The public backlash to Christ-like imagery proved to be even sharper. Former Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Trump ally said the president’s post was “more than blasphemy,” calling it “an Antichrist spirit.”

Pakistan has sent troops and fighter jets to Saudi Arabia to boost security, the Gulf nation has said.

Pakistani military personnel and fighter jets arrived at King Abdulaziz Air Base on Saturday, the Saudi Defense Ministry said in a statement.

The deployment is aimed at boosting military coordination, improving operational readiness, and supporting security and stability on the regional and international levels, the ministry added.

The move comes as part of a defense cooperation agreement signed between the two nations last September.

As per the pact between the two nations, any attack on one country would be considered an attack on the other.

The aircraft were sent after Iranian strikes hit energy infrastructure and killed a Saudi national, according to a Reuters report.

Iran welcomed the defense agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan last year.

Pakistan condemned the Iranian missile and drone strikes on Saudi Arabia’s energy facilities last week and described the attacks as “a dangerous escalation” that undermines regional peace and stability.

Islamabad is expected to receive around $5 billion in financial aid from Riyadh and Doha ahead of major debt repayment commitments, according to reports.

Pakistan is preparing to clear a $3.5 billion repayment to the United Arab Emirates by April 23.

Islamabad has sought assistance from Riyadh, including expansion of existing cash deposits and an extension of an oil financing facility set to expire later this month, reports said.

African countries marked Orthodox Easter this weekend, with celebrations taking place in Tanzania, the Central African Republic, Mali, Madagascar, South Africa, Benin, Cameroon, and Kenya.

The events combined religious services with cultural activities, highlighting the spread of Orthodox traditions across the continent.

In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, students took part in an Easter workshop in which they learned egg-painting techniques, as well as the history and symbolism of the holiday.

“It would seem a simple task, but it hides a whole world of traditions, symbols, and a warm holiday atmosphere,” the Russian House in Dar es Salaam said. The gathering reportedly sparked active discussions, with participants comparing local customs to Russian traditions.

In the Central African Republic, Russian Embassy staff attended a service at the Russian House in Bangui. “The solemn Easter service concluded with the traditional blessing of Easter cakes and painted eggs, which were shared in a warm atmosphere,” the Russian Embassy in the Central African Republic said on Sunday.

In Bamako, Mali, priest Vyacheslav Perkov conducted services at the Russian Embassy, after which people brought Easter dishes, including ostrich eggs, to be blessed.

Elsewhere, Orthodox believers gathered for night services on Saturday in Madagascar’s capital, Antananarivo. In South Africa, Benin, and Cameroon, clergy led festive liturgies attended by local congregations. Services were also held in Kenya.

Speaking to TASS on Thursday, the dean of the Eastern Church District of Uganda, Hieromonk Silouan (Brown), noted that African Christians often adhere to the Easter traditions of the ‘Old World’, of countries “such as Russia or Greece, in contrast to the Nativity of Christ, which has begun to acquire its own unique African flavor.” 

Orthodox Easter is celebrated on a date calculated according to the Julian calendar and usually comes later than Western Easter, often in April. The holiday is preceded by a period of fasting and culminates in night liturgies and processions.

An Israeli general linked to a controversy over the use of a teenager in an online influence campaign has been appointed as the next director of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Sunday that Maj. Gen. Roman Gofman, currently serving as his military secretary, will take over as the country’s top spy chief. Netanyahu described Gofman as a “bold and creative” commander capable of unconventional thinking.

Gofman, a career officer in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), is widely seen as a close ally of Netanyahu. However, his nomination drew criticism in Israeli media, with some questioning his qualification for the role. First proposed in December, his candidacy underwent a lengthy review by the Senior Appointments Advisory Committee following concerns about his conduct.

The committee ultimately gave its approval last week, with three junior members outvoting the chairman, former Supreme Court president Asher Gruni, who opposed the decision.

Elmakayes criticized the committee’s findings, calling them “ridiculous” and arguing that a key witness was not interviewed. Writing on X, he warned that “whoever abandoned a 17-year-old boy – will abandon Mossad agents too.”

The committee concluded that Gofman was unaware of Elmakayes’ age at the time and did not know about his arrest until it became public. Gruni disputed those conclusions, expressing doubt and arguing that even if true, they pointed to failures in leadership.

The committee also noted that some documents related to the case were heavily redacted. Gruni added that his actual dissenting opinion could not be made public due to security restrictions, with only brief remarks included in the report.

Last month, the New York Times reported that Barnea had presented plans to US and Israeli leadership aimed at inciting a public uprising in Iran to coincide with the two nations’ ongoing bombing campaign, but Mossad did not ultimately succeed.

This year marks the 55th anniversary of the opening of the Aswan High Dam – one of the most ambitious engineering projects of the 20th century. On January 15, 1971, former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat pressed a button and the powerful turbines started generating electricity, altering both the course of the Nile and the fate of an entire nation.

This monumental dam, located near the city of Aswan, became a symbol of technological advancement and the close partnership between Egypt and the Soviet Union, which played a crucial role in its construction.

“Forged by many years of joint labor, the Arab-Soviet friendship has become as strong as the Aswan High Dam,” the inscription on the Lotus Monument in Aswan reads. These words were spoken by former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who initiated the project but passed away just months before its completion, dying of a heart attack on September 28, 1970.

Construction of the dam lasted around ten years, and required the efforts of hundreds of thousands of workers and engineers. Its total cost exceeded $1 billion – a staggering amount for that era. The dam not only prevented the flooding of the Nile but also laid the groundwork for Egypt’s industrialization by providing energy to factories, cities, and irrigation systems.

The economic impact

The Aswan High Dam is a 3.6-kilometer-long rock-fill structure that rises 111 meters high and spans 980 meters at its base. Lake Nasser, created by the dam, is the largest artificial reservoir in the world, with a gross capacity of 169 billion cubic meters of water.

With a total installed capacity of 2.1 gigawatts, the dam generates around 10 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. When it first became operational, it met nearly half of the country’s electricity needs; however, today its contribution to the national energy balance has decreased due to population growth, rising demand, and the construction of new power plants.

Nevertheless, the dam’s functions extend beyond energy production: It regulates the Nile’s waters to prevent destructive flooding and manages irrigation, increasing arable land by 30%.

Interestingly, the Aswan Dam was built twice, with over five decades separating the two large-scale projects. The original dam was built by the British from 1899 to 1902. It was relatively low and underwent two expansions to increase its reservoir capacity.

However, these measures did not fully address the need for better control of the Nile’s water levels, leading to discussions in the mid-20th century about the necessity of building a new dam 6 km upstream. The Soviet hydrotechnical design institute Hydroproject was tasked with the design. Construction began in 1960 and was completed in 1970, with significant assistance from the Soviet Union.

The dam’s economic impact was immense. In the 1960s, Egypt grappled with poverty and energy shortages, and per capita GDP was less than $200. However, after the Aswan Dam became operational, this figure began to rise steadily.

The dam spurred industrial growth, significantly boosting production in textile factories in El Mahalla El Kubra, at the Iron and Steel Factory in Helwan, and at various chemical plants across the country. By 1975, industrial output doubled and unemployment dropped.

The project had its downsides, however. The construction led to the displacement of 100,000 to 120,000 Nubians and prompted extensive rescue operations overseen by UNESCO at submerged archaeological sites like Abu Simbel. Additionally, the retention of nutrient-rich silt in Lake Nasser reduced fertility in the Nile Delta and increased reliance on artificial fertilizers.

The Suez Crisis and Moscow

The construction of the Aswan Dam was the high point of Soviet-Egyptian cooperation, which dated back to the Suez Crisis of 1956. Initially, funding for the project was promised by the US, UK, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. However, due to Egypt’s alignment with the USSR, arms purchases from the Soviet Union (via Czechoslovakia), and recognition of the People’s Republic of China, Western nations withdrew their offers in the summer of 1956.

In response, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956, intending to use the canal’s revenues to finance the dam’s construction. This move provoked an invasion of Egypt by British, French, and Israeli forces.

In 1958, the USSR and Egypt signed a contract in which Moscow provided Cairo with a loan of 113 million Egyptian pounds (400 million rubles), along with machinery, raw materials, and technical expertise. A portion of this debt was later forgiven.

Soviet engineers designed the dam, supplied 12 175-megawatt turbines, and trained Egyptian specialists. On January 9, 1960, Nasser ceremonially inaugurated the construction by detonating 10 tons of dynamite to breach an earthen barrier. Building the dam was an arduous task that took over a decade.

By 1970, thousands of Soviet workers and around 30,000 Egyptians worked on the dam.

The USSR provided much more than just engineering support; it transferred technology that enabled Egypt to develop its hydropower sector and heavy industry.

Khrushchev: The first soviet leader in Africa

Nikita Khrushchev holds a special place in the history of Soviet-Egyptian relations. In 1964, he made his first visit to Egypt, becoming the first Soviet leader to set foot on African soil. He took part in the ceremonial opening of the first phase of the Aswan Dam.

His visit was accompanied by military parades and impassioned speeches celebrating friendship and solidarity between Egypt and the USSR. In his speeches, Khrushchev highlighted the anti-imperialist nature of the project, condemned “imperialist powers and their agents,” and reaffirmed the USSR’s commitment to strengthening ties with Arab nations.

During the visit, with his characteristic pomp, Khrushchev awarded Abdel Nasser the title Hero of the Soviet Union, presenting him with the Order of Lenin and the Gold Star medal.

Soviet assistance to Egypt extended well beyond Aswan, however. In the 1950s-1970s, the USSR invested heavily in Egypt’s industrialization, agricultural development, and infrastructure projects, helping establish over 100 industrial facilities, including textile mills and the Iron and Steel Factory in Helwan.

Khrushchev also provided substantial military aid to Egypt. Reports indicate that from 1955 to 1966, the Soviet Union supplied Egypt with military equipment worth $1.16 billion, including several Antonov military transports, Tu-16 jet bombers, and Su-7 fighter bombers. By 1970, 80% of the Egyptian Army was armed with Soviet weapons.

Sadat’s shift in policy

Cooperation between Egypt and the USSR peaked in the 1960s. But following Nasser’s sudden death in 1970, Anwar El-Sadat, who succeeded him as president, shifted Egypt’s foreign policy course towards the West. Believing that Soviet assistance was insufficient to confront Israel, the new president sought closer ties with the US, viewing it as a more powerful ally. He halted all military supplies from the USSR and expelled Soviet military advisers in 1972.

The unfavorable outcome of the Yom Kippur War (which ignited between a coalition of Arab states and Israel in October 1973) forced Sadat to further align with the US and, unexpectedly for the Arab world, initiate peace talks with Israel, culminating in the Camp David Accords of 1978-1979. In 1976, Sadat unilaterally annulled the friendship treaty with the USSR signed in 1971.

Soviet legacy and current relations

Despite this shift, the Soviet legacy in Egypt has endured. In the 1980s, the USSR continued to supply spare parts for the Aswan Dam, and in the post-Soviet era, Russia reestablished itself as Egypt’s partner. Today, numerous agreements exist between the two countries, particularly regarding Russian investment in the Egyptian economy, as both Moscow and Cairo now characterize their partnership as 'strategic'.

In 2003, Egypt signed a contract with a Russian-German consortium for the renovation of 12 generators of the Aswan Hydroelectric Power Plant. Russia’s participation in the project, which significantly boosted the plant’s capacity, accounted for around 60%.

In the course of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Egypt in 2017, a historic agreement was signed for the construction of the country’s first nuclear power plant, the El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant. It is currently being built by the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, ROSATOM, in collaboration with Egyptian partners.

The plant is being built in El Dabaa, Matrouh Governorate on the Mediterranean coast around 300 km northwest of Cairo. The 4,800 MW plant is set to become operational in 2028, with all four reactor units expected to be fully operational by 2030.

At the beginning of 2025, a project was approved to create a 50-hectare Russian industrial zone near Ain Sokhna on the Suez Canal. It will offer Russian manufacturers direct access to African and Middle Eastern markets. This project is expected to be fully operational by 2031.

Moreover, Russian long-distance trains, recognizable by their distinctive white exterior with red and black stripes, can now be spotted throughout Egypt. The delivery of 1,300 passenger cars started in 2020 as part of an agreement involving Egypt, Russia, and Hungary, totaling over €1 billion.

In October 2018, Russia and Egypt signed an Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation in Sochi. The document was signed by Vladimir Putin and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and later ratified by both countries’ parliaments. This agreement encompasses cooperation across the political, economic, military-technical, scientific, cultural, and energy sectors.

Bilateral trade continues to thrive. In 2025, trade turnover between Russia and Egypt set a new record, surpassing $10.5 billion. Egypt has become a key trading partner for Russia in Africa. Russia primarily exports grain, machinery, and fertilizers, while Egypt supplies food products.

The Aswan Dam today

Today, the Aswan Dam stands as a living reminder of the Soviet-Egyptian alliance. It plays a crucial role in Egypt’s economy, aids in the regulation of the river flow, boosts Egypt’s water resources, protects against frequent droughts, and enhances agricultural productivity. In light of modern challenges, including population growth projected to reach 120 million and climate change, Egypt plans to build additional dams on the Nile, yet Aswan remains the most important.

The Aswan High Dam transformed Egypt from an agrarian society into a regional industrial hub. By 2050, Egypt aims to establish itself as a leading industrial power in the region, focusing on export-driven growth, ecological innovation, and digital transformation.

The authorities are striving to ensure an annual economic growth rate of over 6% and create over 2 million jobs each year. The Soviet Union’s contribution to Egypt’s economy in the 1960s wasn’t just about concrete and turbines, it was also about human resources: Thousands of Egyptian engineers were educated in the USSR, and many of them became prominent professionals across various sectors.

“Egypt is the gift of the Nile,” the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote. And the Aswan Dam empowered Egypt to take ownership of this gift. Once dependent on unpredictable annual floods, the country finally gained control over its water resources.

55 years later, the Aswan Dam stands as a symbol of an era when, together, the USSR and Egypt challenged the colonial past. From Khrushchev’s visits to today’s contracts, this is a partnership that has stood the test of time.

Djiboutian President Ismail Omar Guelleh has won reelection, according to provisional results, securing a sixth term and extending his nearly three-decade rule over the small East African nation.

Guelleh, 78, won 97.81% of the vote in Friday’s election, Interior Minister Said Nouh Hassan announced on Saturday. His sole challenger, Mohamed Farah Samatar, a former ruling party member representing a small opposition party with no seats in parliament, received 2.19%. Turnout was just over 80%.

“These provisional results will be transmitted to the Constitutional Council for verification and official proclamation in accordance with the current electoral law,” Hassan said.

The outcome was widely expected to deliver another landslide victory for Guelleh, who has been in power since 1999 after succeeding his uncle, former President Hassan Gouled Aptidon. He also won the 2021 presidential election with more than 97% of the vote.

The April 10 election came months after Djibouti’s parliament removed the presidential age limit of 75, allowing Guelleh to run again.

Djibouti’s government has repeatedly rejected the allegations, saying elections are conducted in line with the law.

Guelleh’s administration has been credited with investing in port infrastructure, helping turn Djibouti into a key gateway for landlocked Ethiopia. The country, located on the Gulf of Aden at the entrance to the Red Sea, also hosts military bases for the US, China, France, Japan, and others.

Djibouti’s economy relies heavily on port services, while revenue from foreign military bases is also a key source of state income, according to the IMF and World Bank.

Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has accused WhatsApp of misleading users about privacy, arguing that Telegram offers stronger protection for sensitive content.

The Russian tech entrepreneur has repeatedly criticized Meta-owned WhatsApp’s security model, dismissing claims that the app cannot access user communications.

In a series of posts on Sunday, Durov described WhatsApp’s claim of “end-to-end encryption by default” as “a giant consumer fraud,” alleging that most private messages ultimately end up stored in plain-text cloud backups on Apple and Google servers.

”Add the fact that WhatsApp stores and discloses who you chat with, and the picture is dire,” he wrote, further claiming that Apple and Google provide backed-up data from the service to third parties “thousands of times per year.”

In response to a user who said he only shares intimate images via Telegram, Durov replied: “Thanks for the trust – your nudes are safe with us.”

Telegram, however, does not use end-to-end encryption by default. According to the company’s own documentation, only its ‘Secret Chats’ feature offers full end-to-end protection, while regular messages are stored in its cloud. Critics have identified cloud backups as a weak point in messaging privacy, as data stored outside encrypted channels may be accessible under legal requests or breaches.

Meta has long maintained that messages are protected with end-to-end encryption and cannot be accessed by the company. It also offers optional end-to-end encrypted backups for users who enable the feature.

In January, a major class-action lawsuit filed against Meta Platforms in a US district court by an international group of plaintiffs from several countries accused the company of making false claims about the privacy of its WhatsApp service.

Durov has long criticized the platform as a “tool of surveillance,” urging users to avoid it entirely, particularly after its 2014 acquisition by Meta, then known as Facebook. In 2022, he warned that vulnerabilities regularly discovered in the app were not accidental but likely backdoors.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone rejected the allegations, saying any claim that WhatsApp messages are not encrypted is “categorically false and absurd,” and described the lawsuit as “a frivolous work of fiction.”

The pro-EU Tisza party’s victory over Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the Hungarian election means that the country has essentially been taken over by the Soros network, Elon Musk has said.

In a post on X on Monday, Musk lashed out at Alexander Soros – the son of Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros and chair of the Board of Directors of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) – who celebrated Orban’s fall as “a resounding rejection of entrenched corruption and foreign interference.”

“Soros Organization has taken over Hungary,” the SpaceX and Tesla owner said. In a separate post, Musk responded to a post by an X user who listed figures who cheered the result – among them, former US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, and various EU officials – and wrote: “This should tell you everything.” Musk replied with a “100%” emoji.

Though conservative in profile, Tisza has pledged to dismantle core pillars of Orban’s policies – drawing once again closer to the EU and NATO.

Orban – who will see his 16-year tenure as prime minister come to an end – has long clashed with Budapest-born Soros, accusing him of fomenting ‘woke’ ideologies, “liberal internationalism,” and an intention to turn native Europeans into a minority through an “invasion of immigrants.”

Hungary received nearly double the OSF’s average of $19 million per country across Europe and the post-Soviet region, with at least 153 organizations benefiting from Soros’s financial support, according to the report.

The OSF was essentially forced to leave Hungary in 2018 after Orban passed the so-called ‘Stop Soros’ anti-migration legislation. Critics have argued that despite the move, the OSF continues to influence Hungary’s domestic political scene through alternative routes.

US President Donald Trump has hit back at Pope Leo XIV, calling him “weak” and suggesting he should be “grateful” for becoming head of the Catholic Church, after the pontiff publicly criticised his policies.

The clash comes as Pope Leo has emerged as a vocal critic of the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, launched in late February. He described Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization as “truly unacceptable,” warning it amounted to “a threat against an entire people.”

The pontiff has also broadened his criticism to domestic US policy, calling for “deep reflection” on the treatment of migrants.

Trump responded in a post on Truth Social on Sunday night, accusing the Pope of being “WEAK on CRIME, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” and saying he would prefer his “all MAGA” brother Louis Prevost, who is US-based and known for his pro-Trump views.

“Don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History,” Trump wrote.

Later on Sunday, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump repeated his criticism, calling the Pope “a liberal person” who does not believe in “stopping crime,” adding: “I don’t think he’s doing a very good job... I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo.”

The Pope has intensified his calls for peace and a return to diplomacy. He pushed back against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who urged Americans to pray for victory “in the name of Jesus Christ,” saying God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.”

On Friday, Leo wrote on X that “God does not bless any conflict” and that “no cause can justify the shedding of innocent blood.” He repeated the appeal a day later at a Vatican vigil, calling for prayers to “break the demonic cycle of evil.”

India and Uzbekistan have kicked off the seventh edition of their annual joint military exercises. Launched in 2019, the exercise is held alternately in India and Uzbekistan each year.

This year’s drills, titled ‘Dustlik 2026’, started on Sunday at the Gurumsaray Field Training Area in Namangan, Uzbekistan.

The focus of the exercises is to enhance preparedness for the planning and execution of joint special operations and counter-terrorism coordination against unlawful armed groups, the Indian Army said in a statement.

The Indian contingent comprises 60 personnel, including 45 from a battalion of the Mahar Regiment, and 15 from the Indian Air Force (IAF).

The Uzbek contingent is also drawn from its army and air force personnel.

‘Dustlik 2026’: 🇮🇳🤝🇺🇿 India-Uzbekistan Joint Military Drills Set For Namangan, Uzbekistan

Scheduled from April 12 to 25 at the Gurumsaray Field Training Area, the 7th edition will focus on joint special operations and counter-terror coordination against unlawful armed groups.… pic.twitter.com/l19VytbMga

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) April 12, 2026

The Indian personnel are also expected to familiarize themselves with the operational procedures and drills of the Uzbekistan Armed Forces.

A 48-hour validation phase to test joint tactical drills is also on the agenda.

The previous edition of the annual joint military exercises was held in April 2025 at the Foreign Training Node in Pune.

India, which has a wide-ranging cooperation with Uzbekistan, established a joint working group on defense with the Central Asian nation in 2019.

Hungarian opposition leader Peter Magyar has pulled off a stunning victory in the country’s parliamentary election, with his Tisza party beating Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz by more than 16 points. The result is set to dramatically change Hungary’s relations with the EU, Russia, and Ukraine.

Just over an hour after polls closed on Sunday, Orban called Magyar to congratulate him on his win.

With 92% of the ballots counted on Sunday night, Tisza was leading with 53.72% of the vote, ahead of Fidesz with 37.67% – a result in line with opposition-friendly pre-election polls.

Magyar campaigned on ending corruption, funding public services, and restoring ties with the EU. Orban promised to continue his program of tax breaks for citizens and levies on corporations, all while pledging to keep Hungary out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. His campaign cast Magyar as a tool of the EU, who would cut off Hungary’s access to cheap Russian energy and back Brussels’ escalatory policies toward Moscow.

“What the result means for the fate of our country and the nation, and what its deeper or higher meaning is, we do not know now, time will decide,” Orban told supporters in Budapest. “No matter how it turns out, we, as opposition, will serve our country and the Hungarian nation.”

Will Hungary maintain close relations with Russia?

This is highly unlikely. Magyar’s allies in the opposition media collaborated with EU spies to run stories of supposed Russian interference in the election, and Magyar led crowds in chants of “Russians, go home!” But he also said he will have to interact with Moscow, because “the geographical position of neither Russia nor Hungary will change.”

Rhetoric aside, Magyar is unlikely to embrace a policy of open hostility toward Moscow, but his desire to mend ties with the EU will in all likelihood result in Budapest dropping its opposition to the bloc’s €90 billion ($105 billion) loan package for Ukraine – a decision that will be poorly received in Russia.

Will Hungary get the cold shoulder from the US?

Viktor Orban is a close ideological ally of US President Donald Trump, who dispatched Vice President J.D. Vance to Budapest to campaign for his reelection, and promised to use the “full economic might of the United States to strengthen Hungary’s economy” if Orban won. 

Will Magyar open Hungary to more immigrants?

Highly unlikely. Orban’s hardline immigration policies are exceedingly popular in Hungary, and Magyar has attacked the prime minister on immigration from the right, criticizing his decision to allow 35,000 guest workers into Hungary from outside the EU. It remains to be seen whether Brussels will pressure Magyar into accepting asylum seekers, and whether the liberal Western media criticizes him as intensely on the issue as it did to Orban.

How quickly can the EU release billions of euros it withheld from Hungary?

The EU is currently withholding around €20 billion in funding from Hungary, citing concerns over judicial independence, corruption, and Orban’s ban on LGBTQ propaganda.

Magyar is on track to win the two-thirds majority necessary to modify Hungary’s constitution and implement the judicial reforms demanded by Brussels, but the EU will ultimately decide if and when to release the money. Additionally, Magyar has stayed quiet on LGBTQ issues, and any attempts to liberalize Hungary to meet the EU’s demands may prove unpopular with Hungarians.

For Magyar, accessing this money is crucial. His program of spending on healthcare, education, and other public services depends entirely on the release of the funds.

Will Hungary be able to cancel its contracts for Russian oil?

Russia supplies almost 90% of Hungary’s oil and slightly more of its gas, and provides nuclear fuel for the Paks Nuclear Power Plant. The EU has mandated that its member states completely cut themselves off from Russian energy by the end of next year, but Hungary’s contracts with Russia extend to 2035.

Will the EU now be able to steal Russia’s frozen assets?

No. Despite Orban being portrayed in the media as the sole obstacle between the EU and its plans for Ukraine, the decision on whether to steal the roughly €210 billion in Russian assets frozen in the EU is an unpopular one. Leaders including Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Slovakia’s Robert Fico, and the Czech Republic’s Andrej Babis all oppose the measure, as does Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, whose country the assets are impounded in.

As such, the EU is banking on its €90 billion debt-financed loan to keep Ukraine afloat. With Orban out of the picture, Brussels will likely be able to secure unanimous support for the loan, unless Fico or Babis object.

The US naval blockade of Iranian ports has come into force, heightening fears over security and trade routes in the region and adding to market jitters after US‑Iran talks in Pakistan on Saturday ended without a deal. US Central Command has said that the measures apply to vessels calling at Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

US President Donald Trump has launched a verbal attack on Pope Leo XIV, an outspoken critic of the war on Iran, calling the American-born pontiff “weak.”

In a Truth Social post, Trump – who initially hailed Leo’s election as a “great honor” – said the Pope is “terrible for Foreign Policy,” with the US leader adding that he does not “want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States.” Speaking later aboard Air Force One, Trump doubled down, calling Leo “a liberal person” and saying: “I don’t think he’s doing a very good job... I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo.”

The remarks came after the pontiff intensified calls for peace and diplomacy in the Middle East. On Friday, Leo wrote that “God does not bless any conflict” and “no cause can justify the shedding of innocent blood.”

On Monday, the Pope reiterated his stance, saying he “will continue to speak out loudly against war.”

The clash comes as Trump refused to rule out resuming “limited” strikes on Iran after ordering a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The move followed the collapse of 21-hour US-Iran talks in Pakistan at the weekend, which Tehran said broke down over “excessive” and “unreasonable” US demands. The US Department of War said enforcement of the blockade on all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports will begin at 10:00 AM ET (14:00 GMT) on April 13.

The announcement sent global oil prices back above $100 and prompted Iran to warn any hostile activity in the strait would be met with force, declaring no port in the Persian Gulf or the Sea of Oman would remain secure if its own ports are targeted.

• Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles said Trump’s planned Hormuz blockade “makes no sense,” calling it part of a “downward spiral.”

• China warned the blockade threatens global trade, stressing the strait must remain “safe, stable, and unimpeded.”

• The UK said it will not join the blockade, adding Hormuz “must not be subject to tolling.”

• Iran said it is weighing tolls on all vessels transiting Hormuz, not just oil shipments.

• More than 32 million people could be pushed into poverty by the war’s fallout, the UN Development Program warned.

Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates. You can also read our previous updates here.

Scientific knowledge should go hand-in-hand with religious faith for humankind to avoid a potential catastrophe, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, has said while speaking to the Russian cosmonauts working at the International Space Station (ISS).

The Patriarch delivered his address to the cosmonauts via video link on Sunday as Orthodox Christians celebrate Easter. This year, one of the most revered Orthodox holidays coincides with Cosmonautics Day, which marks the anniversary of the first crewed space flight made by Yuri Gagarin on April 12, 1961.

Speaking to the cosmonauts Sergey Kud-Sverchkov, Sergey Mikayev, and Andrey Fedyaev, the Patriarch spoke about the importance of maintaining a balance between scientific and technical advances and religious faith, arguing the latter is key to keeping the potentially dangerous progress at bay.  

“This is possible, since faith in God strengthens a person’s understanding of their own limitations. This is crucial – the recognition of what you can do and what you cannot. And another important point: faith in God affirms the need to strengthen and develop a moral sense within a person,” he added. “Where there is a moral sense, there is conscience. And without conscience, a person cannot live. And the planet will not be able to live – everything will simply be destroyed.”

Israel has condemned Spain after a fireworks-filled effigy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was blown up during an Easter festival in the southern town of El Burgo.

The long-strained ties between Madrid and West Jerusalem have deteriorated even further in light of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, with Spain emerging as one of the most vocal Western critics of the aggression.

Last month, Spain permanently withdrew its ambassador from Israel, formally downgrading the level of diplomatic relations with the country.

This week, West Jerusalem kicked Madrid out of a US-backed coordination center in Kiryat Gat that oversees the Gaza ceasefire, calling it retaliation for opposing Israel and “defaming” its military.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry called out Spain over the El Burgo festival on Saturday, branding the display an “appalling anti-Semitic hatred” and accusing Madrid of “systemic incitement.” The Spanish chargé d’affaires was summoned over the incident, it added.

Footage from El Burgo, taken during Easter Sunday festivities, shows the massive effigy of the Israeli prime minister going up in flames. The seven-meter (23-foot) figure was packed with 14 kilograms (31 lb) of fireworks that exploded to cheers from a crowd of onlookers.

The appalling antisemitic hatred on display here is a direct result of @sanchezcastejon government’s systemic incitement.
And even now, the Spanish government remains silent.
The Spanish chargé d’affaires was summoned for a reprimand. pic.twitter.com/2Bguhs7Ce8

— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) April 11, 2026

El Burgo’s mayor, Maria Dolores Narvaez, defended the act, pointing out that it was a part of a decades-old local “Burning of Judas” tradition that previously never caused any issues. Speaking to a local television station, she said that foreign leaders’ effigies had on numerous occasions been featured during the festivities.  

Vladimir Zelensky’s chief of staff Kirill Budanov has acknowledged that mobilization has created what he called a “huge” problem in Ukrainian society, exposing an increasing gap between Kiev’s calls to “fight until victory” and widespread draft evasion.

The Ukrainian military faces a severe manpower crisis driven by battlefield losses, draft evasion, and desertion. With few volunteers, Kiev increasingly relies on mandatory conscription – a highly divisive policy. Recruitment officers are often accused of heavy-handed tactics, and videos of so-called ‘busification’ – the forced detention of military-age men – circulate widely.

In an interview with Ukrinform earlier this week, Budanov conceded that society is split, though he stopped short of linking the divide to growing backlash over coercive mobilization.

“There are real problems... in our society. Because on the one hand, everyone says we need to fight until victory – and on the other, everyone is running away from mobilization. It's a huge, huge problem,” he said, acknowledging a contradiction in which both frontline troops and draft dodgers are lauded as “heroes.”

Tens of thousands of draft-age men have been caught attempting to flee since 2022, Ukrainian border authorities reported, with dozens dying while trying to cross dangerous routes such as into neighboring Romania, a top destination for draft evaders. Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov recently revealed that around two million potential recruits are wanted for draft evasion, while some 200,000 troops have deserted.

Public backlash against mobilization has been mounting with videos showing civilians intervening in forced conscription. Earlier this month, three enforcement officers were stabbed, one fatally, while performing their duties.

A March survey cited by Slovo i Delo found roughly that 40% of Ukrainians would refuse military service, while only 16% said they would willingly serve.

In mid-2025, Gallup reported that 69% of Ukrainians favored a negotiated end to the conflict, a massive swing from 2022, when 73% were in favor of fighting until victory.

Polish Defense Minister Władyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz suggested that draft-age Ukrainians should return home, while Estonian Interior Minister Lauris Laanemets even offered to track down and extradite Ukrainian draft dodgers.

China has unveiled a set of new economic incentive measures for Taiwan, offering to resume some ties with the island. The announcement comes after a visit by the head of Taiwan’s main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), to Beijing.

Taiwan has been a de-facto self-governing territory since 1949, when Chinese nationalist forces fled there after losing the civil war. Beijing regards the island as an integral part of its territory under the One China policy, which is backed by the overwhelming majority of the UN member states.

Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled the ten-point economic incentive package to the island on Sunday, which includes fast-tracking a full resumption of regular direct flights across the Taiwan Strait and facilitating access for Taiwanese food products to the Chinese market. The plan also envisions sharing energy and water supply with Matsu and Kinmen, Taiwanese-governed islands that are geographically closer to the mainland, as well as working on constructing a bridge to them.

Cheng said she was “very thankful” to China’s leadership for the proposed preferential measures. “As I said during the Cheng-Xi meeting, things must be done one by one,” she stated.

Taiwan’s authorities, however, openly signaled their mistrust towards Beijing and expressed displeasure at getting sidelined by the KMT. Presidential Office spokesperson Karen Kuo said that “any exchanges should not be subject to political preconditions, nor should they be used as tools for political maneuvering or deals by specific parties.” 

The MAC urged caution over Beijing’s latest announcement, stating that similar measures had been repeatedly rolled out and suspended by China in the past. “The same pattern is now being repeated, without any institutional safeguards for Taiwan’s industries, farmers, fishers or the rights and interests of the public, making the measures highly risky,” it said in a statement.

The US-Iran talks in Islamabad ended exactly as they were bound to end under the current balance of power – without a deal, without a handshake, without even the faintest sense that the two sides have moved closer to a durable peace.

Nearly 21 hours of talks, an unprecedented level of representation, extraordinary security measures in the Pakistani capital, the high hopes of mediators, and the jitters of global markets changed none of the essentials. What now lies between Washington and Tehran is no longer mere political distrust, but an entire layer of military memory, and that layer proved stronger than diplomatic protocol. It would have been a surprise if the talks turned out any different.

Talks about the past, not the future

From the outside, the talks looked historic. They marked the highest-level direct US-Iran contact in decades. The American delegation was led by Vice President J.D. Vance and included Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Iran was represented by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Pakistan, for all practical purposes, turned Islamabad into a sealed security zone, while the Serena Hotel became a fortified diplomatic venue. Yet it was precisely this contrast between the historic form and the emptiness of the results that revealed the true essence of the moment. Formally, the two sides were talking about the future. In substance, they were arguing about the past and about the right to dictate the terms of the present. The US demanded Iranian concessions on non-proliferation, the nuclear program, and freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran responded with demands for reparations, the unfreezing of assets, recognition of its regional interests, and a broader de-escalation that would also extend to Lebanon. That alone showed that the parties had not come to Pakistan in search of compromise, but to stake out their outer limits.

The central reason for the breakdown lies in a word that appeared almost routinely in official statements, yet in reality explains everything: Trust. Iran spoke openly of its absence, while the American side effectively confirmed that absence through the rhetoric of ultimatum. When Vance declared after the talks that the US had presented Tehran with its “best and final offer,” it sounded less like an invitation to peace than an attempt to dress up the failure of diplomacy in the language of American superiority. For Tehran, this tone was unacceptable from the outset. Iran entered these negotiations convinced that Washington had repeatedly shown its willingness to combine diplomacy with coercion, and to use pauses to regroup. This is why the Iranians approached Islamabad with extreme caution. Under these conditions, the talks were not an instrument of reconciliation, but merely a way of testing whether the other side was capable of stopping, even temporarily. Tehran’s conclusion, judging by the outcome, was negative.

From this follows a second, deeper reason for the failure – the US entered these negotiations from a position of strategic urgency. US President Donald Trump needed a pause far more than the White House cared to admit. This was evident both in the substance of Pakistan’s mediation efforts and in how quickly Washington agreed to a two-week suspension of bombing. Formally, Trump insisted that no deal was necessary and that the US retained the upper hand regardless. But political logic suggested the opposite. The war, which began on February 28, 2026, did not bring a quick or unambiguous resolution. It hit energy markets, logistics, insurance, fertilizers, helium supplies, and inflation expectations. The economic shock is already forcing the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to prepare more pessimistic forecasts on growth and inflation. The longer the confrontation drags on, the less room for maneuver the White House retains, both at home and abroad.

The legal dimension only deepens this trap. Under the US War Powers framework, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours, and in general, the unauthorized use of armed forces in hostilities is limited to 60 days, after which specific congressional approval is required unless a separate authorization exists. This does not mean that every military operation stops automatically on the dot, but it does mean that the political corridor for a prolonged war without congressional backing narrows sharply. For Trump, this is especially sensitive because there is nothing close to a consensus on Iran within the American political class. More than this, the issue has already generated new tensions over presidential authority and the role of Congress. The Iranians, of course, see this vulnerability no worse than American lawyers do. When one side understands that the other is not merely fighting against military constraints, but against domestic political time as well, the incentive to make concessions falls sharply.

The US has also found itself in a political deadlock because it failed to turn its campaign against Iran into a broad international coalition. Even among NATO allies and close partners, support proved limited, and to a significant extent, non-military. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte himself acknowledged that some European allies had “failed the test” in the Iran war, while the British leadership separately emphasized that it had not taken part in the strikes, even while offering other forms of support. These signals mean that Washington failed to present its line as unquestionably legitimate and broadly Western. American power works best when it appears not merely as the power of the US, but as the institutional power of an entire bloc. In the case of Iran, this did not happen. And when allies hesitate, the adversary gains an additional sense of time and space.

Inside the US, the situation is no less difficult. The longer the war affects oil prices, gasoline prices, shipping costs, and inflation expectations, the weaker the argument becomes that coercion can deliver peace and stability quickly. Markets are already reacting to the collapse of the talks as a warning of a potentially prolonged energy shock. Reuters reports new nervousness on Gulf stock exchanges and notes that the conflict has already dealt a serious blow to the global economy and pushed oil prices higher. For Trump, this is particularly dangerous for political reasons. His electoral logic has always rested on the image of a leader who lowers costs for the ordinary American, not one who drags the country into an expensive foreign adventure with unpredictable prices at the pump and a new wave of inflation. That is why even the threats to resume strikes now sound more like those of a leader trying to preserve an image of toughness while the material consequences of that toughness are hitting his own political base.

Iran sets the price of de-escalation

Against this backdrop, it is especially important to understand why Iran entered Islamabad with a stronger negotiating position than many had expected at the start of the war. On paper, the US and Israel should have possessed a decisive military advantage. But the political reality of war is often determined by who succeeds in imposing an unfavorable form of conflict on the other side. By closing and effectively controlling the passage through the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran transformed itself from an object of pressure into an actor capable of influencing the global economy almost in real time. Hormuz and the conditions of navigation became one of the central knots in the negotiating deadlock. While the US speaks of freedom of navigation, Iran speaks of control, coordination of passage, and the right to levy charges. This is a dispute over who, after six weeks of war, has the right to define the price of de-escalation. And it is precisely here that Iran has shown that the price for the US is exceedingly high.

No less important is the internal dimension of Iran’s position. AP reports that in Tehran, the collapse of the talks produced a mixture of disappointment and demonstrative resolve, while some public reactions boiled down to the view that Iran should not squander at the negotiating table the gains it has secured on the battlefield. This is a crucial psychological shift. A campaign that, in the design of the US and Israel, was supposed to weaken Iran and perhaps fracture it internally has thus far produced the opposite effect – the consolidation of a significant share of Iranian society around the state and the idea of resisting external pressure. For the authorities in Tehran, this means greater room for a hard line. Iran emerged from this phase of escalation unbroken. And in Middle Eastern politics, that is already half the victory.

The Israeli factor also deserves particular attention. Even setting aside every conspiratorial exaggeration, the open evidence of recent days shows that the Israeli leadership has displayed no real interest in swiftly closing the conflict on terms that would allow Washington and Tehran to move toward a stable compromise. On the contrary, Israel’s line remains maximally hard. Parallel to the Islamabad talks, Israeli strikes in Lebanon continued, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly stressed that the campaign is not over. For Iran, this is a direct signal – even if the Americans are ready to discuss a pause, their closest regional ally and effective co-author of the pressure campaign remains interested in a continued military scenario and does not want Tehran and Washington to stabilize relations. Here the US problem is twofold. First, Tehran does not believe Washington is truly capable of restraining Israeli escalation. Second, even if part of the American establishment would like to stop, it cannot do so without costs in its relationship with Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition. Iran therefore logically proceeds from the worst-case scenario and feels no urgency to yield.

A dead end

In this sense, Islamabad became not a venue for peace, but a mirror reflecting the full contradiction of the American line. On the one hand, the White House threatens new strikes and a naval blockade, and gives ‘final offers’. On the other, the very fact of the two-week ceasefire, Pakistan’s intensive mediation, and the rush to diplomacy show that the US has neither free hands nor a clear exit strategy. After the failure of the talks, AP and Axios reported further hard-line statements from Trump and new American moves around Hormuz. Yet every statement now works in two directions. It may intimidate Iran, but it also reminds everyone that Washington has not achieved the essential goal – it has not broken the will of its adversary, has not reopened the strait on its own terms, has not assembled a full coalition, and has not secured a sustainable diplomatic outcome. In this situation, the threat of force ceases to be an instrument for solving the problem and becomes instead a symptom that fewer and fewer instruments remain.

This is why saying the US is now trapped in a political deadlock is a fairly precise description of the present reality. Continuing the war is dangerous because of law, economics, allies, and internal division. Ending the war on acceptable terms is difficult because Iran does not see itself as the defeated party and is demanding not mercy, but a price. A return to old formulas is impossible because the war has changed the very structure of bargaining. The Trump administration wants to speak at once in the language of coercion and in the language of dealmaking, but after February 28, 2026, these two languages no longer fit together. To Tehran, the American promise of peace appears too reversible, too dependent on domestic political calculation, and too vulnerable to Israeli pressure. This is why the Iranians are demanding more and speaking more harshly. They believe they have paid far too high a price for their current position to exchange it now for yet another set of guarantees that may evaporate at the first new crisis.

What comes next is perhaps the bleakest question of all. Formally, the diplomatic channel has not yet been completely destroyed. Pakistan will clearly try to preserve at least the remnants of a negotiating infrastructure, because it has invested enormous political capital in the present pause. But there is so far no structural basis for a rapid breakthrough. If Trump truly demands that Iran halt its nuclear program, hand over enriched uranium to the American side, and fully reopen Hormuz without substantial reciprocal political guarantees, then that will not be a roadmap to peace, but merely a repetition, in updated language, of the same ultimatum logic that already led to the collapse in Islamabad. Iran, by all appearances, will not accept these terms – which means the risk of the war returning to a hot phase is indeed very high.

Ultimately, this is the principal lesson of Islamabad. The negotiations did not fail because of a single disputed clause, a single harsh remark, or even one sleepless night at the Serena Hotel. They failed because an entire American way of conducting Middle Eastern policy has reached its limit – first apply pressure, then offer compromise from a position of strength, and then wonder why the other side does not believe in the sincerity of the offer. Whatever one thinks of Iranian policy, Iran no longer feels that it is the side obliged to hurry. The US, for all its military power, for the first time in a very long time, looks like the side that is in a hurry. The Islamabad talks were the collapse of the American illusion that it still holds a monopoly over the terms on which wars in the region can be brought to an end.

Ukraine attempted to strike a Russian cosmodrome the same day as a rocket carrying satellites into orbit was taking off, Russia's space agency Roscosmos has confirmed. Speaking to Russian President Vladimir Putin, agency head General Dmitry Bakanov said that an attempted drone strike on the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the northern part of the country was foiled.

Bakanov, who has led Roscosmos since February 2025, made the comments on Saturday prior to Cosmonautics Day, which marks the first human journey into outer space, undertaken by Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin in 1961.

Putin praised the March 23 launch as a key milestone for Russia’s space program, while Bakanov said that Ukraine had attempted to disrupt it. Plesetsk Cosmodrome lies about 800km north of Moscow and roughly 1,300km from the Ukrainian border.

Bakanov did not provide details on the attack. The Russian Defense Ministry did not explicitly comment on the space base assault, but reported the downing of dozens of drones across the country around that date.

The Roscosmos chief was referring to the launch of a Soyuz-2.1b rocket, a medium-lift launch vehicle used as the workhorse in the Russian space industry. The rocket was carrying 16 satellites belonging to the Rassvet constellation, developed by Russian private aerospace firm Bureau 1440 – widely described as Moscow’s answer to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite system.

Russian officials have been suspicious of Starlink, which is not operating in the country, but is actively used by Ukrainian forces.

The Russian satellites operate as 5G base stations, interconnected via laser communication links and capable of transmitting data at speeds of up to 1 Gbit/s. Their target orbital altitude is 800 km. Bureau 1440 is planning to deploy more than 900 low-orbit relays by 2035.

The conquest of frontiers and expansion into the unknown are often considered distinctly American pursuits. And indeed, it’s hard for modern people to grasp the monumental efforts undertaken by early settlers. 

However, Russians share a similar passion for filling in blank spaces on maps. And when there were no uncharted territories left on Earth, they turned their gaze toward the stars.

April 12 is Cosmonautics Day in Russia – a day when every Russian can reconnect with their childhood dream of becoming a cosmonaut, and on streets and TV screens across the country, we once again see images of the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin.

In medieval times, Russian expansion often contradicted the wishes of the country’s rulers. Many of the pioneers settling in the country’s northern and southern frontiers were runaway serfs or simply sought a freer life. The colonization of Siberia even began against the wishes of Tsar Ivan IV, who was preoccupied with the Livonian War and was reluctant to divert attention eastward. However, the Stroganov merchant family financed an expedition beyond the Ural Mountains. 

Soon, Moscow recognized the vast wealth that lay hidden in Siberia, and waves of settlers migrated there. Some sought riches, while others ventured farther to escape the growing imperial bureaucracy. These pioneers were often generously rewarded with money, trade monopolies, promotions, titles, and land.

When no unclaimed territories remained on earth, restless individuals turned their attention to the skies. 

Most Russian philosophers showed little interest in politics or laws but passionately debated the nature of humanity and civilization. By the late 19th century, spurred by a surge of interest in physics and astronomy, many became interested in space. Thus, Russian cosmism emerged. 

Its followers sought to understand humanity’s place in space and arrived at some optimistic conclusions:

- Humans should not submit to nature but should explore and transform it to improve the world 

- Humanity will inevitably venture into space and inhabit the universe 

- Space exploration has the potential to make people better – they can unite for a common purpose, setting aside wars to pursue new worlds 

- Humans are part of the cosmos and should not fear the unknown

Some cosmists were captivated by the ultimate goal of conquering space: Defeating death and even ‘resurrecting ancestors’. Others, including self-taught scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, focused more on practical matters like the construction of rockets and space stations, believing that these ideas were not mere flights of fancy.

“First, inevitably, the idea, the fantasy, the fairy tale. Then, scientific calculation. Ultimately, fulfillment crowns the dream,” Tsiolkovsky famously said. 

During a time when politics and materialism dominated intellectual discourse, cosmism remained less popular. However, cosmists had their followers. It is said that one of them visited Tsiolkovsky after the Civil War to discuss his engineering career and was encouraged by the scientist in his plans to build rockets. 

This engineer was Sergey Korolev. Little did he know then that he would send the first man into space – a realm where no one had ventured before.

Engines of the space race

Stalinist industrialization had many issues and brought a lot of unwarranted suffering. Yet it established the infrastructure necessary for rapidly mobilizing vast resources and tilted production capacities toward the military industry. As a result, when the space race began, the Soviet government was able to swiftly recover from post-war devastation and embark on ambitious new projects.

The space program benefited from close collaboration with military projects. For example, when there was a need to build a new launch site to test the new R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to deliver a hydrogen bomb, engineers and generals quickly realized that they could develop space launch vehicles at the same location. 

Thus, the world’s largest spaceport, Baikonur, was established. Located in a desolate area far from major population centers yet conveniently close to a railway, it provided ideal conditions for large-scale secret and potentially hazardous projects. Construction progressed rapidly: Within two years of breaking ground, Baikonur launched Sputnik-1, the first artificial Earth satellite, into orbit.

Sergey Korolev headed the program. He began his scientific career in aircraft engineering but soon transitioned to rocket science. Like many top engineers of his time, he learned from internationally-renowned former imperial professors who remained in the Soviet Union. Specialists in his field were scarce, so after the war, he collaborated on many classified projects. 

Korolev was inspired by the ideas of Tsiolkovsky and urged party officials to pursue space exploration. The obvious next step after the launch of Sputnik was to send a human into space. The USSR already possessed the resources, technology, and talented scientists for it, but lacked the cosmonaut.

Ultimately, Korolev was presented with three candidates, the leading one being Yuri Gagarin – a 25-year-old senior lieutenant in the Soviet Air Force. He had a charming smile, loved sports, demonstrated initiative, and had good leadership qualities. Friends noted his enthusiasm for heroism and said his favorite word was ‘work’.

Time for preparation was limited; Korolev was informed that the Americans were also gearing up to send a man into space, and the Soviets needed to beat them. Scientists, engineers, and cosmonauts worked tirelessly but met the deadlines. By April 1961, it became clear that history would soon be made at Baikonur.

Despite the initial success of space programs, many skeptics, both in the USSR and around the world, thought that a manned flight would end in catastrophe. The Soviet authorities were cautious. They prepared three statements for the media: One in case of a successful flight, one in case of an emergency landing, and one in case of tragedy.

On April 8, the mission for the space flight was officially approved, with Gagarin confirmed as the pilot. Two days later, an unofficial meeting took place between cosmonauts, engineers, and Soviet military leaders.

At 3:00 AM on April 12, final checks began on the launch pad. Korolev himself was present. At 5:30 AM, Gagarin was woken up with the words, “Yura, time to get up.” After a medical check-up, he had breakfast consisting of meat puree, currant jam, and coffee. By 6:50 AM, Gagarin exited the bus at the launch site and climbed into the rocket.

For the next two hours, he ran system checks in coordination with mission control. During this process, a malfunction was discovered – the hatch wouldn’t close – but it was fixed within seven minutes.

At 9:00 AM, one-minute readiness was announced. Gagarin hummed the song ‘Fly, Doves, Fly’. At 9:07 AM, ignition was activated, and Gagarin uttered the legendary phrase, “Let’s go!”

Throughout the flight, Gagarin maintained communication with Earth, professionally reporting on his condition and what he could see. However, even this seasoned pilot couldn’t help but marvel at the breathtaking views around him.

The spacecraft completed one orbit around Earth and landed at 10:53 AM near the village of Smelovka in Saratov Region. The flight lasted 106 minutes.

Close to the landing site, the cosmonaut met the bewildered wife of a local forester and her daughter. Gagarin joked, “Don’t be afraid, comrades, I am a Soviet citizen like you!” Soon after, military personnel arrived and transported the cosmonaut to their base.

Messages of congratulations flooded in from heads of state around the world, from France, Japan, India, and Cuba. John F. Kennedy also sent a note expressing hope that “the Soviet Union and the United States may work together on the matter of mastering the Universe.”

In the USSR, a wave of patriotism surged. Yet public affection wasn’t directed towards the party, the military, or the scientists, but toward Gagarin himself. He didn’t deliver speeches about the triumph of communism or talk of the ‘enemies of the people’. Gagarin remained humble, met with ordinary people, and signed autographs. He continued to smile broadly, even during a meeting with Queen Elizabeth II, who broke royal protocol to take a photo with him.

On March 27, 1968, Gagarin died in a plane crash in Vladimir Region while conducting a training flight. He was just 34 years old. The USSR declared a national day of mourning – an unprecedented move for someone who was not a head of state.

Some believe that his early death further solidified Gagarin’s legend. The world never saw him grow older or become involved in politics – though he could have easily become a political figure. Gagarin will forever be remembered as the young, smiling pilot.

The new leadership in the USSR under Brezhnev showed less interest in the space program. Korolev’s proposals for missions to the Moon and Mars were rejected as the country faced an increasing shortage of consumer goods, and budgets shifted to other sectors.

With the end of the Cold War, space lost its strategic importance for a long time.

Recently, however, interest in space has been rekindled in Russia. A new space program aims to create a Russian orbital station to replace the ISS, along with a three-phase lunar mission culminating in the establishment of a permanent lunar base.

On Cosmonautics Day, however, Russians tend to focus not on ambitious plans, but rather on the smiling pilot who calmly accepted the offer to journey into the unknown. And they remember the words he spoke shortly after his return: 

“Orbiting Earth in the spaceship, I saw how beautiful our planet is. People, let us preserve and increase this beauty, not destroy it!”

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called opposition leader Peter Magyar and congratulated his Tisza party on its election victory. At the time of the call, Tisza was leading Orban’s Fidesz party by 52% to 39% of the vote.

Magyar dominated pre-election polling, after campaigning on corruption, public services, and restoring ties with the EU. His victory determines not only who governs Hungary, but also how far Budapest resists policy proposals coming from Brussels.

Orban has spent years frustrating the EU with his stance on Russia, sanctions, and military support for Ukraine, making this election a closely watched test for Brussels as well as for Orban’s allies on the international right. Ukraine is also watching – and allegedly interfered in – the vote, as Orban is currently vetoing the EU’s planned €90 billion loan package for Kiev.

Independent polling summarized by AP suggests Tisza entered election day with momentum, though the race was still expected to be tight because of Fidesz’s entrenched rural support and the advantages Orban enjoys from incumbency and Hungary’s electoral system.

Earlier, Magyar wrote off reports that he was planning to instigate post-election riots as “scare stories and lies," after a former Tisza party adviser released a document alleging that Magyar’s EU backers were urging him to declare victory prematurely, and start street-level violence modeled on the 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine if the result doesn’t go his way.

LIVE UPDATES HAVE ENDED

The Holy Fire was delivered from Jerusalem to Moscow on Saturday and received at Vnukovo Airport before being used in Orthodox Easter services.

The flame is lit each year on the eve of the holiday inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, at the site associated with the burial of Jesus Christ. The ritual takes place in the Kuvuklia, a chapel built over the tomb, where the Patriarch of Jerusalem enters after prayers and distributes the fire to clergy and pilgrims waiting in the darkened church.

A delegation from the St. Andrew the First-Called Foundation transported it to the Russian capital aboard a Roscosmos aircraft after receiving the flame earlier in the day at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The group, led by foundation board chairman Vladimir Yakunin and Metropolitan Feognost, a vicar of Patriarch Kirill, arrived in Israel on April 10 and departed from Ben Gurion Airport following the ceremony, during which Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem prayed alongside clergy and pilgrims.

At Vnukovo Airport, the fire was received by representatives of multiple dioceses before being taken to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

It was used during the Patriarchal night service and later distributed to several dioceses and churches across the capital, including Epiphany Cathedral in Yelokhovo and Znamensky Cathedral on Varvarka Street. The flame will be delivered to regions across the country, allowing worshipers to light candles from it throughout Easter week.

Roscosmos chief Dmitry Bakanov said the delivery went ahead despite tensions in the Middle East.

“The situation in the Middle East is not simple, but it was important for us to fulfill the mission of delivering the fire, which millions of Orthodox Christians in our country await for the Bright Easter holiday,” he said.

In 2026, concerns were raised that the fire might not appear due to restrictions on access to Jerusalem’s Old City and a more limited format for the ceremony. The failure of the ritual is traditionally viewed by some as a sign of future misfortune.

This year, Easter coincided with Cosmonautics Day on April 12 to commemorate Yuri Gagarin’s first human spaceflight. Patriarch Kirill exchanged greetings with the Russian crew aboard the International Space Station. Roscosmos cosmonauts sent holiday messages from space.

“Our goal is to ignite in the hearts of millions of Russian boys and girls a love for space,” cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev said.

A man has been arrested after breaching security at Ireland’s Shannon Airport and damaging a US military aircraft, in an incident that briefly shut down operations and reignited scrutiny of America’s long-running use of the facility.

Footage circulating online appears to show the intruder climbing onto a US Air Force C-130 Hercules parked on a remote taxiway at the County Clare airport. Some reports said he was wielding an axe, hatchet, or hammer as he struck the aircraft, though police have so far only confirmed an arrest for alleged criminal damage.

According to the Gardai, the suspect, a man in his 40s, entered an unauthorized area of the airport on Saturday morning and was arrested shortly before 11:00 AM under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act. The response involved airport police, Shannon Airport’s fire and rescue service, and Irish defense forces stationed on site.

𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢 | A protester breached the airside perimeter at Shannon Airport in Ireland, climbed onto the wing of a parked US Air Force C-130 Hercules and damaged the aircraft with what is believed to be a hammer, temporarily taking it out of service and forcing a brief airport… pic.twitter.com/PD9M9ftkry

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) April 11, 2026

The breach forced Shannon to suspend operations, with two departing flights delayed and an incoming aircraft from Lourdes, France placed in a holding pattern before the airport resumed normal operations at 10:15 AM.

It remains unclear whether the attack was motivated by the US campaign against Iran, but Shannon Airport has seen repeated incursions linked to opposition to the airport’s role as a refueling and transit point for US military traffic.

In a more recent incident in November 2025, three activists reportedly drove a van into a restricted area, approached a parked US military plane, and spray-painted a US Navy Reserve Boeing 737-700, forcing another shutdown. Months earlier, three women were arrested after breaching the perimeter and throwing red paint over a US-linked aircraft.