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 Orbán by his rival Péter 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 Union’s demise will not be averted by rhetoric; it is being hastened by it. In the absence of Viktor Orbán’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.

Viktor Orbán’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, Viktor Orbán 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 Union 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 Viktor Orbán 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, Viktor Orbán 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 Viktor Orbán’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 Viktor Orbán’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 Péter 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 Viktor Orbán, 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.

Péter 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 Viktor Orbán’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 Péter 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 Viktor Orbán 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 Viktor Orbán, 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. Viktor Orbán’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 LGBT 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 Viktor Orbán’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, LGBT+ 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.

The defeat of Viktor Orbán 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 Union 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 Viktor Orbán’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 World War II and the Holocaust, as he criticized European nations for not supporting the war with 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.

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 Orbán spent 16 years building a ‘Hungarian fortress’ – a state protected from migrants, liberal values, and the dictates of Brussels. But the irony of history is that the siege did not come from outside.

The keys to the ‘fortress’ were carried out by a man who had sat at the same table with Orbán for years. Hungary did not betray its leader – Viktor Orbán is inscribed in golden letters in the country’s modern history. However, young Hungarians, just like Orbán’s own generation in the late 1980s, demand 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 of ethnic minorities?

Watching the video in which the political heavyweight Orbán 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 Péter 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 the 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 not as a test of resilience, but as a sign of incompetent governance. 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 constitutional law at its discretion.

The main outcome for Hungarians is the end of an era of permanent tension. Orbán kept society on edge by constantly pointing to enemies – George Soros, migrants, LGBT people, 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 10% of Hungary’s GDP?

Migration pact and guest workers from Asia

Migration was one of the main issues in Orbán’s criticism of Western EU countries. Hungary opposed the EU migration pact approved in 2024 and coming 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 Orbán 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 electric cat plant by BYD (Build Your Dreams), 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 due to 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.

Sanctions have previously been adopted unanimously, including with Orbán’s participation, so this would not surprise the Kremlin. 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. Orbán built long-term energy security architecture, not just covering immediate needs. Dismantling this system would be extremely costly and difficult within one electoral cycle.

One major project is the Paks II nuclear plant, expected to raise nuclear energy’s share to 70%. 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. 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. Orbán hosted CPAC, befriended Tucker Carlson, and called Donald Trump “the hope of the world.” The White House reciprocated: Vice President J.D. Vance personally supported Orbán 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 with ethnic Hungarian populations — Transcarpathia, Transylvania, Slovakia, and Vojvodina. The Tisza program suggests major changes: criticism of diaspora voting rights, shifting minority rights protection to supranational institutions (ECHR), and revising funding laws for foreign communities (labeled “corruption” in Magyar’s program). In practice, this means Hungary’s financial and spiritual withdrawal from the 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 Orbán’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 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 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 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 are a pattern, not an accident.

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 on the development of AI-powered drones, the New York Times has reported, citing unnamed US defense and intelligence officials.

The new generation of 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,” 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 to catch up with the rivals of late, “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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.  

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.

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.

What will be the consequences for the United States of refraining from taking extreme measures against Iran?

It is too early to say what kind of lasting order, if any, will emerge in the Middle East after the failure of the US and Israel’s campaign against Tehran. Yet the decision to avoid escalation, and ultimately the destruction of an entire civilization, already allows for several conclusions, not only about the region but about the wider trajectory of global politics.

First, the episode once again demonstrates the limits of superpower capabilities when vital interests are not directly at stake. Second, international politics continues to drift in a dangerous direction, where the possibility of a general military catastrophe remains ever present. That drift, moreover, shows no immediate sign of slowing.

Once it became clear that Washington couldn’t break Iran’s resistance or force it to reopen the Strait of Hormuz using conventional means, the US faced a stark choice: retreat or escalate to the nuclear level. The latter was never seriously contemplated, despite the rhetorical threats. The US leadership understood that the stakes simply did not justify such a move.

As a result, the conflict has effectively been brought to a halt on terms favorable to Tehran. For many observers, this amounts to a fiasco for the United States: a failure to defeat a significantly weaker opponent and an inability to shield its Gulf allies, who have suffered from Iranian counterstrikes.

For Washington, in other words, the game was not worth the candle.

This restraint, however, carries consequences. It has become increasingly clear that American “security guarantees” are conditional and limited. The US will not go to any lengths to defend its partners, even those who rely on it most heavily.

This reality extends beyond the Middle East. In Europe, particularly among states along Russia’s western periphery, confidence in unconditional American protection has long been taken for granted. That confidence can no longer be absolute. Countries such as Finland and the Baltic nations have operated under the assumption that the US would always intervene decisively. Recent events suggest otherwise.

There is also a broader political dimension. The current US leadership, under Donald Trump, reflects a mindset in which material interests outweigh abstract considerations of prestige or power. Trump and his circle approach international affairs less as statesmen and more as businessmen.

The potential destruction of Iran would have had far-reaching consequences for the Middle East and the global energy system. Washington is neither prepared for nor interested in such an outcome. Other major powers are drawing their own conclusions from this. China, in particular, has already adapted its approach, and Russia is doing the same, placing emphasis on pragmatic cooperation and mutual benefit in its dealings with the United States.

Looking ahead, this pattern is unlikely to change quickly. Should Trump be succeeded by figures such as J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio, the underlying logic will probably remain intact. These are politicians who are similarly disinclined to sacrifice tangible gains for abstract political objectives.

This trajectory will persist until the US either accepts a diminished global role or finds itself in a far weaker, potentially unstable position. It is precisely at that point, when the costs of inaction begin to outweigh the risks of escalation, that the calculation may change. Only then might the game truly become worth the candle.

And when that moment arrives, the consequences are unlikely to be contained.

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

A UK jury has found former BBC producer Dylan Dawes guilty of downloading more than 6,000 child porn images.

The verdict was delivered at Cardiff Crown Court on Friday, following a four-day trial. Dawes, who started working for the British public broadcaster in 2001, had pleaded not guilty to the three counts of possessing indecent images and three counts of making indecent images.

Dawes was arrested in 2022 after police officers raided his home and seized computers and storage devices, where they discovered the incriminating material, according to the Daily Express.

“During a period of time of about 16 years between December 31, 2006, and March 1, 2022, the defendant has been downloading child pornography” on four different devices, prosecutor Harry Baker reportedly told the court, adding that 192 of the images were category A – the most egregious kind.

Judge Eugene Egan said the jury found Dawes “guilty on what they found to be absolutely overwhelming evidence,” according to Wales Online.

The former BBC producer will be sentenced on May 14, and must now register as a sex offender.

The British state broadcaster has a growing record of employing and harboring pedophiles in its ranks.

Infamously, the BBC allegedly suppressed complaints about sexual abuse perpetrated by Jimmy Savile, who is believed to have had as many as 450 victims. His crimes came to light after his 2011 death, and while he was never officially prosecuted, the revelations prompted an unprecedented investigation into how the BBC handles internal abuse reports.

“You can pursue a sensible policy… as an EU member only if you are sovereign [as a nation],” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said during his first meeting with journalists from international media outlets this year.

That meeting was quite significant, since Orban laid out his team’s approach to both foreign and domestic policies – an approach that has drawn sharp criticism from the European Commission.

When asked about Hungary’s potential exit from the EU, he said that “EU membership is an important option,” dispelling any notions that he wants the bloc to be dismantled. However, regarding migration, he declared, “Hungary will not accept Brussels deciding who we should live with.”

His reaction to the January 2026 kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by American forces was also noteworthy. Orban called it “a new language... that the world will speak in the future.” Essentially, he acknowledged the erosion of the ‘rules-based order’ – a concept the EU defends to maintain itself as a prominent center for moral and political judgment on global events.

Orban also said, “It makes sense to have optimal relations with other blocs [besides the EU], including America, Russia, China, the Arab and Turkish worlds.”

Naturally, such dictates from Brussels were supposed to be followed by all EU members. Rebellious European politicians were instantly branded ‘pro-Russian’. Orban too fell under this category because of his calls to establish dialogue with Russia.

However, before labeling Orban ‘pro-Russian’, we should delve deeper into Hungary’s political psychology.

Hungary’s three grievances 

The struggle for self-determination is deeply rooted in the mindset of the Hungarian political class. Following the collapse of the socialist bloc, for the first time in centuries Budapest had a real opportunity to pursue an independent policy. 

Hungary’s historical worldview stems from the fact that in the 20th century, its fate was determined by external powers in three instances. This has significantly shaped the psychology of today’s politicians: They understand that, in decisive moments, Hungary might not have any allies. 

The first example occurred in 1920, when the Treaty of Trianon was signed at the end of the First World War. The victorious countries – Britain, Italy, France, and the United States – effectively dismembered Hungary, stripping away about two-thirds of its territory in favor of neighbors like Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Austria. A portion of Hungary’s historical lands later became part of Ukraine.

The second time, the fate of Hungary was shaped by the USSR, the US, and the UK at the Yalta Conference following the Second World War. Budapest then became part of the socialist bloc. 

In 1956, Hungary attempted to assert its own path through an uprising, which was crushed by Soviet forces. The memory of this event remains significant in the context of modern relations between Russia and Hungary.

Orban is well aware of these historical events and understands that during times of great upheaval, more powerful neighbors can easily disregard the will of Hungarians – a reality Hungary has faced repeatedly. He knows all too well what can happen to smaller countries when military tensions arise in Europe.

This is why Orban pushes for a resolution of the conflict in Ukraine. His primary aim is to douse the flames of conflict, even if extinguishing them at their source is no longer possible. If engaging in dialogue with Russia is necessary for this, then that’s what he intends to do. This pragmatic approach, rather than any ‘pro-Russian’ sentiment, likely underpins his foreign policy. 

In 2023, Orban noted that Hungary had not forgotten the lessons of 1956. “[Hungary] looks beyond its borders with only one thought: the most important thing is that Hungary should not share a border with Russia… Hungary’s interest is that there should always be a territory controlled by another state between it and Russia,” Orban said, commenting on how he envisions Ukraine’s future borders after the conflict.

Hungary’s reluctance to form allied relations with Russia is evident. Since opting for a European path after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Hungary has never questioned this choice. Orban openly declares that being part of the EU provides certain benefits, despite the fact that Brussels freezes some funds intended for Budapest due to the latter’s stance on various national security issues, such as migrants and the activities of foreign media and NGOs.

The Hungarian government approaches its relationship with Moscow largely through the lens of benefits and practicality. Budapest has consistently maintained that sanctions are detrimental to the European economy (though it also voted for them), opposed stringent EU measures against Russia (while condemning its military operation), and criticized European foreign policy (without actively countering it, at least until oil supplies via the Druzhba pipeline were halted).

Hungary also finds value in its energy ties with Russia (e.g. Russian energy resources and the Paks II nuclear power plant project involving Russian specialists). This prompts Budapest to advocate for exemptions from sanctions, so it can continue accessing affordable Russian resources.

This somewhat resembles Russia’s approach. Russia also sold gas to Europe not out of altruism, but because this benefited Moscow. However, this does not make Russia’s policy pro-European or Hungary’s position pro-Russian.

Profit, however, turns countries into partners rather than allies, and it’s essential to understand this distinction clearly. This also aligns with Russia’s strategy. While Moscow had once aspired to forge allied relations with Europe, these attempts have not succeeded. Nevertheless, for a long time, Russia was willing to maintain partnerships that could facilitate strong foreign policy ties on various issues, including security concerns.

Hungary, like Slovakia, has opted for a path of partnership with Moscow, but its ability to fully implement this policy is hampered by Brussels’ anti-Russia rhetoric. The European Commission labels this pragmatic and measured approach as ‘pro-Russian’; however, it would be more accurately described as friendly and rational.

On April 12, Hungary will hold parliamentary elections that will put this rationality to the test. Orban faces a challenging campaign, as the entire European bureaucratic machine appears to be working against him. In fact, Hungarian voters will decide not only the direction of Hungary’s domestic policy but will also determine whether Budapest remains a dialogue partner for Moscow. This election will be significant for both Budapest and Brussels. Meanwhile, observers in Moscow can only watch the developments in Hungary, hoping that regardless of the government that comes to power, Budapest will remain focused on swiftly resolving the Ukraine conflict.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lashed out at Spain over what he described as repeated opposition to Israel and the “defaming” of the military after Madrid slammed the IDF over the recent strikes in Lebanon.

In a video address on Friday, Netanyahu said he ordered Spain’s expulsion from the US-backed coordination center in Kiryat Gat that oversees the Gaza ceasefire, calling it punishment for opposing Israel.

“Israel will not remain silent in the face of those who attack us. Spain has defamed our heroes, IDF soldiers – the soldiers of the most moral army in the world,” Netanyahu said. “Spain has chosen repeatedly to stand against Israel… I do not intend to allow any country to wage a diplomatic war against us without paying an immediate price.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

“Israel will not remain silent in the face of those who attack us.

Spain has defamed our heroes, the soldiers of the IDF, the soldiers of the most moral army in the world.

1/4 pic.twitter.com/c95fTDNXkW

— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) April 10, 2026

Spanish officials, including Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, have been among the most vocal critics of the US-Israeli war against Iran, warning that further escalation would bring severe humanitarian and economic consequences. Last month, Spain closed its airspace to US aircraft linked to the war and permanently withdrew its ambassador from Israel, downgrading ties.

The strikes – called ‘Operation Eternal Darkness’ – lasted ten minutes, but are considered the most intense aerial assault since the broader US-Israel war against Iran began on February 28. The IDF said it hit around 100 Hezbollah targets and killed over 180 militants. The Lebanese authorities said at least 357 people, mostly civilians, were killed and more than 1,223 were wounded.

Following the strikes, Sanchez slammed Netanyahu’s “contempt for life and international law,” calling it “intolerable” and urging Brussels to suspend the EU association agreement with Israel. Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares echoed the criticism, calling the strikes a “shame for the conscience of humanity” and accusing the IDF of “indiscriminate bombings” targeting civilians under the guise of fighting Hezbollah.

Senior Iranian and US negotiators are in Islamabad for what Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called a “make-or-break moment” to turn the fragile ceasefire into a broader deal.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, leading Tehran’s delegation, said he arrived with goodwill tempered by deep mistrust, noting that the US attacked Iran “twice within less than a year” during negotiations. US Vice President J.D. Vance, leading the American team, said he expects productive talks but warned Iran not to “play” the US.

Washington has agreed to release frozen Iranian assets held in Qatar and other foreign jurisdictions, a move seen as a sign of “seriousness” in reaching a deal between the US and the Islamic Republic, Reuters reported on Saturday, citing a senior Iranian source. Negotiators from both countries have arrived in Pakistan for talks.

High-level Iranian and US delegations arrived in Islamabad on Saturday to continue negotiations on a proposed peace framework. Some elements of the plan have been circulated in media reports, although no official details have been released by either side.

Unfreezing the assets is “directly linked to ensuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz”, a key issue in the talks, an unnamed official told the news agency. The source did not disclose the amount, while a second Iranian official said the US was ready to release $6 billion held in Qatar.

However, CBS News reported, citing a senior US official, that the White House hasn’t agreed to authorize release of the funds.

The exact value of Iran’s frozen assets remains unclear, though by some estimates the figure exceeds $100 billion. It includes funds immobilized directly in the US, assets restricted abroad, oil revenues in escrow, and central bank reserves blocked due to US secondary sanctions.

However, following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel by Iranian ally Hamas, the administration of then-President Joe Biden re-froze the funds, stating that Iran wouldn’t be able to access the money for the foreseeable future and that Washington retained the right to fully block the account.

The funds, originally frozen in 2018, stem from Iranian oil sales to South Korea and had been held in South Korean banks after President Donald Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran and withdrew from the nuclear deal during his first term in office.

“My daughter is sleeping in the ICU of a hospital in Mohakhali, Dhaka and I have been in the queue at the Trust filling station since 1:30 AM. It is now a quarter to three... If I cannot get fuel, I will leave the bike on the road and just walk away. I do not have the strength left in my body to push this bike all the way to the hospital.”

A Bangladeshi journalist posted this on social media – one more voice in the flood of similar posts over the past few weeks as the energy crisis triggered by the Iran war has swept across the nation of 177 million people. The post was later updated to say that the man finally received 5 liters of fuel at 6:50 AM.

Social media is now full of images of long lines at gas pumps across Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, and the situation is reportedly even more acute in other parts of the South Asian nation hit by severe energy crisis triggered by the conflict in the Middle East.

Thousands of fishermen across Barishal, the country’s southernmost division, have been passing idle days and suffering financial losses as most fishing trawlers remain tied up at the docks amid the ongoing fuel shortage. More than 1,000 seagoing trawlers are stranded in Alipur and Mohipur in Barishal, leaving over 100,000 fishermen and workers out of work.

Pritam Das, the owner of two trawlers that have been docked at Mohipur river port since Eid-ul-Fitr, a major religious festival in the Muslim-majority nation, said each vessel needs around 14 barrels of fuel per trip, but they have not been able to collect any fuel from dealers. The crisis has also significantly disrupted the supply of fish in local markets.

Although a fuel crisis is visible at gas pumps across the country, including in the capital, Dhaka, amid the Iran war, the government maintains that there is no fuel shortage.

While early March shortages were aggravated by the Eid holiday banking shutdown, which disrupted supply chains and delayed payments and deliveries, fuel distribution remains irregular even after the holiday: Stocks are limited, sales are capped, lines are long, and pressure on filling stations continues as demand still exceeds supply in Bangladesh.

New government, mounting challenge

Since the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) assumed power in Bangladesh last February, it has been grappling with a mounting fuel crisis that continues to pose a serious challenge for the new government. 

Despite assurances and policy efforts, supply disruptions, panic buying, and market irregularities have made the situation difficult to control, highlighting the government’s struggle to stabilize the energy sector and restore public confidence. 

In response to the ongoing fuel challenges, the new government has introduced a series of measures aimed at stabilizing supply while minimizing economic disruption.

The authorities have decided that shopping malls are to remain open until 7:00 PM – as a number of power plants in Bangladesh run on fuel. At the same time, officials have assured the public that the country is working to build sufficient fuel reserves, with plans to maintain a buffer stock for up to three months to ensure supply stability and meet rising demand, particularly during the peak agricultural season. 

“If we can reduce traffic on the roads and introduce a rationing system for fuel, it will help conserve fuel. That is why we are thinking of bringing schools in metropolitan cities – where traffic pressure is high – under an online-offline system,” Education Minister ANM Ehsanul Hoque Milon said.

Power, Energy and Mineral Resources Minister Iqbal Hassan Mahmood Tuku said this week that the country has adequate supplies of fuel, while stating that he would continue the nationwide drive against illegal fuel hoarders.

“The country so far has no fuel shortage and has enough stock of all sorts of fuel including petrol, octane and diesel while a geopolitical instability is prevailing in the Middle East,” he stated.

Zahed Ur Rahman, an adviser to the prime minister, admitted that there is a slight shortage in fuel supplies, though he reiterated that the situation remains under control as the government works to ease pressure. “Operations have been intensified to prevent illegal hoarding and smuggling of fuel,” he said.

Local experts maintain that the ongoing fuel strain is unlikely to ease anytime soon, as global supply uncertainty and mounting domestic demand continue to put pressure on the country’s energy supply chain.

With no clear end to the Middle East conflict – despite the announced ceasefire and ongoing talks in Islamabad – concerns are growing over shipment delays, particularly for April, when only a limited number of planned consignments have been confirmed so far. In the coming weeks, supply is likely to remain manageable if imports arrive on schedule and demand does not spike further.

Supply vs stock: The real constraint

As of April 7, the total stock of octane and gasoline stood at 10,500 tons and 16,000 tones respectively, enough to meet demand for 9-11 days, according to the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation (BPC). For April, around 110,000 tons of diesel imports have been confirmed and another 60,000 tons is in the pipeline, according to BPC data. In addition, existing depot stock stands at around 130,000 tons.

This suggests a total available supply of around 300,000 tons, or 86% of typical monthly demand.

In Bangladesh, the government has begun rationing fuel to avoid a shortage, as the country meets 95% of its oil and 30% of its gas requirements through imports.

Energy-sector analysts predict that electricity supply in the country could be affected in the coming summer season, as many power plants are likely to remain underutilized due to shortages of gas, coal, and furnace oil. Around 40% of overall capacity is expected to remain idle during peak demand from 7:00 to 9:00 PM. 

Out of the total 12,204 megawatts (MW) of gas‑fired capacity, the Bangladesh Power Development Board – the state‑owned agency responsible for planning and developing the nation’s power infrastructure – will be able to use at best about 5,200 MW, leaving nearly 7,000 MW offline.

Gas shortages have already forced five of the country’s six fertilizer factories to remain shut since March.

The country will have to rely heavily on coal‑fired power plants and furnace oil for electricity generation, as it has installed only 1,059 MW of renewable capacity – just 3.7% of total demand – with 757 MW from solar, 230 MW from hydro, and 62 MW from wind.

Hunting for fuel worldwide

As geopolitical tensions escalate, the government of Bangladesh is moving to diversify fuel imports as traditional shipping routes face disruption. Dhaka has requested a sanctions waiver from the US so that the country can purchase refined fuel from Russia without repercussions. At the same time, officials are negotiating with a range of countries across Asia, Africa, and beyond to diversify fuel sources.

According to the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources, Dhaka wrote to Washington in March, requesting permission to import up to 6,00,000 tonnes of refined fuel from Russia, or alternatively, to obtain a waiver for at least two months. Officials did not provide details on the procurement mechanism, including whether shipments would come directly from Russia or a third country.

Dhaka has also been trying to secure additional supplies from regional partners. Officials said India earlier committed to supplying around 60,000 tons of diesel from January to June under an existing arrangement. So far, Bangladesh has received three consignments of 5,000 tons each through the India-Bangladesh pipeline and another shipment of 7,000 tons via the sea route, bringing the total diesel imports from India to roughly 22,000 tons.

The authorities have also reached out to Iran to explore possible shipment arrangements, though logistical and security complications remain.

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has yet to recover in any meaningful way despite the US-Iran ceasefire. Iran previously listed Bangladesh as a ‘friendly nation’, and indicated that Bangladeshi vessels may be allowed safe passage through the strait. In reality, however, vessel movements still hinge on how the talks in Islamabad proceed.

Officials said they have examined several alternatives, but many have proven economically unviable, noting that “all procurement decisions must ultimately be economically viable.” The search for new suppliers has also become harder, as some traditional exporters are adding surcharges on top of already surging oil prices. For now, the government can secure supplies for the immediate future, the ministry spokesperson said, urging people not to panic, but officials cautioned that it is too early to predict supply conditions for May and June, even though plans are in place to build a three-month fuel reserve.

The home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was struck with a Molotov cocktail on Friday, San Francisco police said in a statement later confirmed by Altman. The individual was later arrested after appearing at the company’s headquarters and allegedly threatening to burn it down.

The incidents unfolded within around an hour. According to police, a 20-year-old male first approached Altman’s home and threw an “incendiary destructive device,” setting fire to an exterior gate, before fleeing on foot.

About an hour later, officers responded to a report of someone matching the suspect’s description threatening arson at another building, later identified as OpenAI’s San Francisco headquarters. The suspect was arrested, with charges pending. Police did not immediately comment on a potential motive. OpenAI confirmed both incidents, with a spokesperson saying no one was hurt.

View our latest statement regarding an incident that occurred early this morning at a North Beach residence. Officers have made an arrest, and no injuries were reported as a result of this incident. pic.twitter.com/t4DsF31uxh

— San Francisco Police (@SFPD) April 10, 2026

Altman addressed the situation in a blog post, sharing a photo of his family and expressing hope that “images have power” and might help deter similar attacks.

I wrote this early this morning and I wasn't sure if I would actually publish it, but here it is:https://t.co/7Dw9UFpeep

— Sam Altman (@sama) April 10, 2026

He added that he “underestimated the power of words and narratives,” noting that the incident came days after “an incendiary article” about him and his company, likely referring to a New Yorker investigation detailing allegations of deception and safety failings at OpenAI, as well as scrutiny over its recent $50 billion Pentagon deal.

The incident comes at a difficult time for both Altman and OpenAI. The company has faced backlash over its Pentagon deal allowing its technology to be used in classified military operations. Critics warn that the tools could enable warrantless surveillance, with users and developers accusing the company of prioritizing government contracts over public trust.

In a case set to go to trial later this month, Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk is suing OpenAI and Altman, alleging that the CEO “manipulated” him into donating $38 million on promises that the company would remain a nonprofit. Musk, a co-founder who left in 2018, is seeking Altman’s removal.

Iran and the US could still reach a peace agreement as long as the “American government abandons its totalitarianism,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has stated.

His remark on X came hours after US President Donald Trump declared that the US Navy would immediately begin a “blockade” of the Strait of Hormuz, following talks in Islamabad that ended in an impasse. He accused Tehran of extortion, referring to the fees charged to vessels seeking to traverse the strategically vital waterway.

“I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran,” the US president stated on Truth Social, threatening not to deny “safe passage” to ships that have complied with Iranian requirements.

According to Trump, the US Navy will also begin a minesweeping operation in the strategically important waterway, threatening to destroy vessels obstructing the effort. Tehran, for its part, has insisted that any attempts by enemy warships to operate in the strait will be met with force.

US Vice President J.D. Vance, who led the US delegation during the failed Islamabad negotiations, said on Sunday that Iran had “chosen not to accept our terms.” 

A source close to the Iranian delegation told Fars that Washington was “looking for an excuse” to walk away, adding that Tehran refused the US conditions on the Strait of Hormuz, peaceful nuclear energy, and other core issues, and added that Iran has no plans for further talks.

Commenting on the failed talks in Islamabad, Trump claimed that the Iranian negotiators “were very unyielding” on uranium enrichment, the “single most important issue” to the US.

Key developments:

• US Vice President J.D. Vance, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and the rest of the US negotiating team have left Pakistan, according to media reports. 

• The IDF has been instructed to assume a “heightened state of readiness” in anticipation of a resumption of the hostilities, Israeli media reports. 

• Trump has said he ordered the US Navy to remove Iranian mines from the Strait of Hormuz. CENTCOM earlier announced that the US Navy destroyers USS Frank E. Petersen and USS Michael Murphy crossed the waterway and operated in the Arabian Gulf as part of the mission.
  
  

• Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaghari has denied US claims of a minesweeping operation in Hormuz, insisting that any vessel seeking to pass through the key waterway requires permission from the Iranian armed forces.

Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates. You can also read our previous updates here.

NASA’s Artemis II astronauts have safely returned to Earth, splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of southern California and closing out the first crewed journey around the Moon in more than half a century.

The mission marks NASA’s first crewed Artemis flight and the first time people have traveled beyond low Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972.

Aboard the Orion spacecraft were Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, Mission Specialist Christina Koch, and Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen.

Launched from Kennedy Space Center in Florida on April 1, the four-person crew spent around ten days testing the spacecraft and its systems on a lunar flyby designed to help pave the way for future missions.

During the mission, Artemis II set a new distance record for human spaceflight, with NASA saying the crew surpassed the mark set by Apollo 13.

Orion's main parachute has deployed. The spacecraft has a system of 11 chutes that will slow it down from around 300 mph to 20 mph for splashdown.

Get more updates on the Artemis II blog: https://t.co/7gicm7DWBt pic.twitter.com/ReXHTfkFld

— NASA (@NASA) April 11, 2026

The astronauts also conducted a high-profile flyby of the Moon’s far side and captured dramatic images of the Moon and Earth during the return leg.

Artemis II may have splashed down, but our photos and videos from the mission are still rolling in! Keep an eye on the latest: https://t.co/rzM1P0QbOl pic.twitter.com/HahXb0gCYC

— NASA (@NASA) April 11, 2026

The final descent was among the most critical phases of the flight. Orion hit Earth’s atmosphere at hypersonic speed, endured extreme heating during reentry, then slowed under parachutes before splashing down.

The crew module on Orion has separated from its service module. After traveling around the Moon, seeing its far side, and experiencing a solar eclipse, the Artemis II astronauts are on the last leg of their trip home. pic.twitter.com/j9u5j1Noi9

— NASA (@NASA) April 10, 2026

NASA and US Navy recovery teams were positioned to retrieve the spacecraft and crew after landing.

After a journey of more than 690,000 miles, the crew is nearly home.

The Artemis II crew will splash down off the coast of San Diego later today and, though it won’t be visible from land, you can still wave in their general direction to welcome them back to Earth! 👋 pic.twitter.com/ZZX23QCTpb

— NASA (@NASA) April 10, 2026

Artemis II did not land on the Moon, but NASA described it as a crucial test of the systems needed to send astronauts farther into deep space and eventually back to the Moon.

The mission’s results are expected to shape the next steps in the Artemis campaign, including future crewed lunar operations.

Chinese President Xi Jinping met with the head of Taiwan’s main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), on Friday and stressed that no global changes would stop “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” including its people across the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan became a de facto self-governed territory after Chinese nationalist forces lost in the civil war against the communists and fled to the island in 1949. Beijing considers Taiwan an inalienable part of its territory under the One China principle, which the overwhelming majority of UN member states adhere to.

The opposition leader arrived on the mainland on Tuesday at Xi’s invitation. Taiwan’s ruling DPP condemned the visit, but Cheng Li-wun described it as a peace-building mission – the first event of the kind in a decade.

“We welcome any proposals conducive to the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and will spare no effort to advance any endeavors that promote such development,” Xi said in a speech at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, adding that forces promoting “Taiwan independence” are the primary instigators of tensions in the region.

“No matter how the international landscape and the situation across the Taiwan Strait may evolve, the overarching trend toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation will not change,” Xi said.

Cheng’s rapprochement visit comes ahead of an expected summit between Xi and US President Donald Trump, which was earlier postponed due to the Iran war.

They may appear to be innocuous – even elegant – on the landscape as they collect power from the currents, but wind turbines have their own set of problems that environmentalists wish to ignore due to their eco-virtue-signaling.

As environmentalists look at a sprawling field of wind turbines as ‘good for the environment’ – unlike giant smokestacks on the horizon emitting noxious greenhouse gases into the air – the dangers inherent to wind energy are mostly invisible from a distance. Take a closer look, however, and it becomes quickly apparent that wind farms come with their own high cost to the environment and our health.

In a new report, it has been estimated that close to a million balsa hardwood trees are being illegally logged in the Amazon rainforest every year to support the hefty demand for wind turbines around the world. Balsa is a lightweight but durable wood that is regularly used in the production of the massive turbine blades. Each set of three blades requires up to 40 trees to produce.

Balsa is a relatively rapid-growing tropical wood and until the mounting demand from turbines began, it was safely harvested in sustainable plantations. But since a few short decades ago, the harvest could no longer keep up with demand as the clear-cutting of this precious commodity surges. In a critical survey, the Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) found that exports were increased by up to 50% following illegal logging in virgin rainforests.

In 2020, it was reported that over 20,000 balsa trees were illegally cut down from March to September in the Achuar indigenous territory along Ecuador’s Copataza River. Ecuador produces over 90% of the balsa in the world, with annual exports averaging 56,000 tons from 2013 to 2022. Other studies point to excessive illegal logging, with some estimates noting the removal of 75% of the trees in some areas.

“These inefficient, unreliable, unsightly monsters require a large footprint on land and sea, kill millions of bats, decimate raptor populations, sweep the air of quadrillions of insects and alter local ecology on both land and sea,” Chris Morrison of The Daily Sceptic writes. “Nobody would install one in a free market, so they require vast financial subsidies to produce expensive electricity.”

Another problem arises from the waste derived from these monstrosities. Wind turbines have a life expectancy of just 20 to 30 years, at which point they must be disassembled and hauled away (compare that to the lengthy life span of a coal-burning plant). When they are put out of commission, the towers and nacelles contain recyclable metals like steel, zinc, and copper. For the massive blades, which are about the size of a Boeing 747 wing, it’s a different story. Most are constructed from fiberglass-reinforced composites that are difficult and expensive to recycle, and many end up in garbage dumps.

Others point to the disruption of scenic landscapes – “industrialization of the countryside” as it has been called – that comes with sprawling wind farms. Some wind farms are opposed for potentially spoiling protected scenic areas, archaeological landscapes, and heritage sites. A 2017 report by the Mountaineering Council of Scotland concluded that wind farms harmed tourism in areas known for natural landscapes and panoramic views.

As the author pointed out, “our hills and wild places are small and finite. They deserve better than yet another short-term wave of degradation and exploitation... to produce profit for often-distant companies and shareholders.”

That sounds like an appropriate epitaph for this questionable energy source that falls far short of its myriad promises.

American journalist Tucker Carlson has said an Israeli strike targeting RT correspondent Steve Sweeney in Lebanon was an “attempted assassination,” as he spoke with the reporter about the attack and his work in conflict zones.

Sweeney and cameraman Ali Rida Sbeity were injured last month when an Israeli aircraft fired a missile at their filming position near the Al-Qasmiya Bridge in southern Lebanon, close to a local army base. The crew, who were wearing clearly marked press gear, said the jet “deliberately attacked” them, with Rida’s camera capturing the moment the blast struck less than 10 meters behind Sweeney as he ducked for cover.

In the interview, released by Carlson on Friday, he told viewers that the strike was “an attempted assassination.” Sweeney said they “were incredibly lucky to come out of that situation alive.”

Sweeney said the munition, which he identified as a GBU-38 bomb fired from an F-16 fighter jet, passed through a hole in the bridge which was already destroyed, arguing that there was “no military objective” in striking it again. He described the attack as “an assassination attempt by Israel to silence the voices on the ground, to silence the truth.”

“I have complete freedom to report exactly what I want, and nobody tells me what to say,” Sweeney said regarding his work at RT. He noted that RT is banned in the US and EU, while Western broadcasters are still allowed to operate and question officials inside Russia.

Sweeney told Carlson that despite the near-fatal strike in Lebanon, he has “no intention of leaving” the country or stopping his work.

There is a time for goodbye – and a time for reunion.

When foreign companies beat a hasty retreat from Russia in 2022 amid the Ukraine conflict, they framed their departures as a moral necessity.

In truth, for many, it was a costly act of panic: Abrupt, politically driven, and strategically short-sighted.

Now, as the global business climate is tempered by a more sober reality, the moment has come for foreign multinationals to reconsider – true to the old wisdom that illness is best treated early, before it turns chronic.

Returning to Russia is not merely an opportunity for commercial redemption; it is a strategic imperative for those seeking long-term relevance in one of the world’s most critical markets – and an exceptional opportunity for first-time entrants far-sighted and bold enough to seize it.

The Great Exodus: Wandering into the commercial desert

In the aftermath of Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine, hundreds of multinational corporations suspended or terminated their operations in Russia, while the smarter ones chose to stay.

Household names in consumer goods, automotive, retail, and food service exited with dramatic announcements, citing reputational concerns, stakeholder pressure, or political uncertainty.

Yet the consequences were severe.

For a host of companies, departure meant surrendering years – sometimes decades – of investment in market development, infrastructure, local partnerships, and customer loyalty.

Businesses sold assets at steep discounts, abandoned supply chains and sales networks painstakingly built over extended periods, and ceded market share to domestic competitors or foreign rivals eager to fill the vacuum. In doing so, they consigned themselves to navigating a diminished global business landscape of their own making. McDonald’s offers a vivid example.

In 1990, the iconic burger chain became the first US fast-food chain to establish a presence in the Soviet Union. It soon grew into one of Russia’s most prestigious employers, while its restaurants became landmark venues for family celebrations and even wedding feasts.

When McDonald’s precipitously concluded that operating in Russia no longer aligned with its values, it left behind 850 restaurants and 62,000 jobs across the country. The withdrawal meant abandoning a market that, together with Ukraine, had generated around 9% of its global revenues and cost McDonald’s an estimated $1.2-$1.4 billion in earnings charges. Yet the greater loss was strategic.

Business systems cannot simply be reassembled by flipping a switch. Once forfeited, rebuilding market position is path-dependent: With capabilities dismantled, local replacements rooted, and habits transformed, the business must be reconstituted from scratch.

Russia also had to absorb costs. Consumers were deprived of familiar brands, workers lost jobs, and sectors dependent on foreign expertise faced disruption. But the market void proved short-lived.

Russian companies swiftly adapted and claimed the ground multinationals abandoned, giving rise to a new generation of domestic businesses – stronger, more confident, and politically ascendant.

McDonald’s former Russian business now operates successfully under the domestic brand Vkusno i Tochka, created by Aleksandr Govor, a Siberian entrepreneur who took over its assets in 2022. He stands as a powerful new incumbent with whom McDonald’s must first come to terms before returning to Russia.

The Great Return: Reentering the land of commercial promise

For multinational corporations, the strategic rationale for return is compelling.

Companies owe their duties not to political fashion, but to their stakeholders at home and abroad: Shareholders seeking profit, employees seeking security, customers seeking choice, and host countries that enabled their growth.

Russia remains a major, geoeconomically pivotal economy with vast natural resources, abundant human capital, solid industrial capacity, and substantial consumer demand.

Those who return now can still gain an early mover advantage.

The first wave of returners will enjoy the best chance to reclaim valuable lost ground before markets become permanently reorganized and definitively occupied by domestic and foreign rivals alike. Delay carries a heavy price: Every quarter spent waiting strengthens competitors and weakens the returning company’s negotiating leverage.

Business history offers countless examples of late returners paying more for re-entry than they saved by leaving. In commerce, as in life, reconciliation is easiest before distance hardens into permanence.

The rallying cry, then, is unmistakenly clear: Better late than never, but earlier is always better – for in medicine no less than in business, the sooner the diagnosis and intervention, the surer the cure.

After apartheid ended, South Africa chose reconciliation over retribution through its Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established in 1995 under the leadership of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and backed by prisoner-turned-President Nelson Mandela.

Rather than pursuing blanket punishment, the TRC created a structured process through which perpetrators of politically motivated abuses could receive amnesty if they fully disclosed their actions and accepted responsibility.

Its success rested on several factors: Differentiation between degrees of responsibility, public acknowledgment of harm, conditional forgiveness, and a forward-looking commitment to national rebuilding.

The benefits proved significant: The strife-torn country created a moral basis for coexistence, enabled peaceful reintegration, and avoided cycles of revenge. Inevitably, however, the undertaking also had drawbacks, including perceptions that some offenders escaped full justice and that material reparations were uneven.

Russia, which can prosper without foreign companies yet stands to gain from their presence, can draw on South Africa’s example by pioneering a Commercial Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CTRC).

Rules for Russia: Reconciliation, not retribution

Russia should manage the return of foreign companies with pragmatism, not resentment, applying in business what South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation model achieved in politics: Distinguish degrees of responsibility, document harm honestly, and favor constructive reintegration over vengeance.

First, Russia should craft and institute an innovative, differentiated integration approach.

Not all departing companies acted alike. Some, administered by technocrats, withdrew reluctantly under pressure from governments, media, financiers, or activist shareholders. Others, driven by ideologues, embraced overt, dogmatic hostility toward Russia. They harmed Russian stakeholders by failing to honor financial obligations, such as employee payments, and product commitments, such as spare-parts supply. These cases should not be treated identically.

Companies that exited without inflammatory rhetoric and preserved respectful relations with Russian partners – the ‘benign penitents’ – should qualify for fast-track reintegration: Broad amnesty, formal ‘homecomer’ status (a symbolic recognition for constructive re-engagement) and expedited approvals. A dedicated one-stop ‘Corporate Welcome Center’ (CWC) could seamlessly oversee and streamline the entire reintegration process.

For more hostile, Russia-phobic actors, forgiveness should still prevail – but clemency must be conditional upon acceptance of responsibility. Companies that inflicted deliberate political and economic damage should remain eligible for rehabilitation and return under the auspices of the CWC.

Reentry, however, should only be permitted after documented review of the harm occasioned and appropriate compensation or restitution whenever warranted. As in South Africa, the goal should be not punishment for its own sake, but the careful balancing of accountability with pragmatic reintegration under a stable framework.

Second, Russia must also involve domestic buyers who acquired foreign assets. These companies helped stabilize the economy during disruption and deserve a decisive role in shaping future win-win arrangements, whether through licensing deals, reciprocal market-access agreements, or joint ventures.

Third, Russia should consolidate and deepen the economic and technological gains achieved since 2022. In particular, efforts aimed at building critical domestic capacity to bolster strategic resilience must continue. Reentry should strengthen the system, not recreate past dependencies, especially in vital sectors such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and aviation.

The leaders of returning companies, for their part, must recognize that reentry requires a fundamentally different bearing. They must embrace a novel business philosophy and radically rethink how they engage with Russia. Early intervention yields the best outcomes.

First: Discard ideology. Markets are built on commercial logic, not political hysteria. Russia is too important to be treated as a temporary moral theater.

Second: Return with humility. Companies that departed – especially abruptly, and in a time of crisis – have damaged trust. Rebuilding credibility requires genuine contrition, candid acknowledgment of fault, patient long-term commitment, and sincere respect toward Russian workers, consumers, and institutions.

Third: Create mutual benefit. The homecoming should neither be motivated by self-centered, profit-driven opportunism nor be cloaked in self-congratulatory gestures of corporate charity, but embody an authentic partnership centered on reciprocal gain.

Foreign companies that invest in technology transfer, local production, workforce training, and export collaboration will garner a warmer reception than those seeking only quick profits.

Truth and Reconciliation 2.0: Reunion, not reversal

The Romans put it plainly: A certain friend is discerned in uncertain times.

After the initial rupture of friendship, the story of foreign business in Russia is no longer one of departure. It is now a test of whether companies from abroad possess the strategic maturity to recognize their mistakes and appreciate the new realities – at a moment when truth and reconciliation are wiser than self-deluding, ruinously stubborn absence and estrangement.

The way back to Russia’s commercial promised land is invitingly open, and those who enter first will reap the richest harvest. By contrast, as every physician knows, delay is rarely the ally of recovery and only narrows the path to cure.

There is a time for goodbye. And there is a time for reunion.

For foreign multinationals seeking moral redemption and corporate rebirth, that time is now.

Dobro pozhalovat to the pascal land of milk, honey – and market share.

A recently analyzed 250 million-year-old fossil has shown that early mammals laid eggs, according to a paper published in the PLOS One journal on Thursday.

While some examples of egg-laying mammals exist today, such as the platypus and the echidnas, scientists have spent decades looking for proof of this in earlier ancestors.

According to South African Professor Jennifer Botha, one of the scientists behind the breakthrough research, the fossil was discovered in 2008, but could not be analyzed for years without cutting-edge and delicate scanning methods.

“It became clear that it was a perfectly curled-up Lystrosaurus hatchling. I suspected even then that it had died within the egg, but at the time, we simply didn’t have the technology to confirm it,” she said in a statement cited by phys.org.

With the use of advanced synchrotron X-ray CT scanning, which uses a particle accelerator to create extremely high-resolution non-destructive 3D images, the delicate fossil could be studied in depth.

Lystrosaurus was a herbivorous mammal ancestor which survived and then thrived in the tumultuous period after the End-Permian Mass Extinction around 252 million years ago, which is believed to have wiped out up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of land vertebrates on Earth. The catastrophe is theorized to have been caused by massive volcanic eruptions and resulting coal burning, which caused rapid global warming, and left a world of extreme heat and environmental instability.

Judging by the development and properties of the hatchling, the Lystrosaurus likely did not produce milk but laid large eggs, which are more resistant to drying out in a hot, arid environment, according to Botha’s Witwatersrand University.

Its young likely hatched at an advanced stage of development, ready to feed themselves and thrive in the hostile world following the worst extinction event in history.

Viktor Orban will most likely win the upcoming parliamentary elections in Hungary on April 12; however, for the ruling party, this will be an extremely difficult and hard-fought victory.

The issue is not the loss of charisma by the bright and skillful long-standing leader of Fidesz, nor even the 25% inflation the country experienced in 2023, but rather a shift in the focus of Hungarians’ historical memory. A new generation has grown up within a different historical paradigm and wants a change in political reality, even if this entails foreign-policy and reputational risks for the country.

Walking through the streets of Budapest these days, one gets the sense of two political realities coexisting. In one, there are blue billboards of the ruling Fidesz party with slogans like “Stop war!”, featuring the faces of opponents and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky labeled as a “danger.” In the other, there are rallies of the Tisza party, without party bureaucratic elites but featuring young people in Hungarian national dress carrying EU flags, with photos of the party’s young leader displayed on the hills of Buda. Budapest, like other Hungarian cities, is preparing for the parliamentary elections this Sunday, drawing the attention of political elites from around the world.

Peter Magyar: Not just a boy

The main intrigue and driving force of the current political campaign is the young energy of the Tisza party, particularly its leader with the resonant name Peter Magyar (literally “Peter Hungarian”). Notably, Magyar, who presents himself as a conservative liberal, comes from the very heart of the Fidesz system and Hungary’s highly closed elite. He is the former husband of Judit Varga, who served as the country’s minister of justice in 2019-2023, a great-nephew of Ferenc Madl, Hungary’s president from 2000 to 2005, and the grandson of a former Supreme Court member; his parents also held high-ranking positions in national legal institutions. He speaks the language of Fidesz about national interests, family, a “new homeland,” and a “modern European country” where one can live well and raise children. At the same time, his main criticism of the current ruling system focuses on corruption within the governing party and the need to overcome the entrenched division between right and left that has existed since the early 2000s.

Elections 2026

It can be stated that the real gap between the parties is around 2–3%. Orban draws support from villages and rural areas, while Magyar holds the more progressive Budapest (both halves: the elite Buda and the more relaxed Pest) and other large Hungarian cities where younger populations live and work. Polling data varies depending on the research institute. According to the Hungarian pollster Median, which predicted Orban’s victory in 2022, Tisza leads with 58% against Fidesz’s 35%. The opposition Research Center 21 shows 56% for Tisza and 37% for Fidesz, while the pro-government Nezopont Institute suggests 46% for Fidesz versus 40% for Tisza.

The intensity of the race is also influenced by Hungary’s complex electoral system, where districts are drawn to include both a liberal urban area and several conservative villages. The voting system is mixed, but under its rules, a candidate can win a mandate even with a one-vote advantage, and there is also a ‘winner compensation’ mechanism, where surplus votes for the winner are added to the party list. While this system has previously helped Orbán and Fidesz secure victories, in the current tight race it could work against them. Thus, the question of who will win remains open until the final vote count.

Economy

At first glance, Hungary’s main problems lie in the economic sphere. In 2023, the country experienced the highest inflation in the EU, peaking at 25%, with food prices rising by about 50% in what is de facto a wealthy agricultural country. The situation is worsened by Orban’s conflict with the European Commission, which has frozen more than €19 billion in EU funds owed to Hungary – which amounts to nearly 10% of the country’s GDP.

Magyar claims he could unlock the frozen funds within a month, which would help stabilize the economy and ease social tensions.

Trianon and ‘Deep Hungary’

It is important to understand that Hungarian society is entering a new phase of development. Throughout the 20th century, it was shaped by a sense of deep historical injustice stemming from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the humiliating Treaty of Trianon (1920), which stripped Hungary of two-thirds of its territory.

Even being in the Soviet orbit was not as painful for this formerly imperial society as the loss of territories inhabited by ethnic Hungarians to neighboring states. This does not mean Hungarians have forgotten the suppressed 1956 uprising, but the trauma of Trianon still evokes sentiment and, among some – primarily older rural populations – a desire to ‘take back’ regions like Transcarpathia or parts of Transylvania, which they believe belonged to Hungary for a thousand years.

The euphoria of “returning to Europe” and joining the EU in 2004 has been tempered by difficult and unfavorable economic and agricultural conditions within the EU, as well as challenges integrating into negotiation structures that often disadvantage newer member states. This has fueled feelings of injustice and disappointment, tied to the perception that major political decisions are now made not in Budapest, but in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels. Big politics is inaccessible to small states.

However, historical memory has its limits. A new generation of Hungarians, raised during the country’s integration into the EU and accustomed to free movement across Europe and the world, seeks a more pragmatic and comfortable approach to life and development. They are more cynical about life and family and do not relate to the ‘phantom pains’ of Trianon. Young Hungary increasingly operates with the mindset of a small country navigating within the orbit of major global powers.

This is the core drama of the current elections: two competing visions of how to live in the modern world and within an emerging global order. Which path conservative Hungary will choose will soon become clear. In conclusion, the current difficulties faced by Fidesz signal to Hungary’s ruling elites the impossibility of rewriting history or reversing the course of events already set in motion.

Hunter Biden, son of former US President Joe Biden, has challenged President Donald Trump’s two eldest sons to a “cage match,” in an Instagram video published by content creator Andrew Callahan.

Biden, 56, called out Donald Trump Jr., 48, and Eric Trump, 42, with the president’s sons yet to publicly respond.

“I just got a call from Andrew Callahan… He’s trying to organize a cage match, me versus Eric and Don Jr. I told him I’d do it, 100% in,” Biden said in the video.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Channel Five (@channel5)

The popular YouTuber told USA Today that the ex-president’s son had likely made the suggestion “in jest.” However, he is willing to facilitate the fight if Trump’s two eldest sons are “willing to engage Hunter in mutual combat.”

Last year, Melania Trump threatened to sue Hunter over his claim that the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to her husband.

The cover-up of a major scandal involving Hunter Biden’s laptop, which he forgot in a Delaware repair shop in 2019, contributed to his father winning in the 2020 election, according to President Trump. The leaked contents of the laptop potentially implicated the Biden family in several foreign corruption schemes.

As one of his last and more controversial decisions as president, Joe Biden granted a sweeping pardon to Hunter, who was convicted in 2024 of breaching federal gun and tax laws.

The pardon covered any offenses Hunter “has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” It covers the time period of Hunter’s crimes and his tenure on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, when his father was in charge of US policy in Kiev during the Obama administration.

Germany has rejected 95% of all new asylum applications from Syrian migrants following a policy reassessment of the Middle Eastern country, according to media reports, citing an official document.

The change represents a stark reversal from the peak of the influx in 2014-2015, when recognition rates for Syrians frequently exceeded 90%. Germany emerged as a primary destination for Syrians fleeing war, driven by the open-door policy of then-Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The country has since become home to one of the largest Syrian diasporas in Europe, with estimates putting the population at close to 1 million.

The figures come from a German government reply to a parliamentary inquiry by Left party lawmaker Clara Bunger, reported by multiple media outlets on Thursday.

According to the document, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) is now applying stricter case-by-case assessments. In October 2025, the BAMF ruled on 3,134 Syrian asylum applications, granting protection to just 26 applicants across all categories. Recognition rates reportedly remain higher for some minorities, including Yazidis, Christians, and Alawites.

After meeting al-Sharaa in Berlin in late March, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said up to 80% of Syrians living in Germany could return home over the next three years, describing it as part of a joint effort to support reconstruction.

Merz later backtracked, saying the figure was proposed by the Syrian side – a claim that al-Sharaa said was exaggerated and did not reflect his position.

The government’s shift in migration policy comes amid pressure from right-wing parties, including the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which portrays migrants, particularly from outside Europe, as a burden on public services and a driver of crime and social strife.

It also follows a series of violent crimes involving asylum seekers, including a 2024 knife attack in Solingen in which a Syrian national fatally stabbed three people and injured eight others.

Israel has carried out multiple strikes across Lebanon over the past 24 hours, fueling fears that the escalating violence could unravel a fragile two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran.

The expanded offensive in Lebanon since March 2 has killed 1,888 people and wounded 6,092 others, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. It says the April 8 bombardment alone involved “over 100 strikes within minutes,” leaving more than 300 dead and in excess of 1,100 injured.

RT’s Steve Sweeney, who, along with his cameraman Ali Rida, was caught up in this week’s Israeli strikes on central Beirut, reports from the Lebanese capital on the aftermath, where shattered residential buildings, children’s school bags and household belongings lie scattered in the rubble, and the seafront is filled with displaced families sheltering in makeshift tents. 

Residents live with an “overwhelming sense of anxiety,” fearing that “every sound” could signal another strike, he says.

The EU has sharply increased its purchases of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the first quarter of 2026 even as it insists it will phase out Russian energy by the end of next year, the Financial Times reported on Friday.

According to Kpler data cited by the outlet, the EU’s imports from Russia’s Yamal LNG project in Siberia rose 17% year-on-year to 5 million tons in Q1, with the bloc spending an estimated €2.9 billion ($3.1 billion). The EU took 69 of 71 shipments – or 97% – including 25 in March alone, compared to 59 of 68 shipments (87%) in the same period of 2025.

The surge shows there is “no appetite from European buyers to stop buying Russian LNG,” Sebastian Roetters of environmental NGO Urgewald told FT.

The conflict has severely disrupted flows through the Strait of Hormuz – a key chokepoint handling about 20% of global seaborne oil and LNG – and hit Gulf energy infrastructure, driving a surge in LNG prices. Asian spot rates and European TTF nearly doubled before easing after the April 8 ceasefire, but both remain well above pre-conflict levels.

Moscow has echoed the warnings. According to Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev, “Europe and Britain will beg for Russian energy” as the crisis deepens, arguing that the bloc is unprepared for a “long-lasting energy shock” due to its failure to diversify supplies – a shortfall he blamed on “Russophobic, Green, and woke ideology.” Reacting to an FT report on X, he added: “As predicted, Europe needs Russia to survive.”

As predicted, Europe needs Russia to survive. https://t.co/v0z7HuPIh0

— Kirill Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) April 10, 2026

Iran should not repeat the mistakes of Libya, which paid a heavy price for trusting the West, the North African country’s former information minister, Moussa Ibrahim, has warned ahead of the talks between delegations from Washington and Tehran.

The first direct meeting between the sides since the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28 is expected to take place in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, on Saturday, according to the White House.

The American team will be headed by Vice President J.D. Vance, and will also include special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Tehran hasn’t announced the lineup of its delegation yet, but reports claim that it could be led by parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

In an interview with RT on Friday, Ibrahim – a former cabinet member under longtime Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was deposed and murdered in a NATO-backed uprising in 2011 – said that “both parties come to these negotiations with different ideas about peace and conflict.”

For Washington, it is “actually very beneficial to continue to wreak havoc in the region to make sure that any rising regional powers are under control... that the region is never united,” the ex-minister, who now serves as executive secretary of the African Legacy Foundation, insisted.

”The Americans come to these negotiations hoping to find a way to keep the conflict going, but not as escalated as it was in the last few weeks, so they would keep their face and find other ways – economic, political, diplomatic – to punish the Iranians and their friends in the region,” he added.

Ibrahim advised the authorities in Tehran “to be very careful, not to believe the American plans for peace and never to give up sovereignty and deterrence” during the talks.

The European Commission could suspend up to €1.5 billion ($1.78 billion) in funding earmarked for EU candidate Serbia, Politico reported on Friday.

Serbia received €586 million ($685 million) in grants from 2021 to 2024 as part of financial assistance tied to its EU accession process, while a further €1.5 billion made available conditional on reforms could be pulled, Politico said, citing four Brussels-based sources.

The Eurobureaucrats have cited concerns over perceived democratic backsliding in Serbia as the main reason for the potential move. The EU has also long pressured Belgrade to align its foreign policy with the bloc, including adopting sanctions on Russia, a longstanding Serbian partner.

The EU’s enlargement policy has increasingly taken on geopolitical significance, with critics arguing that progress toward membership can depend as much on alignment with Brussels’ strategic priorities as on institutional reforms.

Expansion shaped by opposing Russia

Serbia is among several Western Balkan countries granted EU candidate status in the early 2010s, around the time Croatia joined the bloc.

In 2023, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia were also granted candidate status. The move was widely seen as a signal of the EU’s intent to counter Russian influence, rather than purely a reflection of the readiness of these countries to meet accession standards.

Ukraine has argued that fighting a war with Russia on the West’s behalf strengthens its bid for membership, a position broadly supported by EU leadership, although no clear accession timeline has been set.

Even Poland, a staunch supporter of Kiev, opposes swift accession for Ukraine, citing various concerns, such as the disruption of common EU agricultural markets if Ukrainian farmers gain full access.

‘Nice’ and ‘naughty’ candidates

The EU’s reactions to political developments in candidate countries appear to depend on their governments’ foreign policies. In Georgia and Moldova – which held parliamentary elections in October 2024 and September 2024 respectively – opposition groups alleged irregularities, including the silencing of critical media and misuse of state powers for electoral gain.

Brussels treated the claims in Georgia as credible and indicative of democratic decline. Before the election, Georgia was accused of becoming ‘more like Russia’ by passing laws promoting social conservatism and forcing transparency of foreign political funding. Like Belgrade, Tbilisi declared neutrality in the Ukraine conflict. Georgia’s EU accession process is now effectively frozen.

In contrast, similar accusations in Moldova were largely dismissed by EU officials, who suggested they were part of Russian efforts to undermine the country’s pro-EU leadership. Some Moldovan officials support absorption of their nation by EU member Romania as a path to joining the bloc.

EU ‘worse threat’ than NATO

Russia has traditionally viewed the EU as a mostly economic project posing no military threat, unlike NATO. Russian officials have stated that Moscow does not oppose Ukraine’s EU candidacy, as long as the country remains militarily neutral.

“The EU is no longer just an economic union. It can transform, and rather quickly, into a full-blown military alliance, one overtly hostile to Russia, and in some ways worse than NATO,” Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, warned last week.

Uncertain outlook for enlargement

EU leaders are also considering changes to the enlargement rules, potentially simplifying accession in various ways. There were even discussions of a “reverse” expansion, allowing Ukraine and others to become partial members with limited rights before meeting all requirements.

In February, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama advocated in an op-ed a two-tier integration model, which would give Balkan non-members access to the EU’s market and free trade arrangement. Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos rebuffed the idea.

Given the EU’s challenging economic situation, near-certainty of long-term tensions with Russia, and increasingly heavy-handed suppression of internal descent, the benefits of accession may not be as attractive as Brussels imagines.

The Middle East ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz are based on extremely shaky ground, Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi has said, adding that Israel will do everything it can to reignite war in the region.

Speaking to RT India on Thursday, Marandi, a political analyst and professor at the University of Tehran, said US President Donald Trump has been forced to accept Iran’s framework for negotiations. 

“But right now there is a spoiler, and that is [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” he added. Pointing to the pounding of Lebanon by Israeli forces, Marandi said that “this means the commitments given by the United States are not being fulfilled. And that means that we could have a continuation of the crisis.”

Marandi accused Netanyahu and his allies of wanting the global economic crisis to continue.

On the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, he said Iran would like energy flows to be back to normal.

“That is what we want. We did not start this. We were doing business as usual until this imposed war by the Trump and Netanyahu regimes took place,” Marandi added. “But we’ll have to see, because Netanyahu is violating the ceasefire agreement.”

Marandi said Iran will also watch the American stance at the negotiating table, and see if “Netanyahu and the Zionist regime are able to wreck” the ceasefire. “I have no doubt that the Zionist lobby and the Israeli regime will do whatever they can to make sure this war reignites,” he said.

Marandi said the only thing Trump and Netanyahu have achieved from their war on Iran is to create global hardship.

“We are sanctioned by the United States,” he said. “They don’t want us to use their dollar. So we would prefer ourselves to use other currencies.”

The use of the Indian, Russian, or Chinese currencies is “open for discussion,” Marandi added.

The countries in the Persian Gulf that hosted US bases and facilitated attacks on Iran “have Iranian blood on their hands… They are complicit in this war. And they betrayed their own people,” Marandi stated.

The UK’s proposed digital ID scheme has drawn criticism for not recording whether a person is male or female – traditionally a core identifier alongside name and age – after the government deemed it “not necessary” for identification.

The scheme, unveiled by Prime Minister Keir Starmer last year, has been pitched as a secure, free digital credential stored on smartphones to replace physical documents for identity checks. Initially planned as mandatory, it was made optional amid backlash and a petition with nearly 3 million signatures. A full rollout is planned by 2029, with draft documents stating the IDs will include name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a biometric photo – but not sex or gender.

“Information about sex and gender is not necessary for the intended purpose of the digital ID,” the documents state, arguing such data does not improve verification, which will rely on “programmatic” checks and “biometric authentication.”

“Having struggled for so long to define what a woman is, Labour have now decided it’s easier just to abolish the concept entirely,” Shadow Equalities Minister Claire Coutinho told GB News on Thursday. “There can be no excuse for failing to accurately record a person’s biological sex.”

“I don’t know whether to laugh or cry… This is ludicrous,” former Labour MP Rosie Duffield added. “The idea that one of the most fundamental identifiers… would not even be recorded… makes a farce of the whole idea.”

Social media users echoed the criticism, accusing the government of acting out of “fear of the woke mob” and branding the initiative “a joke.”

🚨🇬🇧 Meanwhile in bat shit crazy UK - New Government Digital ID won’t state gender.

“When you told me about this, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry”

The British government tyrannical digital ID scheme, which is the steppingstone to total Government control - won’t even… pic.twitter.com/AyJJkTGCvC

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) April 9, 2026

LOL the useless government is so woke its digital ID card won’t say if you are male or female.

Because they can’t ask the question without pissing off their supporters, they’ve decided not to bother 🤣

It’s actually funny. In fact the whole thing is a joke. pic.twitter.com/brHMro3lKH

— Bernie (@Artemisfornow) April 9, 2026

The proposed scheme had already proven controversial. While supporters say it could streamline services and boost security, critics warn it risks turning the UK into a “police state.” Concerns include mass surveillance, centralized data vulnerabilities, and a potential “honeypot” for hackers. A February Ipsos poll found 40% of Britons oppose the scheme, with just 32% in favor – a sharp reversal from July 2025, when 57% supported it and 19% opposed.

The Hungarian government has accused Facebook of interfering in the upcoming parliamentary election scheduled for Sunday by restricting the reach of Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s posts while boosting the visibility of his main rival, opposition leader Peter Magyar.

Speaking to Politico, government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs claimed that Facebook’s algorithm is “basically working against the government parties.” 

He argued that Orban’s official government page is subject to stricter advertising limits and reduced organic reach, while Magyar is allowed to operate a personal ‘public figure’ profile that enjoys greater algorithmic freedom. 

A report by the think tank MCC Brussels found that despite similar video views, Magyar’s posts have generated nearly three times the engagement of Orban’s. It also noted a trend of “disappearing comments” on content in support of the prime minister’s Fidesz party, while no similar behavior has been observed on opposition pages.

A Magyar aide has attributed the success to the opposition leader’s ability to “speak the language of the algorithm” and keep up with the speed of the news cycle.

Budapest’s latest allegations follow an incident in late February in which Facebook temporarily blocked three pro-government news outlets. The Hungarian National Media Association condemned the move as an attack on freedom of press, suggesting that the tech giant could be “punishing right-wing news portals.”

Last month, after several Fidesz members claimed that Meta started restricting the reach of their Facebook posts, commentators Joey Mannarino and Philip Pilkington identified Oskar Braszczynski as the employee likely responsible. Braszczynski, who works as Meta’s ‘Government and Social Impact Partner for Central and Eastern Europe’, has shared pro-Ukraine, anti-Orban, and pro-LGBT content on his personal social media accounts.

Orban has also accused Ukraine of cutting off oil supplies through the Druzhba pipeline for political reasons, and blocked a €90 billion EU loan for Kiev in retaliation.

On Tuesday, US Vice President J.D. Vance visited Budapest in a show of support for Orban, accusing EU bureaucrats of “one of the worst examples of foreign election interference” he has ever seen. Vance claimed that Brussels has “tried to destroy the economy of Hungary” because they dislike Orban.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is facing the most serious threat to his power in decades, in an election that’s drawn in the EU, US, and Ukraine. RT explores the players, the stakes, and the dirty tricks shaping the Hungarian election.

We’ve delved into the election in our ‘Battle for Hungary’ series, but if you’ve just joined us, here’s what you need to know:

Hungarians go to the polls on Sunday, April 12, to elect all 199 members of the National Assembly. Elections are held every four years in Hungary, and take place over a single round on a single day. Results are typically known within hours of polls closing.

How many people will vote?

There are roughly 8.2 million registered voters in Hungary, and between 2006 and 2022, voter turnout typically ranged between 61% and 69.59%, according to data from the country’s National Election Office. The last election, in 2022, saw a record turnout of 69.59%.

Around 91,000 Hungarian citizens have registered to vote from abroad, with a significant number living in Ukraine’s Transcarpathia region.

Who’s running for election in Hungary?

More than a dozen parties have put candidates forward, but the election is essentially a showdown between two: Orban’s Fidesz, and Peter Magyar’s Tisza.

Orban has been in power since 2010, and is seeking a fifth consecutive term in office. His Fidesz party and its Christian Democrat partners currently hold 135 out of 199 seats in the National Assembly.

Orban is known for his conservatism, drawing the ire of the EU for refusing to accept non-European asylum seekers and banning LGBTQ propaganda. He’s also known for his program of economic nationalism – known as ‘Orbanomics’ – and for his criticism of the EU’s financial and military support for Ukraine. Orban has blocked multiple rounds of sanctions on Russia, relenting only after securing exemptions that have allowed Hungary to continue purchasing Russian energy, and is currently vetoing a €90 billion ($105 billion) debt-financed EU loan package for Kiev.

A former member of Fidesz, Magyar resigned from the party in 2024 and joined the ranks of Tisza, a party that had languished in obscurity since its founding four years beforehand. While embroiled in two legal cases – one in which he testified about alleged corruption in Orban’s government, and another in which he was accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife, former Justice Minister Judit Varga – Magyar was elected to the European Parliament that year, along with six other Tisza MEPs.

Magyar describes himself as center-right, and hopes to mend Budapest’s ties with Brussels should he win. Repairing relations with the EU is critical to Magyar’s economic platform – an ambitious program of public spending that entirely depends on Brussels unlocking nearly €20 billion in frozen funds. Magyar has not publicly supported or opposed the EU’s Ukraine loan, and his positions on immigration and social issues remain ambiguous.

What do the polls say?

Magyar’s Tisza is currently leading Fidesz by 49 points to 39, according to an aggregate compiled by Politico. However, individual opinion polls vary wildly, depending on the political alignment and funding of the pollsters.

For example, a poll by the 21 Research Center, which is financed by the European Commission, shows Tisza leading Fidesz by 19 points. Another by the opposition-linked Median shows Magyar’s party 23 points ahead of Orban’s. Conversely, a poll by the Center for Fundamental Rights – a conservative think tank – places Fidesz eight points ahead of Tisza.

Politico has reported that “many” EU leaders secretly believe an Orban victory is “likely.” Hungarian EU Affairs Minister Janos Boka thinks that the disparity between public surveys and private sentiment is no accident, and that by skewing polls, Magyar and his supporters in Brussels are “building the narrative that if they lose the election, then this is an illegitimate result.”

Who is interfering in the Hungarian election?

Panyi became embroiled in an election meddling scandal of his own when it emerged that he had collaborated with EU intelligence agents – possibly the same sources who fed him the ‘Russian interference’ story – to wiretap Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. The wiretap revealed conversations between Szijjarto and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Szijjarto insisted that having these conversations is part of his job as the EU’s longest-serving foreign minister, and that the positions expressed in these calls – opposition to sanctions on Russia and disdain for Brussels bureaucrats – are already well known.

Ukraine has stuck its thumb on the scales too. Kiev has refused to restart the flow of Russian oil through the Druzhba pipeline, which carries Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia via Ukraine, claiming that the pipeline was damaged in a Russian air raid in January. Orban maintains that Druzhba is operational, and that Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is keeping it closed in order to drive up energy costs in Hungary and hamper his reelection campaign. Kiev has also trained spies working within Magyar’s party, according to Hungarian security authorities.

Why is the Hungarian election so important to the EU and Ukraine?

Why was J.D. Vance in Budapest?

US President Donald Trump is an ideological ally of Orban, and dispatched Vice President J.D. Vance to Hungary on April 7 in a show of support for the Hungarian prime minister. Over multiple public appearances with Orban, Vance railed against EU and Ukrainian interference in the election, calling their combined efforts “one of the worst examples of foreign election interference that I have ever seen.”

Vance also saved his most scathing criticism for Zelensky, hammering the Ukrainian leader’s “preposterous” threat to send soldiers to Orban’s house over Hungary’s vetoing of the EU loan package.

However, Vance was accused of election interference by Tisza and EU officials. After the US VP described Orban as “the single profound leader in Europe on the question of energy security and independence” and said that he would “help as much as I can possibly help” to get him reelected, the European Commission announced that it would “convey our concerns” about the visit to Washington.

“I would like to point out, since Vance is complaining about the EU’s alleged interference in the election, that the US vice president was in Hungary just a few days before the election. This fact alone speaks for itself as to who is interfering,” German government spokesman Sebastian Hille told reporters on April 8.

Speaking to RT, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl described the election as a “proxy war” between Washington and Brussels, with the EU willing to “paralyze” Hungary (by refusing to pressure Zelensky to reopen the Druzhba pipeline) in order to oust Orban, and the US “cultivating resistance” against the bloc by supporting him.

US President Donald Trump unleashed a “tirade of insults” at NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte during their meeting at the White House on Wednesday, Politico has reported, citing European officials.

Rutte’s trip to Washington followed weeks of Trump’s criticism of NATO over its reluctance to join the US-Israeli war against Iran and warnings about possible American withdrawal from the bloc.

The US president used the talks, which happened behind closed doors, to vent his frustration with European NATO members, Politico said in an article on Thursday.

“It went sh*t,” one European official told the outlet, adding that Trump had badmouthed Rutte and “apparently threatened to do just about anything.”

The official and another informed person claimed that the US president signaled that he was considering options for reprisals against the European nations, but didn’t provide any details.

Bloomberg earlier reported that the US president had issued an ultimatum to the Europeans during his meeting with Rutte, demanding a commitment to help secure the waterway, which accounts for around a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, “within days.”

A White House official approached by Politico for comment denied those claims, saying that Trump “has zero expectations for NATO at this point and did not ask them for anything, even though it’s a fact they benefit from the Strait of Hormuz far more than the US.”

In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Rutte described his talks with Trump as a “very frank, very open” discussion between “two good friends,” but acknowledged that the US president was “clearly disappointed” with Europe. The NATO chief avoided a direct answer when asked if Trump had spoken about Washington leaving the bloc.

Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday that “none of these people, including our own, very disappointing, NATO, understood anything unless they have pressure placed upon them.”

US President Donald Trump has thrown his weight behind Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, urging voters to “get out and vote” for his reelection ahead of Sunday’s parliamentary election.

In a post on Truth Social on Thursday, Trump described Orban – his “true friend, fighter, and winner” – as a “strong and powerful leader” with a “proven track record of delivering phenomenal results.”

“[Orban] fights tirelessly for, and loves, his great country and people, just like I do for the United States of America,” Trump wrote. “Viktor works hard to protect Hungary, grow the economy, create jobs, promote trade, stop illegal immigration, and ensure law and order!”

Trump also credited Orban with driving “new heights of cooperation” between the US and Hungary and said he looks “forward to continuing working” with him.

Trump on Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán:

I was proud to ENDORSE Viktor for Re-Election in 2022, and am honored to do so again. Viktor Orbán is a true friend, fighter, and WINNER, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election as Prime Minister of Hungary — HE WILL NEVER… pic.twitter.com/uOWFCP7nRt

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) February 5, 2026

“Hungary: GET OUT AND VOTE FOR VIKTOR ORBAN,” he urged, stressing Orban has his “complete and total endorsement” for re-election.

Trump has repeatedly backed his longtime ally ahead of the vote. Earlier this week, he even called into a rally in Budapest via Vice President J.D. Vance’s phone, telling supporters, “I am with [Orban] until the very end.”

President Trump calls in during @VP's speech in Hungary to show support for Viktor Orban:

"I love Hungary, and I love Viktor. He's a fantastic man ... Remember this: He didn't allow people to storm your country and invade your country like other people have." pic.twitter.com/zPUhBAJDwp

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) April 7, 2026

Vance, who visited Budapest to boost Orban’s campaign, described Hungary as a “laboratory” for sovereign, conservative politics and accused the EU of “interfering” in the vote.

Hungary has opposed Ukraine’s EU ambitions, refused to supply arms to Kiev, and is currently blocking a €90 billion EU loan package – after accusing Vladimir Zelensky of cutting Russian oil flows via the Druzhba pipeline. Orban has also claimed Kiev is waging a “quiet war” against his government, alleging Ukrainian intelligence is operating inside Hungary to sway the vote toward the Tisza Party.

Orban has repeatedly accused the EU of trying to engineer a change in government and install a “puppet regime” in Budapest, alleging Brussels has already “picked” Magyar as a compliant successor. He has also argued that freezing billions in funding is a deliberate attempt to sway voters against him.

The Gulf states have emerged much weaker than Iran from the Middle East conflict, leading US academic Jeffrey Sachs has said.

Countries in the region made a huge mistake by seeking protection from the US and Israel, Sachs told RT India in an exclusive interview on Thursday.

“This has been a disaster for them,” he said, adding that the “clever idea” of the United Arab Emirates as a financial haven and tourism hub “all… fell under bombing right now.”

“[The US] did nothing to help it. I think the Emirates made a terrible mistake in signing on with Israel and the United States saying, ‘This is our side. This is our protection,’” he said.

Sachs said he was baffled when Gulf countries pledged billions of dollars to the US when Donald Trump began his second term as president.

The US is not where the high-return investments in the world are right now, Sachs noted.

“But these countries believed that the US is their protector and that the US is their source of NVIDIA chips and data centers and cutting-edge technology. They’re not looking clearly at how the multipolar world is taking shape,” he said.

“They’ve come out way, way behind in all of this. It’s been clear that Iran can devastate them,” he added. “The desalination plants, the bombing of the oil and gas infrastructure, the vulnerability of these countries more generally. It’s been awful.”

Sachs said the Gulf countries “don’t have their own geopolitics… They have been under the US line. But basically, this is a debacle for them.” These nations need to rethink their politics, he added.

“The truth is Iran and the Gulf should be partners. They should be co-investors. They should be at peace.”

India knows from its time under British rule that divide-and-conquer is the essence of imperial strategy, Sachs said.

“The US has loved to pit Iran against the Gulf, and the Gulf fell for it. Big mistake that needs to be reconsidered,” he said.

The US is perceived as a threat by a significant portion of people in six leading European nations, a new opinion poll suggests. In Spain, a majority holds this view, it says.

Politico, which commissioned the survey, said on Wednesday that these perceptions are linked to the policies of US President Donald Trump.

Since taking office just over a year ago, Trump has imposed tariffs on European allies, pushed for the annexation of Greenland from Denmark, and started a war with Iran, jeopardizing global energy stability.

The European Pulse poll was conducted from March 13 to 21 in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, with at least 1,000 adults surveyed in each country. In Spain, 51% of respondents described the US as a threat, while only 17% considered it a close ally.

Six major EU countries now view the U.S. under Trump as a bigger threat than China, per a new POLITICO Pulse survey—a significant shift in European threat perception.pic.twitter.com/Bz7YtheU1b

— The Dive Feed (@TheDeepDiveFeed) April 9, 2026

Poland presented a contrasting picture, where the US is largely seen as a partner or ally. Only 13% of Polish respondents viewed America as a threat, with an equal share labeling it a competitor. However, a significant 16% said they are unsure how to assess the US.

The survey took place amid escalating hostilities in the Middle East, as the US and Israel attempt to topple Iran’s government through a bombing campaign. No European NATO members directly joined the campaign, but Spain was notably vocal in opposing it, calling the operation illegal under international law and refusing the US access to its airspace for strikes.

Earlier this week, Trump signaled openness to negotiations based on a ten-point proposal from Iran, which led to the announcement of a two-week ceasefire. However, the fragile truce has been strained by increased Israeli attacks against Lebanon. Washington claims these actions fall outside the scope of the ceasefire, but skeptics argue that Israel is deliberately acting against US goals to derail peace efforts.

The Trump administration has been accused of using bad faith negotiations as a diversion before surprise military actions against Iran.

North Korea has conducted a series of high-tech weapons tests as it seeks to expand its arsenal with electromagnetic weapons, carbon fiber bombs, and new mobile air defense systems, KCNA state news agency reports.

The tests were conducted over the course of three days. Kim Jong-sik, a general who oversaw the tests, described the electromagnetic system and carbon fiber bombs as “special assets” in the country’s arsenal, but provided few details about the nature of the new weapons.

The South Korean military said it detected several missile launches from North Korean territory. The projectiles flew 240 to 700 km, according to Reuters.

The tests came amid rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula. First Deputy Foreign Minister Jang Kum-chol described South Korea as the “most hostile enemy state” in a statement on Tuesday.

Earlier this week, Seoul apologized to Pyongyang over drone incursions, denying any official involvement and claiming that the launches were a private initiative. Three people – including an employee of the National Intelligence Service, a South Korean military officer, and a graduate student – are facing charges.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un stated last month that a nuclear arsenal capable of posing a credible threat to the US is the only leverage against American “terrorism and aggression.” He also said North Korea would not give up its nuclear weapons and would oppose any efforts to challenge its status.

US First Lady Melania Trump has made a surprise public statement about Jeffrey Epstein, denying that she had any meaningful relationship with the late financier and convicted sex offender, and insisting that he did not introduce her to Donald Trump.

In remarks released by the White House on April 9, Melania said she had “never been friends with Epstein,” described her contact with his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, as nothing more than “casual correspondence,” and urged Congress to hold public hearings centered on Epstein’s victims.

“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” the first lady said, accusing unnamed critics of trying to “defame” her reputation. She stated that she and Donald Trump had only occasionally attended the same social events as Epstein due to overlapping social circles in New York City and Palm Beach, and said she first crossed paths with him in 2000 at an event she attended with Trump.

First Lady Melania Trump’s Statement pic.twitter.com/fSEz24NEyg

— First Lady Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) April 9, 2026

Melania also denied ever being on Epstein’s plane or visiting his private island, and specifically pushed back against claims that Epstein played a role in her relationship with the future president. She further insisted that her name has never appeared in court documents, depositions, victim statements, or FBI interviews tied to the Epstein case.

The Trump administration has faced growing backlash over its handling of the Epstein files. One day earlier, several media outlets reported that Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee, which has already heard testimony from former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The controversy has simmered for over a year. In February 2025, Bondi said Epstein’s supposed client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review,” fueling expectations of major disclosures. But by July, the DOJ said no such list exists, and that it did not plan to release additional records – a reversal that triggered ridicule from both Democrats and Republicans and intensified accusations of a cover-up.

US President Donald Trump has posted a horrific video of a woman being beaten to death at a Florida gas station earlier this month, using the killing to launch a blistering attack on former President Joe Biden and his immigration record.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the suspect is Rolbert Joachin, a Haitian national accused of fatally attacking a woman in Fort Myers on April 3. DHS said Joachin first entered the US illegally in August 2022 and was released into the country under Temporary Protected Status.

The suspect was tracked down and arrested with ICE assistance, and appeared in court on Wednesday, where he revealed that he went to the gas station specifically to kill the victim.

In a furious Truth Social post on Thursday, Trump said he felt “obligated” to publish uncensored footage of the murder, previously shown in court, so Americans could “see what Democrats are protecting,” while warning viewers that the tape is “not for children.”

Trump branded the suspect an “animal” and blamed Biden and congressional Democrats for allowing him to remain in the country, arguing that the case was a brutal example of what he sees as the human cost of lax immigration enforcement.

Trump ended his post by offering prayers for the victim’s family and vowing that “quick and severe JUSTICE” would be served. DHS said ICE had lodged a detainer against Joachin and that he would face deportation regardless of how the criminal case unfolds.

Donald Trump has declared the start of a new “golden age” in the Middle East after announcing a ceasefire with Iran. The war, at least for now, has been paused. And while predictions are always risky with this White House, there is at least a chance that the fighting will not immediately resume.

That alone matters. A prolonged war would raise risks for everyone, but above all for Washington. For all the bombast coming from the US administration, America has always been deeply uncomfortable with prolonged uncertainty and strategic risk. It is one thing to threaten. It is another to endure the consequences when threats fail.

The precise terms of the ceasefire remain unclear and may not yet be fully agreed. But the central political fact is already visible: Faced with determined resistance, the US stepped back.

None of the sweeping demands set out at the start of the operation were met. Trump’s all-caps demand for Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” now looks more like political theater than strategic doctrine. Yet behind the social media drama, something more rational prevailed in Washington: When pressure fails, it is better to retreat than to escalate into a situation you may no longer control.

The feverish rhetoric before the truce served a purpose. It allowed Washington to claim that Tehran had blinked, while creating such a sense of looming catastrophe that any pause in fighting could be sold as relief. The White House will now try to present restraint as victory.

This conflict is undoubtedly a milestone in the wider transformation of the international system. But it is not the end of that process. Nor is it the final chapter in the struggle for the Middle East.

Tehran’s response was not spectacular in the conventional military sense, but it was effective. Iran widened the theater of tension and signaled that the costs of escalation would not be confined to military targets. It forced its opponents to reckon not only with Iranian retaliation, but with the fragility of the wider regional system.

This matters because the endurance of the US and its regional partners is limited. Iran’s, by contrast, has historically been much greater.

The so-called Axis of Resistance also proved more durable than many had assumed. Despite the serious damage inflicted by Israel over the past two years, pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq remain a strategic factor. Even where they did not intervene directly, they raised the temperature and forced the attackers to remain on edge.

The broader effort to neutralize Iranian influence has therefore backfired. Iran has emerged bloodied but still standing. Even if Tehran’s claims that any settlement must happen on its terms are partly negotiating tactics, one thing is already clear: Iran’s regional weight has not diminished in the way Washington and West Jerusalem intended.

Negotiations with Tehran are now unavoidable. The real question is what Iran itself wants.

For the wider region, the implications are profound.

The Gulf monarchies have had a sobering experience. There will be no return to the comfortable old formula in which security could simply be outsourced to Washington in exchange for money and loyalty. That arrangement, which underpinned the region since the Cold War, has been badly shaken.

Publicly, the Gulf states are unlikely to make dramatic gestures. But privately, their search for new hedges and new partners will intensify. China, South Asia, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe will all become more important in their calculations.

That doesn’t mean the Gulf will accept Iranian dominance. The monarchies will not tolerate Tehran having unchecked influence over the Persian Gulf or the ability to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz. Their policy is likely to become more complex: containing Iran where possible while engaging with it where necessary.

The domestic consequences for the US are harder to judge. Trump’s self-congratulation already rings hollow, but much will depend on economics. If oil markets stabilize, the White House will try to move on quickly and insist disaster was averted thanks to Trump’s leadership. Whether that helps Republicans in the November midterms is unclear.

Still, Trump has always had one instinct his critics often underestimate: He knows how to survive setbacks and reframe them.

The larger conclusion, however, goes beyond Trump. The US remains immensely powerful. Its military reach, financial leverage and ability to shape events are still formidable. But they are not limitless. America can still influence outcomes but can no longer simply impose its will at any cost.

That lesson has now been absorbed far beyond Tehran. Allies and adversaries alike will draw their own conclusions. Iran may be a special case, but a precedent has been set.

This is another step toward a different world, one in which coercion is less decisive and the old assumptions about American omnipotence increasingly obsolete. Trump may wish to replace a liberal American-led order with an illiberal one under US dominance. But the events of recent weeks suggest something else: a world moving beyond any order Washington can fully control.

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

The homeless man accused of fatally stabbing 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska could see charges against him dropped after he was deemed unfit to stand trial, several US media outlets report, citing a motion filed by his attorney. He was previously indicted by a federal grand jury in the case, which could lead to the death penalty.

Zarutska was killed on a train last August in Charlotte, North Carolina. Surveillance footage shows Decarlos Brown Jr., 34, stabbing her three times in the neck in what appeared to be an unprovoked assault. The man was arrested shortly afterward and charged with first-degree murder.

According to a motion filed on Tuesday, Brown was evaluated at the Central Regional Hospital in late December and found to be not competent to stand trial. Under North Carolina law, a defendant must be deemed capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings, comprehend their situation, and assist in their defense in a rational manner.

If a judge agrees with the psychiatric evaluation, charges against Brown will be dismissed. A court ruling could still allow for the charges to be refiled if he ever regains the capacity to be tried.

Brown was also ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation as part of a separate federal court case, but it was not completed as of early March according to the court filings.

The man’s mother claims he is schizophrenic. Brown has a lengthy criminal record that includes robbery with a dangerous weapon.

Zarutska’s killing caused a public outcry and led to calls for capital punishment for the suspect. US President Donald Trump described Brown as an “animal” and urged that the death penalty be applied.

There are moments in history when reality breaks through ideology with brutal clarity. Western Europe is living through one of those moments now.

The Iran war has sent shockwaves through global energy markets – but in Europe, the tremors feel like an earthquake. What was once dismissed as pessimism or “populist scaremongering” is now openly acknowledged at the highest levels of power.

With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, the EU faced a supply shock that promised to cripple manufacturing, ground airlines, hike up the price of food, spike borrowing costs, and send inflation spiraling back to crisis levels.

The crisis nobody can deny anymore

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has compared the looming burden to the darkest days of recent memory, warning it could be “as heavy as we recently experienced during the Covid pandemic or at the start of the Ukraine war.” Head of the European Central Bank Christine Lagarde has admitted that the long-term effects are “probably beyond what we can imagine at the moment.”

Beyond imagination. That is where Western Europe now stands. And yet for millions of ordinary Europeans, the consequences are already painfully real: higher bills, shrinking savings, and a growing sense that something has gone profoundly wrong.

This is not just another cyclical downturn. It is something deeper – more systemic, more dangerous.

The greatest energy shock in modern history

Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, did not mince words: “At this moment, we are losing 11 million barrels per day, which is more than the two major oil crises combined… the greatest threat to global energy security in history.” Unlike past crises, this one spared nothing. Oil, gas, diesel, jet fuel – everything was under pressure at once.

The illusion that Europe could insulate itself has collapsed.

For years, Brussels reassured Europeans that the continent’s limited reliance on Persian Gulf crude would protect it. But reality has a way of exposing half-truths. Europe depends on the Gulf for more than 40% of its refined products – diesel that fuels trucks, and jet fuel that keeps planes in the air.

Now those lifelines are tightening. Asian economies, far more dependent on the region, are bidding assertively, pulling supplies away from Europe. Tankers are changing course. Contracts are being rewritten. Prices are surging. And the EU – self-constrained, self-limited – has found itself last in line.

The consequences are immediate, tangible, and deeply personal. In some countries, diesel prices have nearly doubled since the start of the Iran war. Airlines are bracing for impact; Lufthansa is already discussing grounding up to 40 aircraft because of jet fuel shortages. The EU’s fossil fuel import bill jumped by €14 billion in mere weeks.

Behind these numbers are real lives. Farmers paying more to harvest their crops. Truck drivers watching margins evaporate. Families forced to choose between heating and other essentials. Businesses – already weakened – now pushed to the brink.

Higher costs in agriculture, transport, and manufacturing cascade through the economy. Prices rise everywhere. Growth stalls. Inflation returns with a vengeance.

Europe is staring into the abyss of stagflation – stagnant economies paired with relentless price increases, quietly eroding the savings and dignity of millions.

This is not just an economic crisis. It is a social wound. A psychological burden. Another chapter in a long decade of instability that has left many Europeans exhausted, anxious, and increasingly distrustful of those in power.

Leadership without answers

In times like these, people look to their leaders for clarity, for courage, for solutions equal to the scale of the problem. What they receive instead feels painfully inadequate.

Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen has advised people to work from home, drive slower, and share cars. These are not solutions; they are coping mechanisms. They shift responsibility onto individuals while the structural failures remain untouched.

Even as shortages loom, Brussels insists on staying the course: a complete ban on Russian energy imports, no change to the plan to end Russian LNG imports by 2026, and pipeline gas by 2027. At the very moment when flexibility is needed, rigidity prevails.

Warnings are coming from all sides. Shell CEO Wael Sawan has said shortages could hit as early as April. Germany’s Economy Minister Katherina Reiche has cautioned that supply scarcity may emerge within weeks. Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto confessed, “I’m forced to know things that don’t let me sleep.”

And still, the policy does not change. Even from across the Atlantic comes a blunt message. Donald Trump remarked: “You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!”

Harsh, perhaps – but not entirely wrong. The EU has boxed itself in.

Yet across the continent, a different kind of leadership is beginning to emerge – one that dares to say what many already know.

In Germany, Alice Weidel of the AfD has articulated a position rooted in economic reality rather than political fashion: “Germany must return to an affordable and reliable energy supply to be internationally competitive… we must purchase energy resources… where it is cheapest, which is Russia.”

More and more Germans understand this. It is no coincidence that the AfD has risen to become the second most popular party. People are not embracing extremism – they are searching for common sense.

Central Europe’s warning – and its resolve

Further east, the message is even clearer, shaped by geography and experience.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called for immediate action, urging Europe to lift sanctions on Russian energy to avoid “one of the most severe economic crises in its history.” Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has echoed this urgency, calling for restored pipeline flows and renewed dialogue with Moscow.

His words cut through the diplomatic fog. The EU must “ensure the supply of these strategic raw materials from all possible sources and directions, including Russia.” Otherwise, he warned, the current path resembles a “suicide ship.”

These leaders are often dismissed in Brussels. Yet they are the ones confronting reality head-on. They understand that geography cannot be negotiated away. That energy cannot be replaced overnight. That ideology does not heat homes or power factories.

The return of reality – and of Russia

The Iran war has accelerated a reckoning that was already underway. It has shown, with unforgiving clarity, that the EU cannot secure its energy future by excluding its most logical supplier. Russia is not a distant option; it is a structural pillar of the European energy system – one that has been deliberately removed without a viable replacement.

The result is what we see today: scarcity, volatility, vulnerability. Restoring relations with Moscow is no longer a theoretical debate. It is becoming an economic necessity.

And the momentum is shifting. Across Germany and Central Europe – Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia, Czechia – voices are growing louder, more confident, more aligned in their insistence on pragmatism over ideology.

A turning point for Europe

Europe now stands at a decisive turning point. One path leads further into crisis: continued shortages, declining industry, rising social tensions, and a widening gap between elites and ordinary people. The other path is more difficult politically – but far more sustainable economically. It requires acknowledging mistakes. Reopening dialogue. Rebuilding ties where they make sense.

Above all, it requires listening – to the citizens who are paying the price, and to the leaders who have the courage to speak uncomfortable truths. Change is coming. The Iran war may well accelerate it. Because in the end, reality is undefeated. And Europe, whether it admits it or not, is already on the road back to it.

A Republican-aligned political group has been accused of sending leaflets featuring Ku Klux Klan imagery to voters in Virginia ahead of a high-stakes referendum. The Washington Post has suggested that the campaign primarily targets black voters.

The mailers, reportedly distributed in recent weeks by the Democracy and Justice political action committee, use imagery associated with the KKK – a group historically linked to racist violence against Black Americans – alongside warnings urging voters to reject the ballot measure redrawing the state’s political map to favor Democrats.

The leaflet design combines emotionally charged historical visuals with simple, urgent messaging. One leaflet, shared by the Virginia Independent, features grainy black-and-white images from the era of racial segregation, including Klansmen in white hoods and scenes of Black Americans facing violence, alongside claims that “they want to silence your voice.” Another pairs civil rights-era imagery, such as marches and protests, with slogans like “politicians are trying to take our districts away.”

Idk man I’m just surprised they used images of the KKK on the vote no on redistricting mailer pic.twitter.com/WuKGgPZ6D4

— Kate Martin (@katekeepsit100) March 7, 2026

The April 21 referendum will ask voters whether to change how Virginia’s electoral districts are drawn, a decision that could affect which party wins more seats in Congress.

What is this crap (an inflammatory, false, absurd etc. anti-referendum mailer being sent out) and what's the deal with the group ("Democracy and Justice PAC") behind it? https://t.co/HdBJrU2Wr2 pic.twitter.com/8rJJiBefNQ

— Blue Virginia (@bluevirginia) March 7, 2026

Black voters make up roughly one-fifth of Virginia’s population and are a key voting bloc in statewide elections. Virginia, though Democrat-leaning overall, remains a closely contested battleground state where even small shifts in support can sway outcomes.

A group, Justice for Democracy, has been sending out mailers and texts with some clear dog whistles, using varying disclaimers in Virginia ("Democracy and Justice PAC" and "Justice for Democracy PAC").

Its treasurer is listed as Christopher Woodfin and its address is the same… pic.twitter.com/JvetyKGnbw

— Matt Royer (@royermattw) March 7, 2026

Virginia’s vote comes amid a broader national push by Republicans and Democrats to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 elections, with several states already adopting new boundaries to gain political advantage. District maps are typically redrawn once every ten years after a census, with the next scheduled for 2030.

Unlike most states, which make such changes through legislatures or courts, Virginia is putting the measure directly to voters through a public referendum. Former US President Barack Obama has urged Virginians to back the measure.

Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te on Friday proposed a nearly $40 billion military buildup amid tensions with Beijing. This came just days after the head of the self-governing island’s main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), traveled to the mainland seeking rapprochement in the first such visit in a decade.

Taiwan became a de facto autonomous territory in 1949, after Chiang Kai-shek’s forces fled there following their loss in the Chinese civil war. Beijing considers the island part of its sovereign territory under the One China policy, which most UN nations, including the US and Russia, recognize.

Lai presented the massive military spending bill at a meeting of his party’s top decision-making body on Friday, calling it a way to counter the “threat of authoritarianism.” The proposal came just days after lawmakers from the US, Taiwan’s primary arms supplier, visited the island.

Earlier this week, Lai gave a speech positioning military strength, economic resilience, cooperation with Western and regional allies and “equality and dignity” as the main requirements for peace in the Taiwan Strait.

KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun, who arrived on the mainland on Tuesday, has stressed that opposing Taiwanese independence is a way to guarantee regional peace.

“The two sides of the Taiwan Strait are not destined, as some in the international community worry, for war,” she said in a speech in Nanjing.

RT has been covering the arrival with our correspondent Konstantin Rozhkov in China.

WATCH FULL VIDEO:

The Irish government has announced that it will use the military to clear trucks and tractors blocking “critical infrastructure.” Protests launched over soaring fuel prices have brought Dublin to a standstill in recent days.

In a statement on Thursday, Irish Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan said that “the blocking of critical national infrastructure will not be permitted to continue and the assistance of the Defense Forces has been requested.” Protesters who fail to disperse will have their vehicles moved by force, and “should not complain later about any damage caused to those vehicles,” O’Callaghan added.

Protesters in trucks, tractors, and other large vehicles have blockaded Dublin city center since Tuesday and formed slow-moving convoys on key motorways throughout the country. The demonstrators have also blocked ports in Galway and Limerick, and the country’s only refinery at Whitegate, near Cork, which processes imported oil to meet 40% of Ireland’s fuel demand.

The blockades have already triggered fuel shortages across Ireland, with 100 petrol stations predicted to run dry by Thursday night, an industry spokesperson told the Irish Independent.

Fuel prices have spiked in Ireland as a result of the US-Israeli war on Iran, with petrol rising by 15% and diesel currently costing nearly 30% more than in mid-February. Home heating oil, meanwhile, has surged in price by almost 70%. Taxes make up almost 60% of fuel costs in Ireland, and the protesters argue that the government should slash these levies to ease pressure on farmers, haulers, and commuters. 

In case you are unaware, tens of thousands of farmers, truck drivers, bus drivers and delivery drivers are fuel protesting across Ireland this week.

The Irish have had enough and are fighting back 🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻
Follow us for video updates and share pic.twitter.com/KltGl3OO9x

— TheLiberal.ie (@TheLiberal_ie) April 8, 2026

A minor cut in fuel taxes last month – 15 cents per liter on gasoline and 20 cents on diesel – was criticized by Ireland’s opposition Sinn Fein party as “a pathetic token gesture that doesn’t even come close to what is needed.”

The Irish government has refused to negotiate with the protesters. “It is an act of national sabotage to blockade this refinery and it will directly impact the people of Ireland,” Prime Minister Micheal Martin said on Wednesday, referring to the Whitegate demonstration. “A gun can’t be put to the head of government.”

Martin was filmed on Thursday walking away from angry demonstrators in Cork, who accused him of “walking away from the Irish people.”

Micheal Martin look at the ground walks directly past a Irishman asking question.

He doesn’t even have the ability to look the man on the eye let alone answer questions.

He is a weak man pic.twitter.com/zoD0foTw8w

— Real News Éire (@real_eire) April 9, 2026

In keeping with EU policy, the government has also ruled out a return to Russian fuel imports. Despite a spiraling energy crisis, Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris said last month that “any move by the European Union to start buying Russian oil again… would be utterly despicable.”

Not so long ago, US President Donald Trump openly endorsed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban ahead of the Hungarian parliamentary elections scheduled for April 12.

From a diplomatic standpoint, urging citizens of another country to vote for a specific candidate is contentious, to say the least. First and foremost, it is considered direct interference in the electoral process. But even more importantly, it highlights the widening ideological divide within what was once a largely unified Western world.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, however. Like Trump is in the US, Orban has long been a symbol of the European conservative movement, challenging the so-called ‘rules-based order’. Washington may view Hungary as a bastion of conservative politics within the EU, one that could serve as a model for other member states.

Evidently, the system Orban has built in Hungary over recent years exemplifies the “healthy nation” according to Trump. Moreover, in a show of support for Orban, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Hungary in February, and US Vice President J.D. Vance visited Budapest in the week of the vote.

The EU’s stance, however, is particularly noteworthy; while it refrains from endorsing any candidate, it hopes that the opposition Tisza party, led by Peter Magyar, will win. 

“I think everybody hopes Orban will lose,” a European diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Indeed, this year’s election campaign is quite intense for Orban. The Tisza party (officially the Respect and Freedom Party), established in December 2020, is the main rival of Orban’s Fidesz party. Interestingly, different polls show varying results, and each party claims that it is ahead of the other.

According to the polls published by Tisza, it leads Fidesz by over 20%. This creates a challenging environment for Orban and could be used to contest election results if his party wins. 

Moreover, the EU – whose leaders refused to recognize election results in Belarus (in 2020) and Georgia (in 2024), and have publicly criticized Orban – may openly back the opposition should it lose in this weekend’s elections. 

However, Tisza could also accuse Fidesz of having similar plans. Regardless of the results, the upcoming elections will be challenging for Hungary. 

European officials accuse Budapest of straying from the so-called ‘party line’, accusing the current government of the erosion of democratic norms and restrictions on press freedom and NGO activities; Orban is also accused of running a campaign that discredits the EU. 

Orban dismisses these allegations as unfounded and presents himself as a defender of traditional European Christian values against an out-of-touch liberal elite. Orban primarily operates from conservative principles, distinguishing the interests of Hungary from those of the EU as a larger supranational entity that often overlooks the needs of its member states (consider the EU’s decision to open markets for Ukrainian grain, which forced Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to go against Brussels’ directives and protect their own borders).

The EU’s list of complaints against Orban is quite banal. The EU criticizes Budapest for perceived threats to judicial independence, increased media control, strict immigration policies, and a more independent foreign policy regarding Russia and China. 

As the EU evolves into a sort of supranational ‘superstate’, it demands complete alignment from its member states, while the European Commission functions as a facilitator of globalization, pushing for uniformity in values and approaches expected to be shared by all members.

In contrast, Orban prioritizes sovereignty as the supreme value and believes that no supranational organization should interfere in a nation’s internal politics. He effectively denies Brussels the right to control political processes within Hungary, which naturally irritates the European Commission.

Hungary’s stance is clear: the EU was originally intended as a union of states, but has transformed into a rigid structure where recruitment for leadership positions is opaque, and mechanisms are far from democratic. 

At the same time, Orban has been reelected four times since 2010, casting doubt on any claims regarding the undemocratic nature of elections in Hungary. This shows that the policies of his party reflect the general sentiments of the Hungarian public, and the external pressure exerted on Budapest is a sign of disregard for the views of the Hungarian people.

The conflict over whether common regulations and the unification of EU nations should take precedence over national sovereignty and the interests of local populations has smoldered for years. This standoff has already cost Hungary billions of dollars in frozen EU funds. Such actions by the European Commission have exerted pressure on the Hungarian currency and fueled inflation. The opposition has particularly highlighted this destabilizing economic factor when pointing out the repercussions of the EU’s ‘punishments’.

The disputes between Brussels and Budapest have persisted for years, although they usually resulted in compromises. But all that changed in 2022 when Russia’s military operation in Ukraine revealed significant differences between the interests of Hungary as a sovereign state and those of the EU as a supranational political entity.

How Ukraine exacerbated the divide between Hungary and Europe

The divergence in Hungary’s and Brussels’ approaches to the Ukraine crisis became evident as early as February 2022. Budapest consistently advocated for a peaceful resolution through dialogue, while the EU, following the lead of the Biden administration in the US, focused on “strategically defeating” Russia on the battlefield.

Moreover, Orban prohibited the transit of lethal weapons to Ukraine from third countries through Hungarian territory. And of course, Hungary itself does not supply weapons to the Ukrainian military.

As a bordering state with Ukraine, Hungary prioritizes its own national security and has expressed concerns about being drawn into the conflict instigated by the Ukrainian government. 

Budapest also had grievances against Kiev, particularly regarding its failure to protect the ethnic Hungarian minority living in Transcarpathia. Furthermore, the ban on Hungarian-language education and the forced conscription of ethnic Hungarians exacerbated tensions between Hungary and Ukraine.

Still, compromises were generally reached – either through negotiations, mutual concessions, or direct threats to cut off Hungary’s access to EU funds. 

The dynamics shifted after Trump returned to the White House, effectively removing the US from the coalition supporting Ukraine. This compelled the EU to expedite decision-making processes regarding sanctions and aid to Ukraine. And now, amid the backdrop of the US and Israel’s war against Iran, the EU also faces serious energy issues. 

The EU is grappling with an incredibly complex challenge: it needs to arm Ukraine, find additional funds for skyrocketing fuel costs, and continue exerting pressure on Russia. Meanwhile, Hungary is blocking the implementation of the 20th package of sanctions on Russia and, even more significantly for the EU, a €90 billion ($105 billion) loan for Kiev. According to the Ukrainian press, this could mean that Kiev will run out of money for the war by the summer.

Budapest’s actions are driven by Ukraine’s blockade of the Druzhba oil pipeline, which transports crude oil from Russia to Hungary. Ukraine claims that the pipeline has been damaged by a Russian attack, but denies inspection teams from Hungary and the EU access to the site, which certainly undermines the credibility of Kiev’s statements in Budapest’s eyes.

Things escalated to the point where Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky directly threatened Orban, saying he would send guys from the Ukrainian armed forces to talk to the Hungarian prime minister “in their language.” Even the European Commission felt compelled to criticize Zelensky, albeit very delicately (which is hardly surprising). 

With the end of direct US financial support for Ukraine, the urgency of Western funding has intensified. Any delays instigated by Orban could prove disastrous for Europe’s plans to weaken Russia.

Meanwhile, Brussels is still trying to probe Russia’s ‘red lines’, attempting to push them further away.

This is no longer just an internal political debate about shaping Hungary’s political landscape; it has evolved into a broader discussion about differing views on European security. Should Moscow’s interests be considered in constructing the continent’s security architecture (as Budapest believes), or should they be disregarded entirely (as Brussels believes)?

So in order to strengthen sanctions and unlock funding for Ukraine, the European Commission hopes that the Hungarian people will vote against Orban on April 12.

Will anything change if Orban loses?

Predicting the outcome of this year’s parliamentary elections in Hungary is quite challenging. Political analysts agree that the chances for Fidesz and Tisza are roughly equal. However, even if Magyar wins, most likely he would not be a convenient choice for Brussels either. His agenda appears equally nationalistic, and he’s not likely to budge on issues such as immigration or Ukraine’s accession to the EU – in these aspects, at least, there seems to be a consensus among Hungarian politicians.

However, one thing is certain: Magyar will back Brussels’ anti-Russian foreign policy course, especially since he has expressed a desire to restore the significance of the Visegrad Group by strengthening ties with Poland. Essentially, Tisza aims to align the approach to Ukraine with the broader centrist European establishment. In practice, this means expediting the resolution of issues, thus helping Brussels fuel the Ukraine conflict.

It’s no coincidence that Orban’s party has integrated Zelensky’s image into its campaign; if Tisza comes to power, EU funds could flow more swiftly to Kiev. This would only prolong the conflict and worsen Hungary’s situation as it moves further away from Russian energy sources in favor of the supranational interests of the EU.

Former US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was fired by President Donald Trump last week, will not be required to testify about her handling of the investigation into late financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the Justice Department (DOJ) has announced.

In a letter explaining the decision, the DOJ argued that Bondi was summoned to appear before Congress in her official capacity – a role she no longer holds – rendering the demand invalid. However, lawmakers from both parties have insisted that she remains legally obligated to appear.

“The removal of Pam Bondi as attorney general does not diminish the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests in seeking her sworn testimony,” Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace and her fellow legislator, Democrat Ro Khanna, have said.

Mace further stressed that Bondi “cannot escape accountability simply because she no longer holds the office,” and that her testimony is “even more important” now.

Democratic Representative Robert Garcia has threatened to initiate Congressional contempt proceedings if Bondi fails to appear, insisting she must “come in to testify immediately” about the Epstein files and the “White House cover-up.”

Bondi’s refusal comes as the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files has faced a mounting backlash ever since Congress passed a law last year requiring the DOJ to release all unclassified records related to the financier, who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

In February 2025, Bondi told Fox News that Epstein’s “client list” was “sitting on my desk right now to review,” fueling expectations of explosive revelations. By July, however, the DOJ announced that no such list ever existed and that it had no plans to release additional documents. 

Bondi’s refusal to publish the full Epstein files has been widely ridiculed, including by both Democrats and Republicans. The former official reportedly even had to move into military housing over mounting threats.

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is scheduled to testify in a closed‑door transcribed interview in June. Gates has not been accused of any misconduct, and his representatives say he “welcomes the opportunity to appear before the committee.” 

Other prominent figures who have already testified include former president Bill Clinton and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and billionaire Les Wexner.

Norway is assisting Ukraine with preparing “terrorist attacks” on Russian commercial vessels in the Barents and Norwegian seas, TASS has reported, citing a defense source.

Around 50 Ukrainian drone operators have already arrived in the NATO country and begun their training, the agency said in an article on Thursday.

According to the source, they are “practicing the use of submerged and surface unmanned systems in the Norwegian Sea in cold conditions together with experts of the Norwegian Navy’s special operations command.”

The plan by Kiev and Oslo is to target ships heading in and out of Murmansk, which is Russia’s largest Arctic port, located in the north-west of the country, a source told TASS.

“The Norwegian leadership’s assistance to the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities and the provision of its territory for preparation and execution of sabotage at sea directly draws Norway and the entire NATO bloc into a military conflict with Russia,” the source stressed.

In February, Norwegian intelligence agencies issued a report which described Russia as the “greatest threat” to the security of the Nordic nation and the whole of Europe. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described the paper as a collection of “fantasies” and “baseless accusations,” stressing that “the deliberate escalation of tensions” by Norway contradicts the interests of both Moscow and Oslo.

The authorities in Moscow have repeatedly said they harbor no aggressive plans against NATO and will only fight the bloc if it attacks Russia first.

Ukrainian drones have previously targeted vessels transporting Russian oil and other goods in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Kiev also attacked the port of Novorossiysk, which accounts for some 20% of Russia’s crude oil exports, and energy facilities in various parts of the country.

US President Donald Trump has lashed out at NATO over the inaction of European allies during the war with Iran.

Trump, according to sources close to bloc chief Mark Rutte who spoke to Bloomberg, has issued an ultimatum to its members demanding a commitment to help secure the Strait of Hormuz “within days. ”

“NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN,” Trump posted on Thursday on his social media platform Truth Social.

Trump’s anger follows weeks of criticism of European NATO members for what he sees as their refusal to support the US-Israeli war on Iran. Spain has refused outright to allow US planes use its bases, while Germany and the UK have refused to condemn Trump or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claiming only “this is not our war.”

Rutte described the exchange as a “very frank, very open” discussion between “two good friends.” He said in a Thursday interview with CNN, however, that Trump was “clearly disappointed” that US allies had refused to take part in the Iran war. Asked multiple times if Trump had said if he would leave the alliance, Rutte did not answer directly.

"Is the world safer today than it was before the war was started?"
Secretary-General of NATO, Mark Rutte: "Absolutely, and this is thanks to President Trump's leadership" pic.twitter.com/jjOWexNsOg

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) April 9, 2026

Rutte has faced a barrage of criticism in Europe for his perceived deference toward Trump. During a joint press appearance last year, he jokingly called the US president “Daddy,” drawing media attention and ridicule.

Ahead of the latest meeting, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told journalists that a possible US withdrawal from the bloc is “something the president has discussed.” She also said that Trump could raise the issue with Rutte.

A US Army veteran who worked with the elite Delta Force commando unit has been charged with providing top secret data to a reporter, the US Department of Justice has said.

Courtney Williams of Wagram, North Carolina was indicted by a federal grand jury on Wednesday over “her alleged transmission of classified national defense information to individuals not authorized to receive it, including a journalist,” the DOJ said in a statement. The preliminary charge against the 40-year-old carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison.

The court filings did not name the reporter in question, but Politico and other outlets identified him as Seth Harp, author of the 2025 non-fiction book ‘The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces’.

Williams, who held a position providing paperwork allowing special operations troops to covertly deploy abroad between 2010 and 2016, is mentioned as a source in the book on multiple occasions. It also contains several of her photos.

The DOJ said that the veteran held a ‘Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information security clearance’ and signed non-disclosure agreements when she joined and departed her unit.

Williams will remain in custody at least until Monday, when the judge is scheduled to decide on the request by the prosecutors to keep her detained pending trial.

FBI director Kash Patel said in a post on X on Thursday that Williams’ arrest was the result of “outstanding work” by his agency’s operatives.

“Let this serve as a message to any would-be leakers: we’re working these cases, and we’re making arrests. This FBI will not tolerate those who seek to betray our country and put Americans in harm’s way,” Patel wrote.

Harp called the veteran’s indictment “an outrage,” arguing that “[President Donald] Trump’s unhinged DOJ will not even say what ‘classified information’ she allegedly leaked.”

Bangladesh is battling a major measles outbreak, with the government reporting more than 1,000 suspected cases across the country in 24 hours.

The Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) said that 1,248 suspected and 189 confirmed measles cases were reported from 8 AM on Tuesday to 8 AM Wednesday, the Dhaka Tribune reported.

Ten suspected deaths were also recorded during the period, including six in the capital, Dhaka, which registered the highest number of suspected cases at 505.

The DGHS has reported 11,133 suspected and 1,599 confirmed measles cases nationwide between March 15 and April 8.

Health officials said the data reflects only cases recorded in government hospitals, adding that the actual number of infections could be significantly higher.

A surge in infections, deaths, and hospital admissions has been reported from across the South Asian nation.

Dhaka is conducting emergency measles-rubella vaccinations while trying to contain the outbreak, which has killed more than 100 children in less than a month, the Associated Press reported.

The government said vaccination for children aged from six months to five years old in 18 high-risk districts began on Sunday in association with the World Health Organization (WHO).

Measles is a highly contagious airborne disease causing fever and respiratory issues, and can have severe or fatal complications, especially in young children, according to the WHO.

The WHO says 95% of the population has to be vaccinated in order to stop the disease from spreading.

Plans for automated military conscription during a US national emergency are advancing and on schedule to be in place by the end of the year, according to the federal agency tasked with maintaining the list, the Selective Service System (SSS).

Provisions included in the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act passed last December in response to falling compliance shifted the responsibility from individuals to the SSS.

The changes drew renewed attention this week after media outlets highlighted a recent update on the agency’s website. The SSS is expected to finalize implementation by December 2026, aiming for a “streamlined registration process and corresponding workforce realignment.”

Currently, most adult males under the age of 26 living in the US – including undocumented immigrants – are required to register for potential conscription. The millions who fail to do so can face penalties of up to $250,000 in fines, five years in prison, and restrictions on obtaining citizenship. Under the new system, the SSS would instead build its registry using personal data from multiple government databases.

In recent years, the Pentagon has faced mounting challenges in both recruiting volunteers and maintaining the national draft list. Standards for enlistment have been lowered to address recruitment shortfalls, while the shift to automatic registration is intended to boost the pool for possible conscription.

Several anti-war organizations have urged Congress to reconsider the change. They argue the system “won’t produce an accurate or complete list of potential draftees,” but at the same time “will increase the likelihood of war and violate the privacy of US citizens and residents.” Critics believe that the aggregated database will be “vulnerable to misuse and weaponization” by both government entities and private actors.

The EU is relying on non-governmental organizations, bankrolled by billionaire financier George Soros, as well as controlled media to justify its push for more online surveillance and censorship, Telegram founder Pavel Durov has said.

On Wednesday, state-owned broadcaster France 24 reported on a study by NGO AI Forensics that said nearly 25,000 users in Spanish and Italian Telegram groups had shared thousands of images of naked women, often in exchange for money, while also engaging in doxxing and harassment of women.

The study said the images and videos were sourced from platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, with Telegram acting as “a hub” for organizing and circulating abusive content.

It added the platform’s privacy features such as end-to-end encryption and paid access to channels enabled abusive behavior to develop with a high degree of security and impunity.

AI Forensics blamed Telegram for failure to clampdown on such groups and advised the EU to classify it as a “very large online platform” (VLOP), which allows for stricter oversight under the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

However, the narrative by AI Forensics, which is “a Soros-funded contractor to the European Commission,” is being widely distributed by the press, including “globalist outlets” like El Pais, Der Spiegel and Wired along with French media, he said in a post on Telegram.

“I doubt anyone still takes these organizations seriously – most of them lost people’s trust during the COVID era. But it’s important to call out all such attempts at public manipulation, because they are used to take away what's left of our freedoms,” the Russian-born tech mogul stressed.

Durov is currently facing legal proceedings in France after being arrested and spending several days behind bars in Paris in 2024 on allegations that Telegram failed to deter criminal activity on the platform. The entrepreneur maintains that his prosecution is politically motivated.

The almost apocalyptic rhetoric from US President Donald Trump, who threatened that “a whole civilization will die tonight,” suddenly gave way to de-escalation. By the evening of April 7, it was announced that the US and Iran had agreed to a two-week ceasefire; shortly afterward, Israel confirmed it would join. Over these two weeks, negotiations toward a permanent peace deal are due to be held with Pakistan acting as mediator.

This is exactly the scenario we saw as the most likely from the very beginning of the conflict.

The war could still resume (we’ll get to that below), but for now it looks like things are moving toward a reality where the Persian Gulf is, in fact, becoming Persian. Iran now effectively controls shipping in the Gulf and holds the Arab oil monarchies at risk – and the US appears to be accepting that.

Let’s assume the pause in hostilities lasts months – or even years. That’s entirely plausible: even if a formal peace deal doesn’t materialize, the ceasefire could simply be extended over and over again.

In that case, the top priority for the Arab states will be building a new generation of air defense. The blueprint is fairly clear: rely on cheap, mass-produced interceptors, whether ground-based (such as Russia’s Pantsir) or air-launched (like APKWS). Both Arab states and Israel will likely focus on this, alongside replenishing their traditional air defense stockpiles.

The second priority will be diversifying logistics – building new pipelines to the Red Sea and finding alternatives to Gulf shipping routes. The goal is obvious: break free from Iran’s Strait of Hormuz chokehold and reduce its leverage. That said, for countries like Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Iraq, pipelines across the Arabian Peninsula would mean dependence on another regional power – Saudi Arabia. And, of course, transit fees would apply.

None of this solves the core problem. The geography of the Gulf makes full protection impossible. Across more than 500 nautical miles (about 1,000 km) – like something out of an old arcade shooter – every shipping lane is within Iran’s reach. Along the coastline, ports, factories, desalination plants, oil storage facilities, data centers, hotels, and skyscrapers sit exposed like targets at a shooting range. Defending all of that from the sea is extremely difficult, and for the time being, the Arab states will likely choose to pay for safe passage.

In the East, one of the highest marks of a wise ruler is the ability to impose tribute on neighbors and make them acknowledge your authority. That principle is well understood in both Iran and the Arab world. Ironically, the US and Israel may have helped bring about a new regional order that actually fits local political logic.

Now Washington and West Jerusalem will face a long, uphill battle to rebuild their influence – and any move they make will be viewed with skepticism by Arab states: what if it all falls apart again? The alpha wolf missed his mark.

Scenario 2: Renewed escalation

It’s entirely possible that in two weeks the war could flare up again – potentially with even greater intensity. Iranian negotiators could be targeted again, triggering an earlier collapse of the ceasefire. Still, we see this as relatively unlikely: despite the considerable military capabilities of the US and Israel, they currently lack a clear path to decisively defeat Iran through conventional means.

Realistically, short of a nuclear scenario, the coalition has two main options.

Meanwhile, Iran’s missile capabilities have not only survived but shown signs of recovery and increased operational tempo. And US forces have been unable to seriously disrupt Iran’s drone launch infrastructure (including Shahed-type UAVs). That means any large-scale bombing campaign risks triggering significant retaliatory damage – especially against the oil-producing Arab monarchies – prolonging and deepening the global oil shock and potentially pushing the world toward a financial crisis.

Israel would also be exposed. According to a JPMorgan report citing the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the success rate of Iranian strikes on Israeli territory has surged – from 3% at the start of the war to 27% by late March and early April – largely due to the strain and depletion of Israeli air defenses.

The second option – a large-scale ground operation, either along Iran’s coastline or against Iranian-controlled islands – comes with all the risks of air warfare plus inevitable heavy casualties. The upside? Essentially none. Limited amphibious raids would achieve little, while a full-scale invasion aimed at regime change is simply not feasible.

None of this means escalation is off the table. It means that before escalating, US and Israeli leadership would have to solve the same equation they faced at the start of the war – but now with far fewer unknowns. Iran’s resilience, its military capabilities, and the extent of US-Israeli international isolation are now much clearer.

Scenario 3: Low-level clashes under Iranian control of Hormuz

This is essentially a variation of the first scenario – and, in our view, the most likely one. In fact, it already appears to be unfolding: Iran is accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire with new strikes and is threatening (and likely preparing) to retaliate.

If traffic through the Strait of Hormuz continues more or less uninterrupted, a pattern of ongoing tension and sporadic exchanges could become the new normal. Israel carries out strikes (or Iran claims it was attacked); Iran responds by temporarily shutting down the strait for a day or two – maybe launching a retaliatory strike of its own.

After a few weeks or months, this kind of news simply fades into the background – a constant, low-level risk. The region becomes less stable, but the rest of the world largely shrugs – as long as oil and other resources keep flowing out of the Persian Gulf.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk is seeking to have OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman fired as part of his lawsuit against the artificial intelligence giant, court documents filed on Tuesday show.

The mogul sued OpenAI in 2024, accusing it of defrauding him of $38 million in initial funding he contributed when co-founding the company in 2015, under the understanding that it would remain a nonprofit. The AI startup, valued at $852 billion, restructured late last year, and is now run as a nonprofit that holds a 26% stake in its for-profit arm, which includes ChatGPT.

Musk’s lawyers are seeking to “strip Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of their positions of authority and the personal financial benefits they extracted from OpenAI’s illicit for-profit operations and conversion,” according to the latest filing.

Musk left OpenAI in 2018 due to disagreements with Altman, bought Twitter (now X) in 2022, and launched his own artificial intelligence firm xAI the following year.

In February, xAI and OpenAI announced deals with the Pentagon to integrate their artificial intelligence tools into the US military’s classified systems. Altman claimed that his company agreed to cooperate under the condition that its tools would not be used for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.

Anthropic’s newest AI model is “extremely autonomous,” can reason like an advanced security researcher and is far too powerful for public release, the company claimed on Wednesday, as it continues to fight the Pentagon in court.

In Washington, the two-week ceasefire with Iran has been hastily presented as the beginning of de-escalation and as proof that pressure had once again created the conditions for diplomacy. Yet once the political packaging is removed and events are viewed in their true strategic dimension, the picture looks very different.

What really happened is a forced interruption, reached under pressure and surrounded by incompatible interpretations in Washington and Tehran. The temporary nature of this pause, its mediated character, and the striking divergence in how its meaning is understood all indicate that this is not the end of a war, but a breathing space within an unfinished conflict whose core political contradictions remain unresolved.

More importantly, in the eyes of many outside observers and much of global public opinion, Iran now appears to be the clear winner of the present battle. It absorbed the blow, answered with force and dignity, refused capitulation, and most importantly, gradually shifted control over the very logic of a war imposed upon it. The US and Israel had expected to define the rules of the conflict and then present any compelled Iranian retreat as proof of their own victory. What happened in practice was the opposite. Iran not only refused externally imposed terms, but also raised the cost of war to a point where the American military campaign became a political liability for the US itself. That is why this moment is increasingly perceived as a sign that even under conditions of overwhelming technological and military superiority, the US can no longer automatically convert a campaign of strikes into the submission of its opponent.

Why Washington backed off

From the outset, the operation rested on a familiar formula of coercion. The US and Israel proceeded on the assumption that a series of destructive strikes combined with intimidating rhetoric would compel Iran to accept external demands. This logic has long been a hallmark of American policy in the Middle East. First a condition of maximal pressure is created, then the adversary is left with a choice between submission and devastation, after which any tactical retreat is presented as evidence that Washington has imposed its will. But Iran once again exposed the central weakness of that model. A large state with internal mobilization, a resilient political system, and a strong historical consciousness cannot necessarily be broken by a single cycle of punishment, even when that punishment inflicts enormous damage. Iran is not invulnerable, but it has shown itself to be extremely hard to break. Its leadership remained in place, the state system did not disintegrate, its capacity to retaliate was not reduced to irrelevance, and its influence over the strategic environment around the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, by all indications, remained intact.

For that reason, Donald Trump’s sudden reversal in the final hours before the expiry of his own ultimatum should not be read as the confident gesture of a victor, but as the compelled maneuver of a leader urgently seeking an exit from an increasingly dangerous configuration. Shortly before the pause was announced, American rhetoric had already escalated to threats against civilian infrastructure if Iran did not ensure passage through Hormuz on Washington’s terms. Such signals were widely taken as evidence that the crisis had approached an extremely dangerous threshold. The subsequent pivot toward a temporary halt in attacks and toward negotiations means that pressure had begun to work not only against Iran, but against the American side itself. Continuing the war threatened Washington with multiple layers of cost. Military uncertainty remained high, allies were uneasy, markets were reacting nervously, and the prospect of a prolonged conflict without a swift and convincing outcome was becoming increasingly real.

Iran’s losses have hardened it

From a military standpoint, the US and Israel undeniably inflicted serious damage on Iran. Infrastructure was struck, losses were significant, economic pressure intensified, and social strain inside the country increased. But war cannot be measured simply by the number of destroyed targets. In the end, war is judged by whether force achieves the political outcome for which it was launched. And the internal political collapse that the architects of the campaign may have hoped for did not occur.

Iran, by contrast, responded not only militarily, but politically and psychologically. External pressure on this scale almost always produces a double effect. It heightens fear, exhaustion, and anger, yet it can also sharply strengthen a sense of historical community, especially when society perceives events not as pressure on a government alone, but as an attack on the country itself, on its sovereignty, and on its right to independent existence. That is precisely what appears to have happened here. Even if anxiety, confusion, and fatigue accumulated within Iran, the war simultaneously fostered internal consolidation, mass mobilization, and a strengthened conviction that national survival itself was at stake. This is one of the most important reasons why Iran now appears, in the eyes of many external observers, as the winner of the current phase. It turned its own resilience into a political resource, while its adversaries, having begun the war from a position of strength, ultimately found themselves searching for a formula to stop it.

This does not mean that Iran is free of internal problems. It remains a complex country marked by serious social, economic, and political contradictions. But the scale of the attack altered the hierarchy of threats within the country. When a state is subjected to direct strikes, when threats are made against its infrastructure, and when external aggression becomes openly demonstrative, internal dissatisfaction recedes behind the logic of national survival. In that sense, the US and Israel achieved the opposite of what they may have intended. Instead of loosening the internal fabric of Iranian society, they contributed to tightening it. The more the war came to be seen in Iran as an assault on the nation as a whole, the less likely internal political fragmentation became, and the greater society’s willingness to see resistance as the only dignified response.

The outcome for Iran is far from pure triumph. Yet politically it is of enormous importance. Yes, the losses were severe. Yes, economic pressure has not disappeared. Yes, the risk of renewed escalation remains. But in international politics, what matters is not only who suffered more destruction, but who could not be broken. Iran has not been reduced to a passive object of someone else’s will. On the contrary, it has managed to seize the political initiative. If one side begins a war in the expectation of forcing capitulation and ends by turning to mediation and bargaining over the parameters of negotiation, then its original design has already failed.

Ripples across the world 

The regional consequences of the war were equally revealing. The conflict very quickly ceased to be merely about the US, Israel, and Iran. It cast doubt on the entire security architecture of the Middle East, an architecture that for decades rested on the American military umbrella. For a long time, Arab monarchies were offered a relatively simple formula. The US would provide security, and regional partners would pay for it with contracts, political loyalty, and a partial limitation of their own autonomy. But a large war with Iran showed that this structure no longer appears either unconditional or reliable. Any major confrontation with Tehran automatically turns the bases, ports, energy infrastructure, and shipping routes of Washington’s allies into zones of heightened risk. That is why the reaction of Gulf markets to the ceasefire looked almost euphoric in its relief – enormous relief that the region had, at least temporarily, stepped back from the edge of catastrophe.

At the global level, the consequences also extended far beyond the regional theater. Any crisis around the Strait of Hormuz immediately affects the world economy, maritime logistics, insurance markets, energy prices, and the broader psychology of financial systems. The very reaction of markets to the halt in hostilities showed that this war was a systemic danger. This is especially painful for the US because it undermines one of the central pillars of America’s image in the world. For decades, it has sought to present itself not merely as a global source of order. Yet with the Iran war and its consequences, American power increasingly came to be seen as a producer of chaos, which then attempted to repackage a temporary pause as a diplomatic success.

What are the chances for a lasting peace?

The current pause looks not like a strategic settlement, but like a tactical stoppage. The reversal by the White House was simply too abrupt to be seen as part of a long-calculated design. Only recently, the rhetoric had approached an almost apocalyptic register, and suddenly Washington was speaking of a workable basis for future agreement. Such contrasts usually mean that the original scenario either failed or became too dangerous to sustain.

The negotiation process itself is of particular importance. Its structure points to a difficult and complex bargaining process. The American side seeks to present events as the result of successfully applied pressure, while Tehran emphasizes that a ceasefire does not cancel its sovereign claims and does not amount to recognition that the aggressor was right.

There already seems to be struggle over the interpretation of the pause itself. Iran has reportedly submitted to the US, via Pakistani intermediaries, a 10-point peace plan that has to be the basis for any lasting peace it will accept. This plan includes several conditions that Washington has already rejected in the past. But even the fact that such a plan is formally under discussion shows that the US is now compelled to discuss a framework for halting the conflict, while Iran is in a position to advance conditions of its own.

The mediated character of the negotiations suggests that direct trust between the sides is almost entirely absent, and that each fears being trapped within the other’s interpretive framework. In such a context, a mediator is needed to construct a formula sufficiently flexible for both sides to accept in practice without publicly abandoning their own narrative. Washington wants the pause to be seen as the fruit of force. Tehran wants it to be seen as the fruit of endurance and successful resistance. This is the central struggle within the negotiation process.

As for the conditions of the parties, they arise from opposite strategic imperatives. The US wants to restore navigational security, reduce Iran’s capacity for retaliation, and frame negotiations in a way that can be presented to an American audience as evidence that deterrence has been restored. The White House also needs to avoid allowing the conflict to become a prolonged, costly, and politically toxic campaign. Iran, by contrast, wants to fix in place the fact of its own steadfastness, obtain guarantees against renewed strikes, prevent the pause from becoming merely a prelude to a new wave of pressure, and preserve its right to dictate at least some of the terms of future discussion. That is why this conflict cannot be quickly dissolved. The sides are arguing not only over mechanisms, but over the meaning of what has happened. One side is trying to prove the effectiveness of coercion. The other has already, in effect, demonstrated its limits.

Israel was a direct aggressor and an active participant in the pressure campaign, yet in recent weeks its role noticeably receded into the background, because Trump’s sharp statements and ultimatums effectively overshadowed the Israeli factor in the international information space. As a result, Netanyahu largely succeeded in removing himself from the center of critical attention at precisely the moment when that was most advantageous for him. While much of the world was preoccupied with the war around Iran, Israel continued its occupation, destruction, and military pressure in southern Lebanon. This goes to show how easily, amid a larger crisis, attention to Israeli actions can be pushed to the margins even when Israel remains one of the principal sources of destabilization on adjacent fronts.

If the pause does not in fact extend to Lebanon, then that means that the war has not really ended – it has merely been partially reconfigured. One front has been temporarily cooled, another remains active, and the possibility of their renewed convergence remains. This is the clearest sign of a tactical pause. Strategic peace presupposes a new order and a new equilibrium. Nothing of the kind has emerged here. No actor has renounced escalation as such. No one has definitively accepted a new regional configuration. The confrontation has been interrupted, but not overcome.

In the end, the war exposed a structural miscalculation in American strategy. The US and Israel did not abandon the logic of coercion, but they were forced to recognize that this particular phase of coercion had failed to produce the political result they expected. Washington appears to have underestimated Iranian resilience, the scale of Iran’s response, the sensitivity of global markets, the anxiety of its allies, and its own domestic political risks. That is why there arose an urgent need to shift the crisis into a format of temporary ceasefire and mediated negotiation. For Iran, by contrast, the story, despite enormous losses, became a moment of political affirmation.

The most enduring outcome of these weeks will likely be measured by a change in global perception. The world saw that Washington is still capable of driving events to the threshold of a major regional catastrophe. But it also saw that Washington can no longer turn military escalation into stable political order with the same confidence and speed. The world saw that Iran can be gravely wounded, yet is difficult to break. It also saw that even though the war was imposed by the US and Israel, Iran responded in such a way that, in the eyes of many societies, it was Iran that displayed resilience, initiative, and strategic composure. That is why the present pause is perceived not as a triumph of American strength, but as evidence of its limits.

An Iranian delegation led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has arrived in Islamabad for talks with the US, as efforts to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East continue amid a fragile ceasefire.

US Vice President J.D. Vance is also en route to Islamabad for the talks, saying Washington is prepared to engage in good-faith diplomacy if Tehran does the same.

US President Donald Trump earlier said that he had asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to scale back the bombing of Lebanon, as Iran insisted that the two-week ceasefire with the US should also encompass fighting in that country.

Despite Trump’s request, Lebanese media reported Israeli strikes across the country on Friday. However, Iranian media claimed that Tehran forced Israel to stop attacks on Beirut as a precondition for Pakistani-mediated talks with the US delegation.

The exact outlines of a potential US-Iran peace deal remain unclear, after Iranian media shared a plan envisaging non-aggression, Tehran’s control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of some uranium enrichment, stopping Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, and the lifting of all sanctions. The US previously opposed many of the terms.

As the tentative US-Iran truce appears to be generally holding in the broader Gulf, Trump warned that Iran had “better stop” charging fees from vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, after the Islamic Republic vowed to take the management of the strategic waterway to a “new stage.”

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains limited and under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has published a map of “designated routes” citing the risk of mines.

Key developments:

• The Iranian delegation led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan for the upcoming talks with the US. The group includes Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Ali Akbar Ahmadian, the secretary of the Defense Council, and Central Bank governor Abdolnaser Hemmati.

• US Vice President J.D. Vance is en route to Islamabad

• US President Donald Trump has warned that strikes on Iran can resume if a deal is not reached within 24 hours. The US warships are being reloaded “with the best weapons ever made,” he told the New York Post ahead of the talks.

• Ghalibaf has stated before travelling to Islamabad that the talks would only commence if two conditions are met. Israeli strikes on Lebanon must cease and Iran’s frozen assets must be released before the start of the negotiations, the Iranian parliament speaker said.

Follow our live coverage below for continuous updates. You can also read our previous updates here.

Nine deaths and disappearances of high-profile US scientists in the last three years has set a “disturbing pattern,” according to US intelligence sources cited by the Daily Mail.

In the latest incident, the body of missing cancer research scientist Jason Thomas was discovered in a Massachusetts lake last month. The month prior, retired Air Force General William McCasland, who reportedly worked on the US nuclear program, went missing, while astrophysicist Carl Grillmair was gunned down on his porch in California.

“You can say these are all suspicious, and these are scientists who have worked in critical technology,” the Daily Mail cited former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker as saying.

Foreign intelligence services belonging to both US allies and adversaries have targeted Americans in possession of top scientific secrets over the decades, he reportedly said. “It’s been happening since the Cold War… Especially when nuclear technology and missile technology were first coming to the forefront.”

Prior to his disappearance, McCasland led the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), where he reportedly oversaw the funding of a jet engine project by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) materials chief Monica Reza, who also went missing last year, just months after assuming the position.

Grillmair’s work on the US NEOWISE and NEO Surveyor orbital telescope is also tied to the Air Force, as both are used by the US military to track foreign satellites and missile launches, the outlet reports.

Anthony Chavez and Melissa Casias, who both worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), which has cooperated with the AFRL on nuclear research, were reported missing last summer. Both reportedly left their New Mexico homes on foot and left their cars, keys, wallets and phones before disappearing.

Another respected physicist Nuno Loureiro, who was reportedly working on breakthrough fusion energy research, was fatally shot in Massachusetts in December.

The administration of US President Donald Trump is “weaponizing Christianity” to justify its actions in the Middle East, while Israel continues to act with impunity as much of the West turns a blind eye, Irish activist and satirist Tadhg Hickey has said.

Appearing on RT’s East Meets West show, hosted by Tara Reade and Olga Bataman, Hickey described it as ironic that Trump and other officials in his administration have invoked biblical messaging in their public statements on the war against Iran, when in reality their actions are “going further and further away from what Christ’s teachings were.”

“It’s a weaponizing of Christianity that I find really appalling. It’s really vulgar this idea that Jesus is this kind of agent of war for these people, and there’s nothing Christian about their values or their behavior,” Hickey said.

He described Israel as acting with total impunity in Gaza and elsewhere, and attempting to “get away with as much as they can” while Trump is in the White House, safe in the knowledge that they will face no resistance from Washington or the broader West.

Hickey also discussed his experience of being detained in Israel after attempting to deliver aid to Gaza as part of the Freedom Flotilla in 2025.

“We were abducted in international waters, brought to a terrorist prison… put into prisoner garb, denied medical attention, no access to lawyers, no yard time. There was a 75-year-old Irish guy, he was denied access to his insulin… it was a miracle he survived. I don’t think they actually would have tried to kill one of us, but if one of us had died in one their cells, that would have been a big bonus [for them], because it would have been a deterrent for people going again,” the activist said.

Watch the full episode with Hickey below.

A ceasefire deal struck by Washington and Tehran is a “disaster” and “failure,” several prominent Israeli politicians have said. Israel was left out of the equation, they argued, calling it a strategic mistake on the part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

US President Donald Trump announced a two-week pause to the US-Israeli war on Iran to negotiate a long-term solution to the conflict on the basis of a 10-point plan put forward by Tehran. It reportedly includes Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of its uranium enrichment, the lifting of sanctions, and the cessation of war on all fronts, including Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Netanyahu’s office said on Wednesday it “supports” Trump’s decision while maintaining that Israel would continue its military campaign against the Iran-linked Hezbollah group in neighboring Lebanon.

“Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and didn’t meet a single one of the goals that he himself set,” the lawmaker said in a post on X. Former Deputy Economic Minister Yair Golan, who leads the Democrats party, also branded the development a “total failure” in a social media post, adding that Iran emerged from the conflict stronger than before.

MP Avigdor Liberman, the head of the Yisrael Beytenu party, also claimed that peace with Iran under the conditions listed in its plan would only lead to another conflict later.

The US and Israel launched an unprovoked bombing campaign against the Islamic Republic in late February, openly stating they were seeking regime change and an end to Iran’s nuclear program. The conflict killed thousands and caused unprecedented disruption to global energy supplies, mainly due to Tehran’s effective closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Regardless of how the conflict between the United States and Iran formally concludes, its symbolism is already unmistakable. An ancient civilization, one of the oldest continuous states in human history, has emerged as the final obstacle to the project of American global dominance. That alone tells us something about the direction in which the world is moving.

For historians, the deeper meaning of the current Middle Eastern crisis lies in the confrontation between two powers at opposite ends of the historical spectrum. Iran is arguably the world’s oldest centralized state, with roots stretching back to around 530 BC. Since then, it has never ceased to exist as a unified political entity. That continuity is remarkable. Even Russia, the major Western European powers, India and China have all experienced fragmentation at various points in their histories.

The United States, by contrast, is among the youngest major nations – barely 250 years old. Its history is ten times shorter than that of Persia. In that sense, the present conflict pits antiquity against modernity, a civilization forged over millennia against a state that rose rapidly in a uniquely favorable historical moment.

In purely military terms, such comparisons mean little. The United States retains overwhelming destructive capacity. If it chose to do so, it could devastate Iran. This is, after all, the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons against civilian populations. That fact alone should temper any illusions about the limits of American power.

Yet the long-term significance of this confrontation lies elsewhere. It isn’t about whether Iran can defeat the United States in a conventional sense. It’s about whether the current international order, one shaped by American dominance, can continue to function as it has.

This doesn’t make it invincible. But it does mean that it must be taken seriously, not only as a military opponent, but as a political and historical actor. Iranian decision-making reflects a depth of strategic thinking that few contemporary states can match. It’s precisely this quality that makes Iran such a difficult counterpart, both for allies and adversaries.

The United States, meanwhile, has long sought to imprint itself on history as a transformative force. Yet its successes have been tied to exceptional circumstances rather than intrinsic durability. Its meteoric rise in the 20th century was made possible by a unique convergence of factors.

First, that century witnessed an unprecedented clash of ideas. For the first time in history, global politics was driven not only by states and interests, but by competing ideologies – liberalism, communism, socialism and nationalism – each claiming universal relevance.

Second, Western Europe, which had dominated world affairs for centuries, was exhausted by internal conflict. Russia and China, though powerful, were primarily concerned with preserving their independence rather than projecting global influence. This left a vacuum that the United States was uniquely positioned to fill.

Finally, the collapse of European empires created a vast number of new states, many of them vulnerable. The United States lacked the capacity to subdue major powers directly, but it could exert influence over smaller, weaker countries. This allowed it to construct a global system of influence that, under normal historical conditions, would have been difficult to sustain.

That illusion is now fading.

The United States is facing a profound internal crisis, intellectual and political. Its political system has become increasingly polarized, its strategic thinking narrower, and its ability to formulate coherent long-term policies more limited. These weaknesses are visible in the decisions and contradictions of recent administrations.

Even Western Europe, once firmly within the American orbit, is showing signs of resistance. The assumption that the transatlantic relationship would remain unchallenged indefinitely is proving to be misplaced.

In this context, the conflict with Iran takes on broader significance. It is not merely another regional war. It is part of a larger process in which the United States is being forced to adapt to a reality that other states have always known: that no single power can exercise uncontested control over global affairs.

Iran’s role in this process is, in many ways, symbolic. It’s not a perfect state. It lacks the economic resources of China, the mobilization capacity of Russia, or the intellectual traditions of Western Europe. Even a victory over the United States would not transform it into a global hegemon.

And yet, it may prove decisive in bringing an era to a close.

The consequences extend far beyond the Middle East. What is at stake is not simply the outcome of a particular conflict, but the broader structure of international relations. The idea that one state can impose its will universally, shaping the global order in its own image, is being tested, and found wanting.

History offers many examples of powers that aspired to such dominance. None succeeded in the long term. Even those that appeared closest ultimately encountered constraints, structural or strategic, that they couldn’t overcome.

The United States is no exception.

The end of this illusion will mark the true conclusion of the 20th century, an era defined by ideological confrontation, unprecedented globalization and the temporary ascendancy of a single power. What follows will be more familiar: a world of multiple centers of power, competing interests and shifting alliances.

The war between the United States and Iran is one of the moments through which this transition is taking place.

Regardless of how it ends, one conclusion is already possible. Iran, by standing its ground, has made a significant contribution to the evolution of the international system. It has become, in effect, the final weight that brings down a structure built on overreach and illusion.

The world won’t be the same. Not because of the destruction or the diplomacy that may follow, but because a fundamental idea, that of uncontested global hegemony, is losing its hold.

The US-Iran ceasefire, which was announced last night by US President Donald Trump, brings a cautious sense of optimism and hope that the war may eventually come to an end. However, a ceasefire is not a peace agreement. The two-week pause in hostilities could unfold according to different scenarios: it could lead to meaningful negotiations and ultimately a comprehensive peace deal, or it could be terminated, and the conflict would enter a new phase. 

Moreover, we shouldn’t underestimate the fragility of such agreements. A ceasefire can be broken at any moment – within days or even hours. It’s entirely possible that Washington could abruptly change its stance; for instance, Trump might claim that Iran is acting in bad faith and use that as justification to end the ceasefire and resume military operations.

At the same time, the very structure of the ceasefire raises important questions. Reports indicate that the agreement includes a 10-point plan proposed by Iran, which the US has acknowledged as the basis for current negotiations. These talks are expected to take place in Islamabad, with Pakistan playing the role of mediator.

Both the ceasefire and America’s acceptance of Iran’s proposal as a foundation for negotiations raise many questions. If Iran has truly been “defeated” as Trump has repeatedly claimed during the 39 days of intense conflict, or if it has been “effectively destroyed” as his comments suggest, then why is Washington considering Tehran’s offers as a starting point for peace talks?

The aforementioned 10-point plan – which is said to form the basis for a potential peace agreement and which, at least rhetorically, Trump seems willing to discuss – deserves particular scrutiny. The points include commitments to non-aggression, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the lifting of primary and secondary sanctions, the termination of UN Security Council resolutions and IAEA Board of Governors’ decisions, compensation payments to Iran, the withdrawal of American troops from the region, and the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

Agreeing to this point would mean that the US is effectively endorsing a significant reduction of its geopolitical influence in the Middle East. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that the US will be reluctant to take such a step. Moreover, with the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence coming up, it’s unlikely that Trump (who coincidentally is also celebrating his 80th birthday this year) would want to mark this occasion with what could be seen as a geopolitical capitulation.

The proposal to end hostilities across all fronts, including in Lebanon, also raises serious concerns. Even if such a demand is formally included in the negotiation package, its practical implementation is highly questionable. Reports are already emerging about continued strikes on Hezbollah militia positions in Lebanon, with no signs that Israel is prepared to fully scale back its military operations or alter its current strategy. In fact, Israel will likely be focused on securing at least some form of victory for itself. Thus, this appears to be more of a desired political outcome for Iran than a realistic commitment that could be swiftly and consistently executed by all parties.

Similarly, the idea of compensation payments to Iran seems even less feasible. Politically, it’s hard to imagine the US directly agreeing to compensate Tehran for war damage. This would not only impose financial costs on Washington but would also symbolize an acknowledgment of responsibility – something the US is unlikely to accept. Consequently, this point seems more like an element of Iran’s maximalist position rather than a genuine condition for any future agreement.

Of particular interest is the point regarding Iran’s continued control over the Strait of Hormuz. Here, we may find one of the key geopolitical priorities. If we were to hypothetically assume that the US agreed to such a formulation, it would signify much more than mere acknowledgment of the status quo. Essentially, it would equate to recognizing Iran’s dominance over one of the most crucial strategic nodes in global energy trade. In other words, Washington would be indirectly acknowledging Tehran’s geopolitical triumph.

In this context, other proposals appear more realistic – specifically, a partial or phased lifting of key sanctions, as well as a potential reevaluation or suspension of certain international legal restrictions, including UN Security Council resolutions and IAEA governing board decisions. These elements could become bargaining chips, as they allow for flexible interpretation, gradual implementation, and the potential for politically advantageous presentations for both parties.

When it comes to recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the US is likely to adopt a more complex and ambiguous stance. Washington may not directly deny Iran’s right to limited nuclear activities, but it will likely encumber that right with numerous conditions, technical constraints, verification mechanisms, and international oversight, effectively narrowing Tehran’s operational freedom. In essence, the US will probably seek a diplomatic framework that appears to be a compromise but fundamentally preserves pressure and control.

Therefore, viewing the 10-point plan not as a mere declaration but as a potential foundation for a real agreement reveals that its provisions vary significantly in terms of feasibility. Some points demonstrate Iran’s maximalist negotiating position and are unlikely to be fully accepted by the US. Others may serve as points for negotiation and compromise. Only a few points seem to form a realistic basis for further discussions. Consequently, the very act of discussing this proposal is important not so much as a sign of impending peace but as an indicator of the conditions under which Tehran seeks to solidify its military, political, and geo-economic positions in a post-conflict reality.

Firstly, Pakistan has traditionally maintained working relationships with both Iran and the US. Despite complicated relations with Washington in recent years, Pakistan remains a crucial regional player with communication channels to both sides. Its ties with Iran are bolstered not only by geographical proximity and shared security concerns but also by pragmatic cooperation in energy and border stability. Moreover, Pakistan is the only Muslim nation recognized as a nuclear power, which considerably elevates its stakes as a negotiator.

Secondly, selecting Pakistan as a mediator may indicate a desire to move away from traditional negotiation venues associated with the West or international organizations, opting instead for a more neutral or flexible diplomatic environment. This approach can reduce public pressure and facilitate negotiations in a more confidential format. 

In addition, for Pakistan, this represents a significant opportunity to elevate its international standing. By acting as a mediator in such a sensitive conflict, Islamabad positions itself to play a more prominent role in regional and even global politics. Moreover, it’s important to consider the broader context – specifically, the increasing influence of ‘Global South’ nations in conflict resolution when mediation increasingly extends beyond the traditional Western diplomatic sphere.

As for the ceasefire and the upcoming negotiations, the situation remains highly uncertain at this stage. The ceasefire should be viewed not as a resolution to the conflict but rather as a temporary pause, the outcome of which is still unclear. 

US President Donald Trump has, in the end, found a way out of the situation he created by embarking on a reckless war against Iran. The threat of destroying an entire civilization provided him with the pretext to step back.

Indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington, conducted through intermediaries, primarily Pakistan and, behind it, China, have produced a ceasefire. Trump may claim that Iran was cowed by his threats, but the reality is different.

A ceasefire under conditions where the Strait of Hormuz remains under Iranian control suggests that Tehran has not backed down. Washington, in effect, has.

It is too early to speak of any “golden age” emerging from these talks. But the outlines of the conflict’s outcome are already visible.

1. Iran has held firm.

For decades, Iran faced the threat of joint aggression by the United States and Israel. That threat has now been tested, and has failed to break Tehran. Neither Washington nor Tel Aviv proved capable of imposing their will by force.

The result is clear: Iran has consolidated its status as a major regional power, standing alongside Israel as one of the decisive actors in the Middle East.

The Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf have discovered both their vulnerability and their dependence. In a conflict between the US/Israel and Iran, they proved unable to defend their own interests. Meanwhile, American bases on their territory, far from guaranteeing security, became magnets for Iranian retaliation.

Conclusion: US security guarantees have been shown to be unreliable. This lesson will not be lost on Washington’s allies.

3. Military power has reasserted primacy.

The conflict has underlined a broader truth about the emerging international order: military force outweighs economic and financial leverage.

As Pushkin wrote:

“All is mine on earth, said gold.
All is mine, said iron cold.
I will buy it all, said gold.
I will take, said iron cold.”

Sanctioned Iran, burdened by economic difficulties, has effectively withstood, and in strategic terms defeated, a global superpower. Meanwhile, its far wealthier southern neighbors have been reduced to little more than spectators, or worse, targets.

Conclusion: In today’s world, hard power determines outcomes.

Iran has emerged from the conflict intact, but transformed. During the war, a shift long anticipated by analysts appears to have taken place. Real power has moved away from the clerical establishment and toward the security apparatus.

The country is no longer defined primarily by its formal leadership, but by the senior ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Conclusion: Iran will remain an Islamic republic, but one in which the IRGC plays the decisive role. Its policy is likely to be firm, disciplined and pragmatic.

Moscow has navigated the conflict with a degree of strategic discipline. It has maintained its principles, calling aggression by its name, expressing solidarity with Iran, and vetoing what it viewed as an unbalanced UN Security Council resolution on the Strait of Hormuz.

At the same time, it has preserved working relations with key actors: explaining its position to Gulf partners, avoiding direct confrontation with Trump, and refraining from damaging ties with Israel.

The broader consequences of the conflict, a temporary spike in oil prices, strains in transatlantic relations, and a further diversion of US attention from Ukraine, have unfolded largely independently of Russia’s direct involvement.

Looking ahead

The war has opened new opportunities for Moscow. Iran, having endured a severe test, has strengthened its regional and international standing. This creates conditions for closer cooperation between Russia and Tehran.

More broadly, the outlines of a new Eurasian security architecture are becoming visible. Russia, China, Iran – alongside states such as Belarus and North Korea – form the core of this emerging system.

In the south, Iran has effectively halted an American geopolitical advance. In the west, Russia seeks to do the same in Ukraine. In the east, China continues to expand its military capabilities while advancing its diplomatic agenda.

It is through such developments, not declarations, but shifts in power and alignment, that a multipolar world is taking shape.

A two-week ceasefire announced by US President Donald Trump appeared to have brought a temporary halt to the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Washington says it now aims to negotiate a long-term peace deal based on a “workable” 10-point proposal put forward by Tehran.

Over the past six weeks, the conflict has killed thousands, leaving much of Iran in rubble and its people defiant. It has also caused unprecedented disruption to global energy supplies, mainly due to Tehran’s effective closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz. 

Here is what we know so far about the agreement, its terms, and the path ahead.

Who brokered the US-Iran deal?

The ceasefire was primarily brokered by Pakistan, which has been acting as a diplomatic intermediary between Washington and Tehran. In his announcement, Trump directly credited Pakistani leaders for his decision to suspend the bombing of Iran.

What is in Iran’s 10-point plan?

Iran has put forward a 10‑point proposal that Trump described as a “workable basis” for negotiations. According to Iran’s semi‑official Mehr News Agency, the plan includes:

What has Trump said about the peace plan?

Trump announced the “double-sided ceasefire,” stressing Iran’s agreement to ensure the “complete, immediate and safe opening” of the Strait of Hormuz through which roughly a fifth of the world’s daily oil supply passes. 

Trump has also stressed that Iran would no longer be allowed to enrich uranium and will have to dig up and remove all the “deeply buried Nuclear ‘dust’.”

In return, he said, the US has suspended planned strikes on Iranian infrastructure, including bridges, power plants and other key installations, pending negotiations. Trump said the US would also consider tariff and sanctions relief for Tehran. 

He also stated that the current Iranian plan is “not good enough” and warned that the US would resume its strikes if no final deal is reached by the new deadline.

What has Iran said about the ceasefire deal?

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council confirmed its acceptance of the ceasefire and said that negotiations with the US would begin in Islamabad on April 10, with a two-week period that may be extended by mutual agreement. 

The council stressed that the talks “do not mean the end of the war” and that Iran would continue military operations if its demands are not fully met.

Tehran framed the ceasefire as a “historic and crushing defeat” for the US, claiming Washington was forced to accept its 10-point plan as the basis for talks.

How has Israel responded to the truce?

Israel did not appear to be a part of the ceasefire discussions between the US and Iran, but has backed the deal. 

However, despite the temporary truce being ordered on all fronts, Israel has claimed the terms do not apply to Lebanon, where it has been conducting large scale airstrikes and has launched a ground invasion.

The death toll from Israeli strikes on Lebanon has exceeded 1,500 people since the start of the war, the country’s ministry of health has reported. Another 4,812 people have been injured, including hundreds of women and children, as well as dozens of paramedics and healthcare workers.

Is fighting still going on in the Middle East?

Despite the ceasefire, attacks have continued across the region. Israel has said it launched its largest wave of strikes on Lebanon since the war began, claiming to have fired 100 missiles in the span of just 10 minutes, supposedly targeting Hezbollah targets in Beirut and other areas across the country.

At least one oil refinery in Iran has also been hit, with several explosions reported at the Lavan refinery in southern Iran shortly after the ceasefire was announced. The cause of the blast is still unknown.

Iran also appears to have launched a wave of attacks on Gulf states. Kuwait reported it intercepted 28 drones, some of which had successfully struck oil facilities, power stations, and water desalination plants, causing significant damage.

How have markets reacted?

Financial markets have responded sharply to the ceasefire news. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures fell nearly 18%, last trading near $96 per barrel. Brent crude dropped more than 16% to around $94 per barrel. Asian stock markets surged, with Japan’s Nikkei 225 gaining 5%, South Korea’s Kospi soaring nearly 7% and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rising by 3%. US stock futures also rallied sharply, while Treasury yields eased.

What has Moscow said?

Russia has welcomed the ceasefire. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Moscow “was pleased with this news” and supports the decision not to continue down the path of armed escalation. He expressed hope that direct contacts between Iranian and American delegations would take place “in the coming days.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova added that the approach of an “aggressive, unprovoked attack on Iran has failed” and that the US had suffered a “crushing defeat.”

What happens next?

Negotiations between the US and Iran are scheduled to begin in Islamabad on April 10, with the ceasefire providing a two-week window for diplomacy. However, both sides have presented starkly different versions of what has been agreed upon, and the Iranian council has warned that any final agreement depends on securing Tehran’s conditions and that “this does not mean the end of the war.”

Despite the markets appearing to react positively to the ceasefire announcement, experts warn that the aftermath of the disruptions may be felt for months to come as energy prices are expected to remain high.

Bill Gates will testify before a US congressional committee about his interactions with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to media reports.

The Microsoft co-founder is set to sit for a transcribed interview on June 10, multiple outlets said on Wednesday, citing anonymous sources. It follows a March 3 request from lawmakers seeking details about his ties to Epstein.

Gates is the latest high-profile figure to agree to testify before the House Oversight Committee as part of the probe into the disgraced financier, who died in a New York jail cell in August 2019.

The inquiry has already included testimony from former US President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

”While he never witnessed or participated in any of Epstein’s illegal conduct, he is looking forward to answering all the committee’s questions to support their important work,” the spokesperson also said in a statement.

Last November, US President Donald Trump signed a law requiring the Justice Department to release files from its Epstein investigations. More than 3 million documents have since been made public in total, including those describing details of Gates’ communications and relationship with the late financier.

Other documents suggest Gates may have leveraged Epstein’s network for health-related influence, with DOJ files citing meetings in which healthcare issues were discussed.

Earlier this year in an interview with 9 News Australia, Gates apologized for his ties to Epstein, calling it “foolish” to have spent time with him and saying their interactions were limited to dinners and did not include visits to Epstein’s island.

He claimed the meetings were focused on fundraising for global health initiatives linked to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

US Vice President J.D. Vance has condemned Vladimir Zelensky’s “completely scandalous” threat to send soldiers to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s home to “talk to him in their own language.”

Speaking in Budapest on Wednesday, Vance said that he hadn’t heard about Zelensky’s threat – made early last month – until Orban told him this week.

”Viktor actually told me that and I went and looked it up. I almost couldn’t believe it’s true, but it’s true,” he said. “It’s completely scandalous. You should never have a foreign head of government or a foreign head of state threatening the head of government of an allied nation. It’s preposterous. It’s unacceptable.”

Zelensky made the threat in early March while complaining about Hungary vetoing a €90 billion EU loan package for Kiev and on the same day Budapest impounded up to $100 million worth of cash and bullion being brought to Ukraine in security vans by former spies.

“We hope that one person in the European Union will not block €90 billion,” he said, referring to Orban. “And that the Ukrainian soldiers will have weapons. Otherwise, we will give the address of this person to our armed forces, our boys, let them call him and talk to him in their own language.”

At the core of the dispute is the Druzhba pipeline, which carries Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia via Ukraine. Zelensky claims that the pipeline – which Hungary depends on for more than 80% of its oil imports – was damaged in a Russian attack.
Budapest and Bratislava, however, claim that it is visibly operational in satellite photos, and the Zelensky is keeping it shut to punish Hungary. Orban has refused to consider lifting his veto on the loan package for as long as the pipeline is out of service.

Orban claims that Zelensky is keeping Druzhba shut to hamper his reelection campaign by driving up energy costs. Ukraine has reportedly provided covert aid to Orban’s leading opponent, Peter Magyar of the pro-EU, pro-Kiev Tisza party.

Vance, who arrived in Budapest this week to boost Orban’s campaign, condemned the EU and Ukraine for “interfering” in the Hungarian election. “Foreign influence is when other governments threaten, cajole, and try to use economic influence to tell you how to vote. That is fundamentally an assault on your sovereignty.”

Israel has stepped up air strikes across Lebanon, pounding central Beirut, just hours after the US and Iran announced a two-week ceasefire, according to RT correspondent Steve Sweeney, who was caught up in the attack with his cameraman Ali Rida Sbeity.

The escalation comes in an apparent violation of the truce, which mediators said was meant to include Lebanon, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisting it does not apply.

The strikes hit the densely populated Barbour area of the Lebanese capital, where Sweeney’s footage shows thick smoke rising near a bridge following the strike. One of the targets was a mosque. Videos from the scene show heavily damaged and destroyed buildings, with residents still present in the area.

“The very clear message from Israel is that there is no ceasefire in Lebanon,” Sweeney said. “In fact, Israel has escalated its bombing starting in the early hours of the morning...”

Strikes were also reported across southern Lebanon, including the cities of Tyre and Nabatieh. The Lebanese state news agency NNA reported continued Israeli shelling, including artillery fire and a dawn air strike on a building near a hospital that killed four people.

Lebanon’s health ministry said an Israeli strike on the southern city of Sidon killed eight people and wounded 22 others. 

The escalation comes after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, a key intermediary in the talks, announced that the warring parties had agreed to an “immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and elsewhere.”

However, Netanyahu, while expressing support for the US decision to suspend strikes on Iran, stated the ceasefire “does not include Lebanon” and that the Israeli operations against Hezbollah will continue.

Hezbollah has not claimed any attacks since the deal was announced and halted strikes on Israeli targets early on Wednesday, according to sources cited by Reuters. The group said it is on the “threshold of a major historic victory” and warned displaced residents not to return home until a formal ceasefire was clearly confirmed.

Hezbollah is reportedly expected to issue a statement clarifying its position on the ceasefire and Israel’s stance.

Israel launched a military operation against Hezbollah in early March after the militant group carried out waves of strikes against the Jewish state in retaliation for the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli operation against the Islamic Republic.

Democratic congressman John Larson has filed articles of impeachment against US President Donald Trump over his actions connected with the Iran war. 

Larson, a Connecticut Democrat, said on Tuesday he had filed 13 charges, accusing Trump of waging an “illegal war” and escalating threats against Iran that endangered US security and American lives. He added that Trump is becoming “more unhinged” and “more unstable by the day.”

“Donald Trump has blown past every requirement to be removed from office. And it’s getting worse,” Larson said in a statement.

Larson also pointed to threats, including “open the Strait … or you’ll be living in hell,” saying such remarks “foreshadow war crimes.” He said Trump was “unable or unwilling” to faithfully execute his duties.

“They have an obligation to put patriotism over politics and invoke the 25th Amendment,” Larson said.

Some Democrats intensified the call. Representative Jim McGovern said the administration should “immediately invoke the 25th amendment,” while Congresswoman Lauren Underwood said Trump was “unstable, dangerous, and unable to function as Commander in Chief.”

US strikes had already hit key Iranian infrastructure, including bridges, rail lines and a train station, as well as the strategic oil hub on Kharg Island, with civilian casualties among the over 1,500 deaths since late February, according to reports.

Republicans and Trump supporters defended the strikes, saying they were aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied that accusation, insisting that its program was purely peaceful. 

Impeachment would require a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove the president.

Hollywood star Milla Jovovich has stepped into artificial intelligence with an open-source memory tool, MemPalace, released on GitHub, a platform where developers share and collaborate on software projects.

Announcing the move on Tuesday, Jovovich, known for roles in films such as ‘Resident Evil’ and ‘The Fifth Element’, said she developed the project with collaborator Ben Sigman, describing it as a free system designed to improve how AI handles long-term memory.

The tool was published under an open-source license, according to project materials released that day. Jovovich said MemPalace is “an agentic memory tool that scored 100% on LongMemEval… higher than any other published results,” adding that it is available for developers to use and modify on GitHub.

The idea behind MemPalace came from frustration with how existing AI systems retrieve information, the actress said. “AI is just not great at finding things… every system out there still has it using keywords,” she said, describing current approaches as “clunky and messy.”

She compared existing systems to “a huge warehouse… a pile of junk,” saying users often struggle to locate relevant information even with well-organized files. “I wanted to create a new way to make filing and retrieving more intuitive,” she said.

LongMemEval, the benchmark cited by the project, is designed to test long-term memory capabilities in AI systems, including multi-session reasoning and temporal tracking across conversations, according to its developers.

Jovovich has not previously been associated with AI development. Born in Kiev and raised in the US, she has worked across film, music, and fashion.

The US and EU are engaged in a political “proxy war” in Hungary, with Washington and Brussels backing rival sides ahead of the country’s parliamentary elections, according to former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl.

Kneissl made the remarks in an interview with RT as US Vice President J.D. Vance visited Budapest on Tuesday in a show of support for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

During the trip, Vance criticized “bureaucrats in Brussels, who have done everything that they can to hold down the people of Hungary,” ahead of Sunday’s vote.

According to Kneissl, Vance’s decision to visit Europe while the US was simultaneously involved in a contentious war with Iran “says a lot” about the importance Washington places on the elections. She noted that the move aligns with the US National Security Strategy released last December, which identifies “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations” as a priority.

She said the language is “very telling” about how the Americans “feel about Brussels,” noting that Washington is known for being persistent in pursuing its geopolitical objectives. “Yes, you can call it interference – what the Americans are doing. The same thing they did in Yugoslavia, Serbia in 2001,” the former diplomat said.

She also pointed to Brussels apparently backing Ukrainian efforts to bar Hungary’s access to Russian oil – for which Budapest retaliated by blocking a joint EU loan for Kiev – as well as discussions in the bloc about potentially suspending Budapest’s voting rights if Orban remains in power.

”They will just put a member state… paralyze it. And some people even speak of – they use the word ‘Maidan,’ they use the words ‘color revolution.’ Not in a third country, but inside an EU member country,” Kneissl said.

Watch the entire interview.

Iran has thanked Pakistan for its mediation efforts following the announcement of a two-week ceasefire in the war with the US and Israel. 

Pakistan has invited Iran and the US to its capital, Islamabad, on Friday to settle all disputes and end the conflict.

“I express gratitude and appreciation for my dear brothers Prime Minister of Pakistan [Shehbaz] Sharif and Field Marshal [Asim] Munir for their tireless efforts to end the war in the region,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in astatement on behalf of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran.

Statement on behalf of the Supreme National Security Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran: pic.twitter.com/cEtBNCLnWT

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) April 7, 2026

Araghchi said the ceasefire comes in response to a US request for negotiations based on Washington’s 15‑point proposal and President Donald Trump’s acceptance of the general framework of Iran’s 10‑point plan.

“For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations,” the Iranian Supreme Council statement shared by Araghchi said.

Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif announced a ceasefire earlier on Wednesday, saying Iran and the US have agreed to halt the hostilities.

“Both parties have displayed remarkable wisdom and understanding and have remained constructively engaged in furthering the cause of peace and stability,” Sharif said in his post.

The Pakistani leader added that he hoped the Islamabad talks would succeed in achieving sustainable peace.

Trump also announced the ceasefire to negotiate a long-term peace agreement based on a “workable” 10-point proposal from Tehran delivered via Pakistan. The US leader stated that he agreed to the ceasefire following talks with Sharif and Munir.

Sharif had previously asked Trump for a two-week deadline extension after the US president threatened “a whole civilization will die” if Tehran does not yield to his demands.

“I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks,” Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social.

Trump has, however, warned that the Iranian plan is not satisfactory to the US in its current form and that he would order devastating new airstrikes if no final deal is reached by the new deadline.

US President Donald Trump allegedly conceded in private that Canada is unlikely to become part of the US, despite previously hinting at annexing the neighboring country, a snippet from an upcoming book by British journalist Robert Hardman has indicated.

Over the past year, Trump has on multiple occasions floated the idea of absorbing Canada as the 51st state and described its border with the US as “artificial.” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose 2025 election campaign was helped considerably by the outlandish statements, has consistently stressed that “we will never, ever, in any way, shape, or form, be part of the United States.”

On Sunday, the Daily Mail newspaper published an excerpt of Hardman’s ‘Elizabeth II. In Private. In Public. The Inside Story’ – the journalist’s sixth book on the British monarchy, due to be released later this week.

This allegedly gave the US president pause, and he eventually acknowledged that the “Canadians have got 200 years of history and all that ‘Oh, Canada’ thing.”

“You can’t deal with that in three-and-a-half years. I guess it’s not going to happen,” Trump concluded, according to the excerpt.

“This was the closest I had heard to an acknowledgement that, as long as Canada had the King, Mr. Trump was not going to usurp him,” Hardman wrote in his book, as quoted by the Daily Mail.

Nevertheless, the US president did allegedly complain about “terrible” Canadian politicians, who are “nice to my face and then they say bad things behind my back.”

Trump previously repeatedly claimed that the US was subsidizing Canada’s economy to the tune of $200 billion a year, musing that it would be more feasible to absorb the country as the “cherished” 51st state.

Dark rumor has long held that the Roman emperor Nero set Rome ablaze in search of inspiration for a song on the destruction of Troy. Judicious historians and classicists dismiss this account as apocryphal.

A prosaic arsonist in the White House

Today, a powerful ruler, US President Donald Trump, stands accused not by rumor, but by unfolding reality. The American leader himself has struck the match, setting not only Iran and the wider Gulf region, but the entire world, alight, all at Israel’s behest. Trump revels in the spectacle of fire on a grand scale, even as he shows no inclination to transmute destruction into epic.

Seven systemic consequences, distinct yet interwoven, will reverberate globally far beyond the contingencies of the present conflict. This holds true even were the US–Israeli war of choice against Iran to cease forthwith. For the visible toll in human suffering and material destruction, grave as it is, constitutes only the most immediate and tangible register of harm. Beneath it lies a deeper and less visible yet more insidious and enduring transformation: the erosion of norms, the enfeeblement of restraint, and the gradual dislocation of an order once presumed resilient.

Forces long gathering beneath the surface have been violently quickened; trajectories once gradual now race toward their culmination. What is currently set in motion most likely will come to be remembered not as an episode among many, but as a threshold: the point at which the long arc of American ascendancy bent irreversibly toward its twilight.

In the current age of viral geopolitics, the apt hashtag for the US-Israeli war on Iran might be: “Make America diminished again” (MADA). The US, afflicted by imperial overstretch, persists in behaving as an empire it can no longer sustain, thereby risking a long-term reversion, at best, to a position reminiscent of the pre–First World War era.

First, Trump is dismantling America’s global alliances. His conduct signals to allies that alignment with the US entails exposure without protection.

Gulf partners, not consulted by the US before the war, face potential devastation from Iranian retaliatory strikes – a cost that Trump, with remarkable selfishness and callousness, appears all too willing to impose on his loyal allies. European and Asian partners, already strained by punitive American tariffs, are again harmed despite opposing the war.

Given Trump’s hostile action towards friends, it comes to no surprise that core partners have hesitated to support the war by providing bases; the response to Trump’s calls for “teamwork” in securing the Strait of Hormuz after the US and Israel had caused its closure has been muted. Subsequently, Trump even exhorted allies to secure the desperately needed oil themselves, calling the massive dislocations a small price to be paid for his “excursion” to Iran.

The pattern of America’s betrayal, evident in its treatment of the Kurds and Afghan allies alike, now extends system-wide. Trust, the foundation of alliance politics – above all the expectation that the US will come to the aid of its allies – is broken; and once broken, it is exceedingly difficult to restore. As in a breach of marital fidelity, the damage endures. Among other consequences, NATO itself may collapse under the corrosive strain.

Remarkably, Trump even betrays his domestic allies, worsening their prospects in the upcoming midterm elections by the day; global partners will take note of how readily he abandons his friends.

Second, America’s claim to act as a liberating force is profoundly discredited. Iranian opposition figures who imprudently had placed their hopes in the US, betraying their own country by inviting foreign intervention, now confront a stark reality: At Israel’s behest, Washington is devastating Iran in the dissidents’ name, killing thousands of innocent compatriots, including countless children, through strikes on densely populated areas, while dismantling the country’s intellectual, cultural, and material foundations – including heritage sites and water plants without any military value – thereby precipitating a humanitarian catastrophe.

Trump asserts, implausibly, that Iranians welcome further bombardment and acquiesce in their own suffering. In reality, the war will induce a classic “rally-around-the-flag” effect, prompting Iranians to set aside internal divisions and unite in the face of external threat, thereby strengthening the very state the enemies sought to weaken.

Third, the war exposes and accelerates America’s overextension, precipitating its self-disarmament and undermining its global deterrence.

The large-scale destruction of US bases in the Gulf has turned strategic assets into liabilities, which may prompt host states to expel American forces rather than remain exposed without credible protection. Similar foreign pressures for the US to close its bases may emerge elsewhere, including in Europe and Asia, while the worsening of America’s fiscal situation, accelerated by the very expensive war, increasingly renders the global military architecture unsustainable even if political will should persist.

The sustained operations deplete American weapons and munitions, with replenishment constrained by industrial limits and external dependencies. At the same time, the war highlights the effectiveness of Iran’s asymmetric capabilities against America’s high-cost platforms. The cumulative effect is a visible erosion of American deterrence: the gap between assumed and actual power narrows and credibility diminishes, while Iran increased its deterrent potential.

Fourth, the moral basis of US leadership is further weakened by perceptions of double standards and opportunistic expediency. A state is attacked over alleged nuclear ambitions while a close regional ally, Israel, retains undeclared capabilities, commits acts of genocide, and continues to destabilize the world as a whole; sovereignty is disregarded abroad even as foreign interference is condemned at home. Reports of market-sensitive signaling on prediction markets, opportunistic rhetoric, and shifting justifications deepen cynicism. The result is not merely reputational damage but strategic loss: In an order where legitimacy underwrites influence, the erosion of moral authority constrains power itself.

The US–Israeli war accelerates the transition toward a multicentric world order, in which power diffuses away from a single hegemon toward several sovereign centers. In this shifting landscape, the principal beneficiaries are Russia and China, both positioned at the core of this emerging configuration.

Through a contrast effect, the US appears increasingly as a destabilizing force, its missteps amplifying the appeal of alternative models and strengthening the strategic position of adversaries. In operational terms, rivals need only observe a familiar maxim: Never interrupt an adversary in the midst of error.

For Russia, the conflict yields both short-term and long-term gains. Supply chain disruptions reopen its markets across the world due to the relaxation of sanctions – undermining the long-term credibility of the punitive regime – and generate windfall revenues from the export of a larger amount of higher-priced natural resources, even as Moscow continues to support Tehran.

The diversion of Western attention and resources weakens Ukraine’s position, as financial and military commitments become harder to sustain, while Russia’s leverage increases correspondingly.

At the same time, Moscow consolidates an alternative international power bloc. Its diplomatic competence, in stark contrast to American ineptitude, is evident in its maintenance of ties across opposing camps and its positioning as a mediator, thereby enhancing its global standing. Europe’s severance from Russian energy appears increasingly costly and may prompt renewed large-scale sourcing from Russia.

Finally, Russia will also grow increasingly attractive as an immigration destination for mentally healthy Western talent with sound moral values who seek stability and a traditional, culturally rich lifestyle.

China’s gains are more structural still. As strategic overreach hastens America’s imperial decline, Beijing advances toward primacy by default as much as by design. Its strategy is one of calculated restraint: allowing rivals to exhaust themselves while it consolidates economic, technological, and geopolitical advantage.

More consequential than material gain is China’s self-presentation as a force of stability, a proponent of sovereignty, and a reliable partner in economic development rather than an erratic agent of military intervention. In contrast to Western neocolonial violence, China’s benign model acquires growing appeal across the Global South and beyond.

The broader lessons are stark: Pressure begets counter-pressure; attempts at domination hasten the rise of alternatives. In a multicentric world, influence accrues not to those pursuing coercive, antithetical strategies of hegemony and suppression, but to those who cultivate durable, wide-ranging relations across divides. By undermining its alliances while confronting its rivals, the US destroys the very order it purports to defend.

3. Undermining of ochlocracy and personalistic authoritarianism

Another consequence of the US–Israeli war on Iran is the simultaneous discrediting of two opposed systems of rule: democratic governance in its degenerate, mob-driven form, and authoritarianism in its personalistic, leader-centric variant. Far from vindicating either model, the crisis exposes the vulnerabilities inherent in both.

Classical political theory, from Polybius to Cicero, describes the recurrent degeneration of regimes in a cycle of political systems, termed anacyclosis. Democracy slides into ochlocracy, the rule of the mob, when demagoguery displaces deliberation and institutional safeguards falter. What presents itself as popular sovereignty thus reveals its terminal form: not self-government, but the volatility of the crowd.

The elevation and sustained support of figures such as Trump, despite manifest unfitness – as evidenced by his felony conviction and mental disorders (such as excessive narcissism) – illustrates the absence of effective mechanisms for selection and correction. According to the ancient theory, this invites the eventual reassertion of one-man rule.

Yet authoritarianism fares no better where it rests on the cult of personality. Systems overly dependent on a single leader, reminiscent of Thomas Carlyle’s dictum that the history of the world is but the biography of great men, prove inherently fragile: Where figures are elevated beyond their measure, distortion follows and collapse becomes a systemic risk. Remove the individual, and the structure falters.

A simple diagnostic applies: Where a regime can be reduced to the name of its leader, it stands exposed to failure. By contrast to personalistic regimes, Iran’s model displays a degree of institutional resilience grounded in continuity rather than singular indispensability.

This pattern disconfirms the prevailing assumptions of many multicentric theorists. The emerging multicentric order does not herald the unqualified ascent of illiberal or authoritarian forms, but rather underscores the necessity of balance: domestic constitutional systems capable of restraining both mass impulse and personal ambition, and an international framework that embeds states within cooperative structures without extinguishing sovereignty. For those inclined toward democracy, it calls for stronger checks and balances; for those inclined toward authoritarianism, for less personality-centric rule.

4. Rehabilitation of belligerent ideologies

Another crucial intangible repercussion of the US–Israeli war on Iran is the normalization and spread of radically belligerent ideologies, embraced either as defensive shields or postures for expansions, following the precedent set by Washington and Jerusalem. Right-wing forces are thereby strengthened globally, including new anti-Israel nationalist parties.

First, even leaders who recognize the dangers of the triad of nationalism, militarism, and imperialism may conclude that such postures are once again necessary for survival in a world reverting to great-power rivalry reminiscent of the pre-1914 and pre-1939 eras.

A key means of motivating a people – soldiers in particular – is to frame actions as the continuation of a “proud” military tradition. Yet where history has been written by the victors, as in Germany, it serves their interests and undermines the defeated. In such cases, strong incentives arise to revise the past into a more empowering nationalist narrative. Trump’s casual, euphemistic rhetoric, reducing large-scale violence to the register of schoolyard conflict, recalls the pre-First World War trivialization of war that prepared entire societies for catastrophe.

Moreover, leaders of states that feel threatened by aggressive actors are induced to emulate them: adopting militarist postures and expansionist doctrines, pursuing territorial revisionism in the name of security. Perceived existential pressures, whether demographic or resource-driven, further intensify expansional ethnonationalism, including renewed quests for Lebensraum (living space).

Second, anti-Zionism moves from the margins into the mainstream. As Israel is increasingly perceived as the central driver of mass destruction and global destabilization, criticism once suppressed by discursive constraints becomes socially acceptable.

Mainstream commentators, including senior former officials, now openly discuss the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on US policy, claims previously neutralized as taboo. Scandalous revelations surrounding the extensive degenerated power network built by Jewish financier Jeffrey Epstein further erode trust and amplify suspicion toward a global political-economic elite perceived as aligned with Israeli interests.

Such criticism can slide from policy critique into broader ideological hostility. The distinction between criticism of the State of Israel and attitudes toward the Jewish people in general can become blurred in public discourse, especially given Israel’s self-definition as a Jewish state and the broad domestic support among its Jewish citizens for the unrestrained violence it unleashes on its neighbor, heightening the risk of conflation and further polarization.

An increasing number of commentators question Israel’s narrative of victimhood, express understanding and sympathy for the historical opposition to Zionism, and challenge the scope and application of antisemitism laws as constraints on criticism and mechanisms for entrenching Zionist supremacy. What began as political critique thus threatens to spill into civilizational hostility, as normative barriers weaken and long-suppressed narratives re-emerge.

5. Discreditation of Christianity and re-normalization of barbarism

The war also highlights the politicization of religion. In particular, the US-Israeli war on Iran risks discrediting Christianity through its instrumentalization by powerful actors. Christian Zionist currents, predominantly Protestant, have provided unwavering support for the war, cast the conflict in sacred terms and blessed destruction as destiny. This continues a long pattern of Protestants accommodating faith to the zeitgeist, exemplified by their churches lending strong support to National Socialism.

Political leaders in turn invoke divine sanction for large-scale destruction, fusing religious belief with state violence and reinforcing the perception of religion being deployed to justify the indiscriminate use of force.

The instrumentalization of religion in the pursuit of war crimes reached a new height when Trump wrote on social media with respect to Iran: “48 hours before all Hell will reign [sic!] down on them. Glory be to GOD!” The rhetoric crossed into blasphemy when the rescue of a US airman was cast in terms evocative of Christ’s resurrection.

Such rhetoric erodes the perceived political neutrality of a pivotal faith tradition and exposes it to global backlash. Audiences unfamiliar with authentic Christian theology may fail to see that Christian Zionist positions run counter to Jesus’ injunction to love one’s enemies; what is preached as morality appears, in practice, as license. They may thus, erroneously, perceive Christianity as an aggressive, censorious creed and mobilize opposition against it.

The consequences are profound, encompassing not only the erosion of legal norms but also the discrediting of the very values invoked to justify them. Absent Christianity’s civilizing influence, barbarism gets normalized once more.

The US, long proclaiming itself the leader of the free world, has a record steeped in large-scale brutality, from the annihilation of indigenous peoples and the slave trade (officially classified as gravest crimes against humanity) to the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which rendered it the first and so far only state to have unleashed nuclear weapons upon civilian populations). The US has also furnished Israel with extensive financial, military, diplomatic, and discursive support, enabling operations widely criticized as grave violations of international law, including genocide in Gaza.

Yet Washington has traditionally at least maintained the fiction of restraint, denying the breach of legal norms. The war on Iran marks a decisive departure, not merely the breach of norms, but the erosion of any semblance that such norms still bind. What emerges instead is a doctrine of unbounded force: The US, under Trump’s leadership, now appears increasingly willing to dispense with even the pretense of legal justification and prudent restraint and acts unashamedly as state terrorist and state plunderer.

The shift is evident in both atavistic rhetoric and conduct. The line between the military and civilian spheres collapses under a single elastic claim: everything sustains the enemy, therefore everything may be destroyed.

Among other things, US–Israeli attacks on Iran have indiscriminately killed thousands of civilians and destroyed residential quarters, mosques, sports complexes, hospitals, schools, universities, research centers, industrial plants, pharmaceutical facilities, nuclear and other energy sites, water and desalination plants, transport infrastructure, and heritage sites (which, if destroyed at large scale, makes it extremely difficult to rebuild a nation). The toxic pollution from strikes on Iranian oil refineries has been likened to the effects of chemical weapons. Elsewhere, Israel has continued its campaign of assassinating journalists. All of this has occurred not as a last resort, but as an opening move.

Trump openly avows his intent to effect not only the complete destruction of Iran’s civilian infrastructure, but the eradication of the entire civilization – acts that constitute grave war crimes.

In one social media post, the US president wrote: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran…Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH!”

Trump has also openly boasted that he will “blast Iran into oblivion…back to the Stone Ages” and threatened to “take out Iran” in a single night if his extortionary demands are not met within the allotted time. Such an outcome would exceed even the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and could well be brought about by a renewed resort to nuclear weapons, the chilling logic being that they must be used to preserve their usability.

The US and Israeli leadership appear driven by a satanic relish for cruelty and bloodshed, evident in their use of dysphemisms (the deliberate use of coarse or degrading language to describe violent acts).

Such bloodlust is evident in Trump’s own words: “We will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their electric generating plants, oil wells, and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalination plants!), which we have purposefully not yet ‘touched’.” He also spoke of bombing Kharg Island again “just for fun” and continuing to bomb “our little hearts out,” even suggesting: “You never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up.”

Trump’s war crime rhetoric culminated into the following delirious and outright maniacal proclamation with reference to Iran: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again… God Bless the Great People of Iran!” After failing to subdue Iran, Trump now resembles a burglar who, thwarted in a break-in, proceeds to indiscriminate vandalism in frustration.

Even peremptory demands and binding deadlines no longer command observance: Israel, in a brazen display of contempt for norms, destroyed Iranian civilian infrastructure even before the expiry of Trump’s ultimatum and restricted civilian movement in Iran, prohibiting rail travel. Prior to the normalization of totalitarian control during the Covid-19 pandemic, such conduct would have been unthinkable; today, it is met with numbed acquiescence by outside observers.

Equally striking is the normalization of extrajudicial assassination of Iran’s leaders and their extended family, which are acts of collective punishment. The method recalls crude Stalinist logic, eliminating individuals pre-emptively, before any act is committed. Trump has even boasted of killing Iranian leaders merely for the purpose of revenge, not a legitimate justification, describing such killings a “great honor.” One need only imagine the outcry were Iran to adopt similar methods and target the US president.

Trump has also openly boasted of intended plunder, expressing his preference for seizing the oil from the Iranians, retaining it, and making “plenty of money” from it. His logic is disarmingly blunt and atavistic: that the resource is “there for the taking” and that “there’s not a thing they can do about it.”

At issue are the core principles of the Geneva Conventions: distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. These prohibit attacks on civilian objects and forbid strikes causing excessive civilian harm relative to military advantage.

By contrast, the cumulative effect of overwhelming destruction inflicted by the US and Israel with collectively punitive and retaliatory intent – causing widespread, severe, and long-term harm – and targeted killings outside active battlefields is the perception of two states not constrained by the moral and legal frameworks established after the Second World War.

Justifications, where offered, follow an expansive logic in which legality yields to expediency: Virtually any human and material target is framed as contributing, however indirectly, to the adversary’s war effort. In the extreme, a bridge becomes a legitimate target because officials might traverse it, and even the air becomes culpable because they breathe it, thus, by such logic, sustaining the “regime.” Under such reasoning, the distinction between civilian and military objects collapses, and with it the central restraint of modern warfare and core principles of international humanitarian law.

Domestic checks have thus far failed to impose meaningful limits on Trump, raising the question of whether institutional safeguards are effective. It remains to be seen whether the US military will continue to execute unlawful orders or refuse complicity in Trump’s war crimes. The citizens in uniform should understand that if leaders are unchecked, law, once the boundary of action, becomes an instrument of justification: elastic, adaptable, and ultimately expendable.

A central justification of the US–Israeli war of choice on Iran is that it allegedly will make the world safer. The opposite is more likely.

By hollowing out the authority of the United Nations and openly disregarding international law, Washington and Israel establish a precedent of unrestrained force, effectively licensing others to invade, strike, and plunder at will, with no credible multilateral constraint.

The so-called “rules-based order,” long denounced by Russia and other countries as unilaterally created and selectively enforced in a self-serving manner, is further hollowed out. Yet rules governing war remain indispensable. Even those who publicly contest the rule-based order display indignation when international law is violated to their detriment and invoke the rules to further their interests.

As legal norms erode, violence will become more widespread, more brazen, and increasingly difficult to contain. Western states are not exempt from this pernicious trend: With domestic systems under strain, incentives arise to resort to external conflict and other crises, such as a new global pandemic, as diversions from underlying structural problems.

The strategic consequences of the war on Iran are severe. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons risks sliding into irrelevance as states – including Iran under its new resolute leadership – draw the obvious lesson: Only nuclear weapons guarantee survival. Proliferation will accelerate; more states will seek their own arsenals or host those of others. The threshold for nuclear escalation, once unthinkable, is lowered.

At the same time, a logic of perpetual war takes hold. Israel’s repeated strikes across multiple theaters, often continuing despite so-called ceasefires, have normalized a pattern of ongoing, intermittent destruction, denying societies any chance of sustained recovery. Trump appears to think in such intervals, contrasting current damage in Iran that he deems remediable within a decade with possible additional destruction that would take a century to repair.

Violence becomes cyclical, self-perpetuating, and increasingly indiscriminate. Grievances deepen; demands for revenge intensify; escalation becomes the default trajectory. The result is systemically entrenched instability.

European responses compound the damage. Severe punishment for Russia over Ukraine contrasts with tolerance of US and Israeli actions, entrenching the perception of systemic double standards. Such asymmetry does not preserve order, it accelerates its collapse by signaling that power, not principle, governs outcomes, thereby emboldening unilateral use of force.

The cumulative result is a world less restrained, more heavily armed, and more volatile: legal norms eroded, conflicts perpetuated, nuclear risks multiplied, and the likelihood of retaliatory violence, including global terrorism, significantly increased.

7. Structural economic shock and forced energy shift

The US–Israeli war on Iran is poised to trigger a global economic crisis of exceptional severity. Unlike previous oil shocks, this is not merely a disruption of supply but the destruction of production itself. Key energy infrastructure is being eliminated, with reconstruction measured in years, not months. The result: Structurally broken supply chains, surging energy prices, entrenched inflation, and a slide into recession.

One particular pattern becomes difficult to ignore: Successive crises – from the COVID-19 pandemic, which most likely was man-made, to the Ukraine war and now Iran – are locking the global economy into a state of permanent crisis.

Whether by design or consequence, these shocks function as cover, obscuring deep structural failures in Western economies, above all unsustainable debt and chronic stagnation. These strains stem from policy failures, as leaders sacrifice public welfare on the altar of ideological commitments. As a form of self-inflicted harm, politicized priorities and misaligned appointments in the name of diversity and have weakened institutional competence and contributed to costly strategic missteps, whose economic consequences are now evident.

Adverse economic indicators again can be conveniently subsumed under the broader narrative of a global crisis. A sharp increase in the price level may even appear fiscally attractive, quietly eroding sovereign liabilities at the expense of creditors’ wealth. Yet the subsequent rise in interest rates required to rein in inflation will further depress growth and increase the debt burden, necessitating tax increases, spending cuts, or both.

At the same time, the war on Iran will also speed up de-globalization. Energy insecurity will drive massive investment shifts toward domestically produced renewable energy, alongside an expanded deployment of nuclear power.

Repeated supply chain breakdowns, already occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic and the onset of the Ukraine war, will further spur a shift toward economic sovereignty and autarky, fueling protectionism and import-substitution. Thus, the gains from international specialization realized through trade and investment are sacrificed in favor of resilience.

Conspiracy theorists may discern a pattern: COVID-19 entrenched remote interaction, the conflict in Ukraine underscored the imperative of energy independence, and the Iran conflict accelerates energy investments required to sustain artificial intelligence, which facilitates more intrusive forms of societal control.

Financial markets, long buoyed by speculative narratives, particularly centering around artificial intelligence, are exposed to a harsher reality. Fossil fuels, for the time being, remain a foundational input to economic activity; sustained shocks to their supply can unravel entire systems. Overvalued markets face sharp corrections, with the attendant risk of cascading failures, including bank failures.

Even after the immediate global damage of the Iran war has been eventually repaired, with inflation subdued and growth renewed, the deeper and more consequential loss remains: the erosion of trust in Western political and economic systems. What follows the conflict thus is not recovery, but a more brittle equilibrium: an economy profoundly fragile and prone to recurrent crisis.

The US and Israel have branded Iran’s leaders “lunatics.” In truth, it is they who have normalized madness. Acting as unhinged state terrorists, with Israel as the driving force and Washington in tow, they push the world toward the edge of nuclear catastrophe. By contrast, Iran’s leadership again presents itself as comparatively prudent, measured, and restrained to the extent permitted by circumstance.

America’s action is no aberration, but continues a long record of industrial-scale state violence, including the firebombing of German cities, the atomic annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and later savage campaigns of mass destruction in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Trump’s apparent irrationality may partly reflect a calculated “madman” posture, intended to terrify adversaries with the promise of limitless escalation. But such theatrics are not a shield; they are an accelerant.

Madness, once performed, has an insidious way of becoming real. Incendiary behavior provokes escalatory retaliation; cruelty leaves scars that endure across generations. Russia to this day remembers the devastation wrought by the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus.

What we are witnessing is the logic of unbounded power: unjustified, unrestrained, and indiscriminate violence, the defining characteristic of unhinged and barbaric tyranny.

When the pretext for the Iraq War, weapons of mass destruction, was exposed as fabricated, a global outrage ensued. Today, even the perceived need for pretense has vanished. No reasonable, coherent justification is offered for the war of choice on Iran – only force, naked and unapologetic.

Israel’s and America’s sustained, overt disregard for ethical norms have fostered widespread cynicism and moral apathy. Repetition has numbed the public, much of it bereft of a moral compass and critical faculties, blunting outrage and resistance, for now.

The ultimate questions are stark: Why should societies tolerate unhinged leaders who imperil both their own citizens and populations abroad? Why should the world at large continue to countenance – and bear the cost of – the brutal crimes perpetrated by a small circle of Israeli leaders and their US accomplices?

No political order endures without a noble and credible moral foundation. A system that abandons moral constraint cannot command lasting loyalty; it corrodes from within.

Over time, a growing number of Western citizens will question the wisdom of supporting governments that impoverish them in pursuit of external, chiefly Israeli, objectives. The unrestrained conduct of Western elites will ultimately destroy confidence in and loyalty to liberal-democratic regimes.

In apocalyptic language, one might speak of a Persian Armageddon, a final contest between good and evil. Yet the roles differ from those commonly assigned in familiar narratives.

While no actor in this human drama is without fault, the final verdict is clear: Israel, and its backer, the US, are emerging as the truly destabilizing agents and vectors of egregious perversion, whereas Iran presents itself as a staunch defender of civilization, wisdom, tradition, order, legality, sovereignty, and restraint, thus functioning as an indispensable counterweight to the unhinged duo.

The US-Israeli war of choice on Iran is not merely a conflict but a turning point, eroding norms, accelerating America’s imperial decline, and propelling rival powers to prominence in a rapidly fragmenting and increasingly dystopian multicentric world.

As their global influence dissipates, Western leaders would be well advised to heed the following lesson: As a rule, empires do not fall because they are defeated; they fall because, in abandoning all restraint, they first defeat themselves.

[Part 7 of a series on viral geopolitics. To be continued. Previous columns in the series:

• Part 1, published on 10 March 2026: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 45: The epoch of viral geopolitics – How the Kanzler sloganizes war;
• Part 2, published on 12 March 2026: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 46: Dirty work by proxy – The ethics of the Kanzler’s outsourced war;
• Part 3, published on 14 March 2026: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 47: Viral war for narrative primacy – The Kanzler’s rhetoric of war;
• Part 4, published on 20 March 2026: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 48: Fabricating the war story – Iran ploy patched into plausibility;
• Part 5, published on 20 March 2026: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 49: Donald at the Eastern crossroads – Win big or lose it all;
• Part 6, published on 24 March 2026: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 50: Game-changing offramp for the US – Trump’s shortcut to an Iran win]

US President Donald Trump has suspended his looming attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure, announcing a two-week ceasefire to negotiate a long-term peace agreement based on a “workable” 10-point proposal from Tehran.

Just hours after warning that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran refused to open the Strait of Hormuz, Trump reversed course following a direct appeal from Pakistani negotiators.

“Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks,” Trump posted on his social media platform.

LIVE UPDATES: Iran claims victory as Trump announces two-week ceasefire

Trump described the move as a “double sided CEASEFIRE,” adding that the US has “already met and exceeded all Military objectives.”

Trump warned, however, that the Iranian plan is not good enough in its current form, and that he would order devastating new airstrikes if no final deal is reached by the new deadline.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has announced that negotiations with the United States will begin on Friday, April 10, in Islamabad, allocating a two‑week period that may be extended by mutual agreement.

The plan allegedly includes US commitments to non‑aggression, Iran’s continued control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of uranium enrichment, the lifting of all sanctions, termination of UN Security Council and IAEA resolutions, the payment of war reparations, withdrawal of US combat forces from the region, as well as a halt to the war on all fronts, including against the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon.

The Council stressed that national unity must be preserved and that these negotiations are “an extension of the battlefield.” 

It warned that if the enemy’s “surrender” on the battlefield does not translate into a political achievement, “we will fight side by side on the battlefield until all the demands of the Iranian nation are met.”

The American Orion spacecraft, part of the Artemis II mission, has reached the Moon. The journey took around four days, excluding the first day spent in Earth orbit, and the return will take roughly the same time.

Yet unlike the Apollo missions of half a century ago, Orion will not enter lunar orbit. Instead, it will follow a so-called free-return trajectory, looping around the Moon and using its gravity to swing back toward Earth. This is the same maneuver that saved the crew of Apollo 13.

The choice is deliberate. Artemis II is, above all, a test flight. NASA has opted to minimize risk. Rather than sending Orion directly to the Moon, the spacecraft first entered low Earth orbit using the rocket’s upper stage, and then set off using its own relatively low-thrust engine.

Had that engine failed, Orion would simply have re-entered Earth’s atmosphere after a few orbits and landed. Its trajectory was deliberately conservative: at its lowest point, the spacecraft skimmed just 185 kilometers above Earth, effectively “clinging” to the atmosphere. Once the engine had fired successfully, however, repeated burns became less critical.

This cautious approach comes at a cost. Orion hasn’t passed particularly close to the Moon. Its nearest approach was about 6,500 kilometers, nearly twice the Moon’s diameter. As a result, expectations of spectacular imagery should be tempered. The mission’s lunar science component is largely symbolic. Its real purpose is to test systems and procedures.

Even so, Artemis II has set a record. Never before have humans travelled so far from Earth. The previous record, set by Apollo 13, was surpassed on Monday. As Orion passed behind the Moon, communications were lost for around 40 minutes. Splashdown in the Pacific is scheduled for Saturday. 

The most significant recent development is not in space, but in Washington. The US lunar program is undergoing a fundamental overhaul.

On March 24, NASA Director Jared Isaacman unveiled the ‘Ignition’ initiative. In practice, this marks the end of Artemis as it was originally conceived in 2019.

The first sign of change came with the announcement that Artemis III, previously scheduled for 2028, would be brought forward to 2027, but without a lunar landing. Instead, the mission will focus on testing lunar landers in near-Earth orbit.

Two competing systems are currently under development: one by SpaceX, the other by Blue Origin. If at least one is ready, NASA will proceed. Orion will dock with the lander or landers, conduct maneuvers, and test control systems. The mission could last up to three weeks.

A human landing is now pushed back to Artemis IV, planned for 2028. That mission, if it proceeds on schedule, will see two astronauts spend up to a week on the lunar surface, while two others remain in orbit, comfortably exceeding the Apollo 17 record of three days.

There are also tentative plans for an Artemis V mission in the same year, although given the program’s history of delays, this seems optimistic at best. More striking, however, is what has been removed. The Lunar Gateway, a small space station intended to orbit the Moon, has effectively been cancelled.

Yet the Gateway was deeply embedded in US planning. Its origins go back to earlier programs under the Obama administration, when it was conceived less as a lunar outpost and more as a stepping stone to deep space. The Moon, in this context, was merely a convenient staging point.

Integrating Gateway into the Artemis program created additional complications. Orion, for example, was designed with a relatively weak engine, optimized for reaching the Gateway’s energy-efficient orbit rather than operating flexibly around the Moon.

Meanwhile, the size of SpaceX’s proposed lander raised serious technical questions about docking with such a small station. Despite these issues, significant funds have already been invested in Gateway. To address concerns about wasted resources, NASA now plans to repurpose its components.

One proposal is particularly ambitious: combining the station’s propulsion system with a prototype nuclear reactor and a descent module equipped with four helicopters, creating a new spacecraft designated SR-1 Freedom. This would be sent to Mars as early as December 2028.

In theory, it would become the first unmanned interplanetary station powered by a nuclear reactor. In practice, the timeline appears highly optimistic. Even by the standards of the space industry, such a project would be challenging. And NASA’s budget remains constrained, with priority still given to achieving a lunar landing.

Looking further ahead, US ambitions remain expansive. By around 2033, according to current plans, a permanent lunar base could be established, with astronauts working there for up to a month at a time. The base would be powered in part by a small nuclear reactor, and its primary purpose would be to test the use of lunar resources.

All of this aligns with the broader direction of US space policy. In December 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled ‘Ensuring American Space Superiority’. The objective is clear: to secure technological and strategic dominance in space.

The scale of these ambitions is impressive. But so too are the uncertainties. Artemis II may be proceeding according to plan. The program as a whole is not.

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

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has claimed that “not a single cent” from Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya found its way into his 2007 election campaign, at an appearance before a Paris appeals court on Tuesday.

He is appealing a five-year prison sentence handed down in 2025 after being found guilty of criminal conspiracy in a case centered on alleged efforts to secure covert Libyan funding for his presidential bid between 2005 and 2007. He briefly served part of the sentence before being released under judicial supervision pending the outcome of the appeal, and has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

At the opening of his questioning on Tuesday, Sarkozy attacked the case against him, calling it a “construction” built on “lies and hatred” and claiming there had been “not a single cent” of Libyan money in his campaign. He denied that Gaddafi had any hold over him “financially, politically or personally,” telling the court: “I am innocent.”

Nine co-defendants are reportedly being retried alongside Sarkozy, including former ministers and senior aides. Several have also denied wrongdoing.

Sarkozy, who led France from 2007 to 2012, was at the forefront of a NATO-backed regime-change operation which destroyed Libya and led to Gaddafi’s murder.

The war brought thousands of jihadist fighters into the country, devastated Libya’s economy, and opened a migration route toward southern Europe that precipitated an ongoing crisis.

Prosecutors say the suspected dealings predated the conflict. Some observers have suggested the war effectively buried any potential evidence linked to the alleged funding arrangements.

Days out from the most consequential European election of the year, the EU has aimed every weapon in its arsenal at Hungary, as Brussels prepares for its best shot yet at taking out Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Orban’s animosity toward the EU establishment runs deep. For more than a decade, the Hungarian prime minister has often been the bloc’s sole dissident: railing against its open-door migration policies, embrace of LGBT ideology, and “suicidal” plan to welcome Ukraine into the union. Orban has secured carve-outs from the EU’s anti-Russian sanctions that enabled Hungary to continue purchasing Russian oil, and is currently vetoing a €90 billion loan package for Kiev.

After the European Council failed to find a workaround to Orban’s veto at a March 19 meeting, the EU’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, hinted that work was underway on a “Plan B.” Based on the strategy playing out in Budapest, ‘Plan B’ clearly involves a full-scale campaign of censorship and subversion to influence Hungary’s upcoming elections.

Rapid Response Unleashed

On March 16, European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier quietly announced that the EU had activated its Rapid Response System (RRS) to “combat potential Russian online disinformation campaigns” in the runup to the Hungarian election. The mechanism will be active until one week after the vote, Regnier said.

The RRS has been a key tool in the commission’s censorship arsenal for years. It empowers EU-approved “fact-checkers” to flag online content as “disinformation” and request its removal from platforms – Regnier cited TikTok and Meta as two examples.

Theoretically, platforms such as Meta and TikTok participate in the system voluntarily. However, all major social media companies have to sign up to the EU’s ‘Code of Practice on Disinformation’. However, a trove of documents published by the US House Judiciary Committee in Washington this year revealed that these companies were threatened – often explicitly – with punishment under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) if they refused to tow the bloc's line.

The premise resembles a Mafia-style protection racket, with the deputy chief of the commission’s communications directorate telling platforms in 2024 that refusal to sign the codes of conduct “could be taken into account… when determining whether the provider is complying with the obligations laid down by the DSA.”

Peter Magyar’s allies in Meta

The argument that these fact-checkers favor Magyar is well founded. Over four European elections in which the Rapid Response System was activated, the Judiciary Committee found that fact-checkers “almost exclusively targeted” right-wing and populist candidates and organizations. “Moreover, the requirement that these fact-checkers be approved by the European Commission creates a clear structural incentive for the participants to censor Euroskeptic opinion and content,” the committee noted.

Hungarian MEP Dora David, a former Meta employee and member of Magyar’s Tisza party, boasted last year that “we’ve seen companies change their behavior” based on the threat of DSA enforcement, citing Meta’s removal of pro-Orban content as an example.

The fact-checkers can count on sympathetic staff within the social media companies. After several members of Orban’s Fidesz party claimed that Meta has already started restricting the reach of their Facebook posts, commentators Joey Mannarino and Philip Pilkington identified Oskar Braszczynski as the employee likely responsible. Braszczynski, who works as Meta’s ‘Government and Social Impact Partner for Central and Eastern Europe’, has shared pro-Ukraine, anti-Orban, and pro-LGBT content on his personal social media accounts.

🚨 BREAKING: The guy who is suppressing @PM_ViktorOrban's social media has been leaked. His name is Oskar Braszczyński and he is Meta’s Government & Social Impact Partner for Central and Eastern Europe. Let's have a look at who is putting their thumb on the scale!

🇭🇺 Oskar has… pic.twitter.com/PskLJuazGP

— Philip Pilkington (@philippilk) March 18, 2026

”The European Commission is outsourcing the task of content moderation to so-called external civil society actors, all of whom have a progressive orientation,” Fidesz MEP Csaba Domotor said in Brussels on March 18. Regarding Braszczynski’s role in the censorship program, Zoltan Kovacs, a spokesman for Orban’s office, said that having “a highly politicized figure overseeing the region undermines platform neutrality and raises questions about potential interference in Hungary’s election.”

Strong-arming social media platforms

The links between Magyar’s party and Meta may streamline the EU’s censorship efforts, but Brussels is not above strong-arming platforms that refuse to play by its rules. This exact scenario played out in Romania in 2024, when Euroskeptic candidate Calin Georgescu won a shock first-round victory. Romanian and EU authorities immediately declared that Russia had interfered in the election and had run a coordinated campaign on TikTok to help Georgescu win, and the election was annulled.

The day after the annulment, TikTok wrote to the European Commission stating that it had found no evidence of a Russian-linked campaign in support of Georgescu, and that it had in fact been asked to censor pro-Georgescu content by authorities in Bucharest. This content included “disrespectful” posts that “insult the [ruling] PSD party.”

The commission pressed forward and demanded that TikTok make “changes” to its “processes, controls, and systems for the monitoring and detection of any systemic risks.” TikTok complied, and agreed to censor content implying that democratic processes had been undermined in Romania “for the next 60 days to mitigate the risk of harmful narratives.”

Ten days later, and despite its compliance, the European Commission opened formal proceedings against the platform for “a suspected breach of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in relation to TikTok’s obligation to properly assess and mitigate systemic risks linked to election integrity.”

How the EU outsources its smear campaigns

In Hungary and Romania – and in elections in France, Germany, and Moldova – the EU has used the threat of “Russian online disinformation campaigns” to justify its activation of the RRS. When no such threat exists, Brussels can outsource the job of manufacturing it.

Just over a week before Regnier announced the activation of the RSS, journalists at the Polish nonprofit Vsquare claimed to have uncovered evidence that Russian “election fixers” were working in Hungary to swing the election for Orban. In a tale reminiscent of an espionage thriller, the outlet claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin had dispatched “a team of political technologists” from Russia’s military intelligence agency, the GRU, to Budapest, where working under diplomatic cover at the Russian Embassy, they are likely running “vote-buying networks, troll farms, and on-the-ground influence campaigns.”

The report cites “multiple European national security sources,” without disclosing any further details.

Almost all of Vsquare’s published work – which includes investigations tying Orban’s government to Russian intelligence, as well as hit pieces on populist leaders Robert Fico in Slovakia and Andrej Babis in the Czech Republic – is based on information provided by European intelligence agencies, and interviews with pro-EU politicians and NGOs.

The outlet is funded by grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an agency of the US State Department that helped foment the 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine, sponsored meetings of anti-Beijing officials and delegates in Taiwan, and financed a UK-based organization working to drive right-wing American news outlets out of business. It is also financed by USAID, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and two EU-backed journalism funds.

Whatever the role these agencies played in concocting the story, it served the dual purpose of giving the EU an excuse to switch on its censorship machine, and giving Magyar political ammunition against Orban.

Is the EU’s election interference working?

Magyar currently holds a nine-point lead over Orban, according to an aggregate of polls compiled by Politico. However, the polling organizations showing the clearest advantage to Magyar are those affiliated with the opposition or funded by the EU: the 21 Research Center, which is financed by the European Commission, has Tisza leading Fidesz 49% to 37%; the IDEA Institute, which has accepted EU and NED money, shows Magyar’s party leading 48% to 38%; Median, which was founded by a member of the liberal SZDSZ party linked to the opposition HVG newspaper, shows Tisza beating Fidesz by 55% to 35%.

Despite the rosy polling, “many” EU leaders secretly believe that an Orban victory is “likely,” Politico has reported. Hungarian EU Affairs Minister Janos Boka told the outlet that he believes that by sponsoring one-sided polling, Magyar and his allies in Brussels are “building the narrative that if they lose the election, then this is an illegitimate result.”

The fact that the European Commission extended its RSS measures until one week after election day suggests that this might be the case, and that the EU may be preparing to fight a long and bloody battle to win its decade-long war on Orban and bring Hungary back under its control.

Germany’s military spending shot up by over 23% to €39 billion ($45 billion) last year, pushing the budget deficit to the highest level in four years, the Federal Statistical Office has reported.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Berlin began a military buildup, with defense expenditure projected to exceed €500 billion by 2029. The German government has stated it wants the country’s armed forces to be “war-ready” by then, citing a perceived Russian threat.

Moscow has repeatedly dismissed as “nonsense” allegations that it harbors aggressive plans against the European members of NATO.

In a press release published on Tuesday, the Federal Statistical Office estimated that Germany was €127.3 billion in the red in 2025, with all levels of government operating at a deficit. According to the analysis, the shortfall was €22.9 billion higher than in 2024.

Among the reasons for this trend, the agency cited the government’s decision to increasingly fund certain areas, including military spending, through borrowing.

Last year, Germany’s central bank warned that it expected the government shortfall to reach 4.8% of economic output by 2028, the highest level since 1995, when deficits peaked in the years following German reunification.

The Bundesbank attributed the trend to higher defense allocation and continued financial support to Ukraine, among other factors. Germany’s economy saw two years of recession in 2023 and 2024, and a period of near-stagnation in 2025.

Despite the adverse economic outlook, Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pledged to transform the German armed forces into the “strongest conventional army in Europe.”

On Monday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that the “last time the German political elite set out to make their country ‘the main military power in Europe,’ it ended in tragedy for all of humanity.”